Explained: CBI Special Judge O.P.Saini’s Judgment in 2G Spectrum Cases [Part -I]

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: In 1553 pages, CBI Special Judge, O.P.Saini, hasn’t found a shred of evidence against the accused in the 2G scam. Is n’t it surprising? What is his conclusion, and how did he reach it? A: In Paragraph 1817, the Judge says as follows: “There is no evidence on the record produced before the Court indicating any criminality in the acts allegedly committed by the accused persons relating to fixation of cut-off date, manipulation of first-come first-served policy, allocation of spectrum to dual technology applicants, ignoring ineligibility of STPL and Unitech group companies, non-revision of entry fee and transfer of Rs.200 crore to Kalaignar TV (P) Limited as illegal gratification.”There are six major issues dealt with in the judgment, as indicated above, under separate heads. The charge sheet of the instant case is based mainly on misreading, selective reading, non-reading and out of context reading of the official record, he has said. Further, it is based on some oral statements made by the witnesses during investigation, which the witnesses have not owned up in the witness-box, he further says. Lastly, if statements were made orally by the witnesses, the same were contrary to the official record and thus, not acceptable in law, he adds.2G scam case: Delhi Court Acquits Raja, Kanimozhi And Others [Read Judgment]The Judge makes a passing comment in paragraph 1818 that many facts recorded in the charge sheet are factually incorrect, like Finance Secretary strongly recommending revision of entry fee, deletion of a clause of draft Letter of Intent (LOI) by the former Minister, A.Raja, recommendation of TRAI for revision of entry fee etc.The end result is that , the Judge has absolutely no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove any charge against any of the accused, made in its “well choreographed charge sheet”. Accordingly, he says all accused are entitled to be acquitted, and are acquitted, he says.There were 17 accused, 153 Prosecution Witnesses, and 29 Defence Witnesses.Essentially, the Judge justifies his conclusions on the ground that the CBI did not produce any legally admissible evidence to sustain its allegations, apart from “arguments at the bar”. On certain issues, he relies on the documentary evidence to refute the CBI’s allegations against the accused; on others, he refuses to lift the corporate veil, because it is not required as suggested by the facts, which are clear enough; and on some, he blames the prosecution for not cross-examining the crucial witnesses with the right kind of questions, which could have brought out the truth of the allegations.2G SCAM Verdict: Who Said What?Q: So, the CBI failed to put up a solid case, can we say?A: In Paragraph 1812, the Judge says the CBI started with the case with great enthusiasm and ardour. “However, as the case progressed, it became highly cautious and guarded in its attitude making it difficult to find out as to what prosecution wanted to prove. However, by the end, the quality of prosecution totally deteriorated and it became directionless and diffident. Not much is required to be written as the things are apparent from the perusal of the evidence itself”, he observes.The Judge further adds:“Several applications and replies were filed in the Court on behalf of the prosecution. However, in the latter and also in the final phase of the trial, no senior officer or prosecutor was willing to sign these applications or replies and the same used to be signed by a junior most officer, Inspector, Manoj Kumar posted in the Court.”Q: How did the Judge indict the prosecution?A: The Judge indicts the prosecution in the following words:“When questioned, the reply of the regular Sr. PP would be that the learned Spl. PP would sign it and when the learned Spl. PP was questioned, he would say that CBI people would sign it. Ultimately, the petition/ reply would be filed under the signature of Inspector. This shows that neither any investigator nor any prosecutor was willing to take any responsibility for what was being filed or said in the Court. Also, when final arguments started, learned Spl. PP submitted that he would file written submissions. But instead of filing written submissions, he started arguing the matter orally and argued it for several months. On conclusion of final arguments for the prosecution, he did not file written arguments, but instead submitted that he would file it only when the defence would file its...

Explained: CBI Special Judge O.P.Saini’s Judgment in 2G Spectrum Cases [Part -I]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK