Bhushan: CBI chief delaying Maran charge sheet

“Strong case made out in Aircel-Maxis deal but Ranjit Sinha overruled sleuths”

August 26, 2014 07:25 pm | Updated November 17, 2021 01:25 am IST - New Delhi

New Delhi, November 22, 2011: DMK MP and Dayanidhi Maran, former Union Minister for Communications, on the opening day of winter session of the Parliament  in New Delhi on Tuesday, November 22, 2011 . Both the houses were adjourned due to protest by NDA led opposition against   Union Home Minister P.Chidambaram's alleged  " role in the 2G spectrum allocation scandal", Photo: Rajeev Bhatt

New Delhi, November 22, 2011: DMK MP and Dayanidhi Maran, former Union Minister for Communications, on the opening day of winter session of the Parliament in New Delhi on Tuesday, November 22, 2011 . Both the houses were adjourned due to protest by NDA led opposition against Union Home Minister P.Chidambaram's alleged " role in the 2G spectrum allocation scandal", Photo: Rajeev Bhatt

The CBI Director Ranjit Sinha was scuttling the filing of chargesheet against former Telecom Minister Dayanidhi Maran in the Aircel-Maxis case, alleged counsel Prashant Bhushan in a fresh petition filed in the Supreme Court.

The petition said, “The CBI had developed a water-tight case against Mr. Maran for favouring M/s Aircel after it was bought over by M/s Maxis by granting it several licenses, which were refused earlier. CBI had found a money trail in which a whopping Rs. 650 crores were invested by M/s Maxis to buy shares at a hugely inflated price in a new company called Sun Direct TV owned by Mr. Maran’s brother. All the investigation officers (who are reporting to this Court) had opined that a chargesheet must be filed and even the Director of Prosecution had said that chargesheet ought to be filed in the matter. But the CBI Director overruled them and stated no case is made out.”

Similarly in the 2G case with regard to Reliance, a counter affidavit was prepared by CBI officers completely reversing the CBI’s earlier stand. On the instructions of the CBI Director, a draft counter affidavit was prepared by the CBI officers. The CBI in that affidavit stated that Swan was sold off by Reliance to Mr. Balwa after the date of application and before the license was granted, and therefore, Swan was eligible on the date license was granted. However, this affidavit was dropped at the instance of former special Public Prosecutor U.U. Lalit (at present Supreme Court judge) after the DIG Santosh Rastogi sought his nod.

Contending that the CBI Director’s attempt was nothing but to save Reliance and other influential accused in the 2G case, the petition sought action against the CBI Director. The case comes up for hearing on September 2.

Top News Today

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.