The special court hearing the 2G spectrum scam on Tuesday directed the CBI to provide complainant Subramanian Swamy with a copy of a Telecom Department (DoT) file that he claimed had “endorsements and signatures” of the then Finance Minister P. Chidambaram on the issue of setting a lock-in period for the sale of equity by UAS licence holders.
Dr. Swamy, whose private complaint case in the 2G scam is being heard separately from the CBI's case, had sought a copy of the file that the CBI had seized from the DoT on October 22, 2009, but did not submit along with the charge sheet in the case.
[The lock-in period had figured earlier too in the 2G case, with Sushil Kumar, counsel for the former Telecom Minister, A. Raja, claiming on August 24, while arguing on charges, that a document relating to Mr. Raja's views on setting a lock-in period for UAS licencees was not produced in court and that the CBI was “hiding it.”
Later, on September 26, while demanding the summoning of Mr. Chidambaram as a witness in the case, Mr. Kumar claimed that it was his client who had first raised the need for a lock-in period to ensure new licencees do not sell UAS licences.]
In his application, Dr. Swamy told Special Judge O.P. Saini that the file was necessary for “prosecution of his case” and that “these documents, with endorsements and signatures of Mr. P. Chidambaram [the then Union Finance Minister], prove his [Mr. Chidambaram's] complicity in the instant scam.”
Dr. Swamy came to court on Tuesday morning armed with the CBI's search-cum-seizure memo, dated October 22, 2009, under the impression that the file was in the custody of the court.
On October 10, this year, he applied to the CBI for a certified copy of the file, but was informed through a reply on October 14 from CBI Joint Director Hitesh C. Awasthy that the “documents seized in a criminal case are deemed to be court property and hence cannot be parted with, without orders of the court.”
On inspection of the court record, the judge was informed that this was not a document filed along with the charge sheet. Mr. Saini then passed the order, which said: “After hearing the complainant, I am satisfied that copy/certified copy of the aforesaid file would facilitate the prosecution of this complaint case. Accordingly, the CBI is directed to supply photocopy/certified copy of the file to the complainant at the earliest.”
While his complaint now only has A. Raja as an accused, Dr. Swamy on September 15 moved an application seeking his recall as a complainant to depose further, after claiming to have come across “new facts” which indicated that Mr. Raja and Mr. Chidambaram acted in cohorts.
