Send tape of A. K. Singh-Sanjay Chandra conversation to Truth Lab
The Centre for Public Interest Litigation, an NGO, on Tuesday moved the Supreme Court for a direction to the Centre and the Central Bureau of Investigation to immediately register an FIR into the prosecution-accused nexus in the 2G spectrum case and conduct a thorough probe following the revelations in a taped conversation between the CBI public prosecutor and the accused Sanjay Chandra.
The CBI should send the tapes for verification and voice tests to multiple labs including the Truth Lab; the government should appoint a team of public prosecutors as selected by this court and the Central Vigilance Commission should examine the trial record to check how the prosecution case had been compromised, the CPIL application said.
The CPIL, annexing copies of reports in The Hindu, said though this court had appointed a senior advocate special public prosecutor, unfortunately the prosecution was conducted mostly by the government-appointed CBI’s Public Prosecutor A. K. Singh. It was Mr. Singh who had to face a battery of top lawyers appearing for the powerful politicians and corporates.
“It is precisely because of this reason that the recent revelations are even more disturbing.” According to media reports, a sting operation was conducted by an undisclosed person who apparently recorded the audio of the face-to-face conversation between Mr. A. K. Singh and Mr. Chandra, MD of Unitech, an ineligible company which was one of the biggest beneficiaries of the out-of-turn allotment of 2G licence. The alleged conversation “clearly shows a serious nexus” between the prosecution and the accused. “Mr. Singh is discussing the legal strategy to help Mr. Chandra… He also states he has advised another accused Shahid Balwa [promoter of another ineligible company Swan Teleco] a ‘thousand times’,” the CPIL said.
“The conversations show that the testimony of A. K. Srivastava (DoT officer) is being used to help the accused.” Now it turned out that about 100 applications out of the 122 certified eligible by him were in fact ineligible as per the DoT’s own guidelines. He cleared them without verification despite the fact that there were notings from other DoT officers raising serious objections. But the CBI, instead of making him an accused, made him a prosecution witness, on whose testimony the prosecution case rests, the CPIL said.