CBI, ED challenge acquittal of Raja, Kanimozhi in Delhi HC
20 Mar 2018
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) moved the Delhi High Court on Tuesday just a day after the Enforcement Directorate (ED) filed an appeal challenging the acquittal of former telecom minister A Raja and DMK MP Kanimozhi in the 2G scam.
On Monday, the ED had moved the Delhi HC, accusing the special judge, who had exonerated all 17 accused in the 2G telecom scam, of “non-application of mind.”
“The special judge has completely mis-directed himself in holding that the offence of money laundering has not taken place merely because of the acquittal of the accused in the offences investigated and tried by the CBI,” said the plea by the ED.
According to the directorate, the 2G licence had been given to Swan Telecom, which had allegedly paid Rs200 crore to DMK-run Kalaignar TV, which was owned by Kanimozhi.
A Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report in 2010 had said that the exchequer had lost potentially upto Rs1.76 lakh crore because of the 2008 allocation of 2G spectrum. In 2012, the Supreme Court scrapped the licences that had been issued by the government (See: SC cancels all 2G licences, orders fresh spectrum auction).
In December, the special court had acquitted Raja, Kanimozhi and others accused in two cases registered by the CBI and the ED.
The special court had been set up in 2011 for hearing three separate cases involving the 2G scam. There were nearly 45 accused persons in all three cases.
O P Saini, the special court judge, had been critical over the manner in which the agencies were conducting the case. It accused the CBI of “filing a well-choreographed charge sheet.’
“I have endeavoured hard to persuade myself to take an expansive and liberal view of the prosecution case,” he had said. “However, in view of deficient, or I may say nil evidence on record, I find myself unimpressed and unmoved, whatever may be the nature of the case. High profile nature of a case cannot be used as a ground for holding people guilty without legal evidence.”
