The accused in 2G spectrum scam on Thursday charged the Central Bureau of Investigation in a court in New Delhi with delaying the proceedings for framing of charges for frustrating their chance of securing bail.
The accused, including former Telecom Minister A. Raja, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam MP Kanimozhi and top corporate honchos, alleged that the CBI was filing additional documents to delay the proceedings required for starting arguments on framing of charges for which the special court has already asked the parties to complete the scrutiny of documents expeditiously.
The advocates for the accused raised objections to the CBI’s move and the proceedings in the 2G case witnessed for the first time, trading of charges between the accused and prosecutors.
The agency, the accused said, has not only “concealed the documents” and “wilfully abstained” from filing them with their charge sheets but “they (CBI) are not prepared to go for the trial because they have not completed their investigation”.
“Even in the Supreme Court, they have said that they are going to file another charge sheet. How do I know if it has anything against these 17 accused,” advocate Vijay Agarwal, appearing for Swan Telecom promoter Shahid Usman Blawa, submitted before Special CBI judge O.P. Saini.
Accusing the agency of concealing documents, the counsel said, “If any of the collected additional document was with the CBI before the filing of the charge sheet and now if it turns out in our favour, it would go on to show that the charge sheet was filed to defeat our statutory right to bail.”
While denying bail to Ms. Kanimozhi, the Supreme Court had said she could approach the trial court after framing of charges in the case.
The CBI, however, countered the allegations by the defence counsel saying at the time of filing of the charge sheets, they have already told the court that they would file additional documents in connection with the case.
Public Prosecutor A.K. Singh, appearing for the CBI, said that the subsequent charge sheets in the case have “no connection with the charges levelled in the last two charge sheets” and the probe with regard to the allegations against the accused is complete.
The CBI has named 14 persons and three companies as accused in the case.
“Investigation as far as the same pertains to allegations contained in the instant charge sheets is complete,” he said.
Mr. Aggarwal alleged the CBI filed incomplete documents to defeat the effort of the accused to get bail.
He also argued since a charge sheet is the opinion of the Investigating Officer on the basis of documents and witnesses it has during the probe, the IO should give his opinion in the light of new documents and statements.
To this, CBI said, “We are not adding any accused or any new penal section or offence. So, there is no need to form an opinion by the IO now.”
He also objected to the CBI using the statement of Vinod Goenka’s wife Aseela Goenka who has been listed as additional prosecution witness by the investigating agency.
Counsel for Surender Pipara said the CBI should show why the documents in its possession were not brought on record earlier.
“On the one hand, the court asks me to speed up the entire process and now the CBI is trying to bring in new documents. How do you expect us to argue on charges when the CBI is not stating that the investigation with regard to these 14 accused is complete?”
The authorised representative of Unitech Wireless also opposed the submission of additional documents saying “investigation must come to an end before I am to argue on charges.”
The counsel for Mr. Raja and Ms. Kanimozhi maintained they shared the same view on the issue.
