Glaring illegality in judgment in 2G spectrum case: CBI to Delhi HC

New Delhi [India], May 23 : The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Tuesday submitted before Delhi High Court that the judgment acquitting the accused persons in the 2G Spectrum Allocation scam case has glaring illegality.
The CBI was arguing on the leave to appeal filed against the trial court judgement acquitting the accused persons including former Telecom Minister A Raja and others.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma heard the arguments of CBI's counsel on the second day and listed the matter on May 29 for further arguments.
During the arguments, the CBI'S counsel Neeraj Jain submitted that the trial court judgement had glaring illegality and the evidence produced by the agency was not appreciated.
Further, the CBI's counsel submitted that the judgement acquitting the accused persons is perverse. A leave to appeal needs to be granted in view of the perversity of the judgment, the counsel added.
Advocates Vijay Agarwal and DP Singh appeared for the respondents.
Advocate Vijay Aggarwal refuted the arguments of CBI and submitted that before the Court proceeds to hear the leave to appeal, the Court must appreciate the brief background of the case.
He began his submissions by stating that the judgement under challenge is running into 1552 pages which considers the allegation in FIR, the allegation in the charge sheet, Prosecution Evidence running into 4677 pages and defence evidence which runs into 325 pages with painstaking detail and this court being the Appellate Court, before it proceeds to hear the appeal, at this stage when leave to appeal has not yet been granted, all such details have to be considered by the Court.
This is a trial that went on day to day basis for a period of 7 years with former Chief Justice of India (CJI) UU Lalit and senior Counsel Anand Grover appearing for the prosecution arguing the case at length.
He also submitted that the testimony of the star witness of the prosecution was rejected by the Court after considering the fact that there was no evidence to the effect that accused persons used to meet with the minister as there was no register, no calendar or appointment to show that in fact such meeting ever took place.
Further, it was submitted by Advocate Aggarwal that lacunae in the prosecution case can be seen from the fact that one of the accused companies namely DB Realty, qua which allegation has been levelled that it entered into alleged criminal conspiracy in the year 2004 for the purpose of producing favourable orders. However, the said company was incorporated in the year 2007.
Advocate Agarwal submitted that it is also important for the court to consider and appreciate that at this stage when even the leave to appeal against the order of acquittal has not been allowed by the Court, there is a double presumption of innocence in favour of the Respondents. He also pointed out that, even if two views are possible and view favouring the Respondents is to be taken.
Whole evidence will have to be analysed as High Court should be slow to interfere because only the trial judge had the opportunity to look at the demeanour of the witness and hence High Court should not interfere with the opinion of the trial court.
He pointed to the court the position of law when the court proceeds to examine the issue whether the leave to appeal ought to be granted, the Court has to consider and each allegation separately and pass an order with respect to the same and similarly, the Court has to be accused specific as to qua which specific accused persons and for this particular reason leave to appeal is allowed.
The Delhi High Court on April 10 directed the investigation agencies CBI and ED and respondents to file their written submissions in the matter.
These appeals are pending since March 2018 in the High Court. The appeals are still at the preliminary stage of leave to grant appeal. These appeals are being dealt with by the Seventh Judge of the High Court.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate (ED) have preferred appeals against acquittals granted to former Telecom Minister A Raja, Kanimozhi Karunanidhi including bureaucrats and businessmen in 2G spectrum case.
The counsel for CBI had sought an early hearing on the appeals.
The counsel submitted, "No doubt that the judgment is nearly 1,700 pages and there are over 22,000 pages of witness statements. But I will just show four circumstances. I am quite sanguine that the court will find that the leave to appeal must be granted."
In these appeals two applications seeking early hearing were filed. Still, the matters are at the initial stage.
These appeals were heard on a daily basis by Justice Brijesh Sethi during pre-Covid period before lockdown. He also expressed his displeasure over the delay in the appeals by filing miscellaneous applications by the respondents.
The bench has listed the other matters related to Aircel Maxis case for separate hearing on July 17.