2G Verdict- Explained [Part-III] SPP Anand Grover Rebuts CBI Special Judge O.P.Saini’s Judgment in 2G Spectrum Cases

The December 21 judgment of CBI Special Judge, O.P.Saini, has been a pleasant surprise to the accused. However, it has shocked many that the Judge found no one guilty for the so-called multi-crore scam, which led to a political upheaval, a Supreme-court monitored investigation and trial, and was a prominent issue in the 2014 general elections, resulting in the change of Government at the Centre. LiveLaw tries to answer some questions which the judgment may possibly give rise to.Q: What does senior advocate, Anand Grover, Special Public Prosecutor in the case, have to say about the judgment?A: Anand Grover is hurt that the Judge made disparaging remarks about his role in the judgment unjustifiably. Grover, therefore, has been talking to the media, to explain his point of view, so that Judge Saini’s ‘distorted’ view in the judgment does not go uncorrected and unchallenged. First, Grover says that he joined the trial case proceedings only in 2014, after Justice U.U.Lalit, who was the SPP earlier, was elevated to the bench. Much of the trial case proceedings were over during Justice Lalit’s term as the SPP. When Grover joined, only the money laundering case remained. But Judge Saini’s judgment makes it appear as if Grover alone is responsible for the prosecution’s so-called lapses. Secondly, Grover asks why Judge Saini framed as many as 1000 questions for Raja, and held that they were against him, and wasted the court’s time, if he is so convinced that there was no legally admissible evidence against him or other accused. Third, Grover takes serious objection to Saini’s remark that the chargesheet is orchestrated. If so, why did he not throw it out at the initial stage, he asks. He reminds him that the Supreme Court approved the chargesheet. Grover also denies that many of the witnesses were not cross-examined or not asked the right questions, as claimed by Saini in the judgment. Lastly, Grover insists that he was right in refusing to sign his written submissions, because the rules say a senior advocate need not do so; but when Saini insisted, he relented and signed. But this is such a trivial issue, but Judge Saini exaggerated it, to make it appear as the serious one, sidelining other fundamental aspects of the case, Grover claims.Q: How did the Judge deal with the issue relating to the alleged transaction of Rs.200 crore as payment for illegal gratification?A: Prosecution case is that Raja as Minister, granted UAS licences for 13 service areas to STPL, a company of DB group of Shahid Balwa and Vinod Goenka. In consideration thereof, Rs200 crore was paid as bribe/reward by these companies to Raja which was parked in Kalaignar TV (P) Limited in which Kanimozhi and Sharad Kumar were directors. However, the prosecution gave up its case in its entirety during the examination of witnesses, as not a single question was put to any witness suggesting these facts, the Judge has concluded. In response, Grover asks why the Judge himself did not or could not ask these questions, if, in his view, the prosecution failed to ask, during the cross-examination of witnesses. According to him, records do show that all the relevant questions were asked during the cross-examination.The allegation is that money was routed through Dynamix Realty, KusegaonFruts and Vegetables (P) Limited and Cineyug Films (P) Ltd for the favours. Witnesses were examined from all four entities, that is, from Dynamix Realty, Kusegaon Fruits and Vegetables, Cineyug Films and Kalaignar TV. Not even a single witness deposed that the transaction was meant for payment of illegal gratification or that it was a mala fide or sham transaction . “There was no suggestion that the transaction of illegal gratification was dressed up as loan. Prosecution did not suggest to even a single witness. To some witnesses, it was suggested that the transaction was not a bona fide one and the documents executed were bogus”, the Judge has recorded.He further observed: “A bogus document by itself does not mean payment of illegal gratification. These transactions per se are not illegal. To make out a case of illegal gratification these documents would have to be linked to a public servant, which is lacking in this case”.Almost all witnesses owned up the documents and transactions as genuine, and their version went unchallenged by the prosecution. It was nowhere suggested to any witness that whatever may be the colour, character, or designation of the transaction between the four entities, it was, in fact, payment of illegal gratification to Raja. There is no evidence, oral or documentary, to show that Rs.200 crore was illegal gratification meant for Raja and parked in Kalaignar TV, the Judge concluded.The Judge further reasoned:A case is to be decided on the basis of evidence led by the parties, and not on the basis of arguments alone. Arguments are no substitute for evidence. The end result is that prosecution failed to put its case to the...

2G Verdict- Explained [Part-III] SPP Anand Grover Rebuts CBI Special Judge O.P.Saini’s Judgment in 2G Spectrum Cases

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

2G Verdict- Explained [Part-III] SPP Anand Grover Rebuts CBI Special Judge O.P.Saini’s Judgment in 2G Spectrum Cases

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers