MY REPLY IN BRIEF
Read the conclusion at the end of this article :
1. In their FIR dated 29.10.09, registered under Section 156of the Cr. P.C in Chapter XII, the CBI had recorded [on p. 3] that in the 2G Spectrum Scam, the offences committed were:
(1)that the licences were issued at a very nominal rate based on prices fixed in the year 2001.
(2) that Swan and Unitech were allowed to off load their shares to Etisalat and Telenor respectively even before roll—out.
2. Section 161 (1) in Chapter XII vests powers with the CBI to investigate these offences in the FIR, in particular to examine any person “supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case”.
3. It is my case here that the documents placed in my IA make out clearly that not only Mr. Chidambaram could be supposed tobe acquainted with the facts, butprima facie he was active in the commission of the said offences. P. P. Rao’s assurance in Written Submissions on p.4.
4. As far as the first offence of fixing licence price at the 2001 level is concerned, the October 2003 Cabinet Resolution mandated the FM and Mc&iT to jointly decide it, and in pursuance of this mandate the two Ministers did meet on three occasions i.e., 30.1.08; 29.5.08, and 12.6.08.
5. Chidambaram also wrote to Rajaon April 21, 2008 [ IA No.18, Annexure F p.33] to meet to“ reach some conclusions”( to finalise the Spectrum charges), before jointly presenting the conclusions to the PM on July 4, 2008. This the fourth meeting.
6. This makes it clear that it was a joint decision after a meeting of minds.That is, Chidambaram had a meeting of minds with A. Raja in acts of the latter for which Raja has become an accused in the CBI charge sheet.
7. In the second offence, Chidambaram had advised Raja that it was legal to “dilute” the shares [ IA No. 24, p.13]. This has to be legally analysed since the Swan and Unitech got a huge bonanza according to the FIR,
8. But the CBI in the Charge Sheet however, as late as April 2, 2011 [IA 18, p.14 last para], and in reply to my letters [ IA No.18,paras 5&6 p. 44B] gavea clean chit to the MoF.Even in the secret briefing yesterday by CBI Director.
9. The Office Memo emanating from Finance Ministry signed by a Deputy Director show the sequence of meetings which make it clear that it was a decision solely of the then Finance Minister to go along or encourage Raja to commit the crime.
10. What is clear from the records is that CBI seems to be unaware of the any documents after the letter of the FS of 22.11.07 to the DoT Secretary.
11. Nothing on record shows that the CBI perused thesedocumentsof subsequent dates.The CBI’s charge sheet does not go beyond November 22, 2007.
12. In fact, the CAG Report [p.26-27] should have alerted the CBI to search for the documents if they did not have it. It appears the CBI chose not to do so.
13. It ignores the lead of CAG Report violating the Directions of this Hon’ble Court [in )2011) 1 SCC 560 at 576 para 19]. Hence it is a malafide truncated inquiry,
COUNTER ARGUMENTS
14. In their counter arguments, the Learned Counsels for the CBI and Mr. Chidambaram did not challenge any of my documents.
15. Nor the CBI’s Learned Counsel squarely answered Your Lordships’ query as to when the CBI, if at all, came to know of these documents that I had placed before Your Lordships.The CBI therefore needs to be put on the mat.
16. It is my submission therefore is that especially where a prima facie case of inexplicable truncation of the investigation takes place, this Hon’ble Court within the parameters of the December 16, 2010 Order must intervene and hold that for completeness, Mr. Chidambaram must necessarily be interrogated.
17. The Learned Counsel for CBI did not rebut these arguments but instead chose to make unfoundedargumentsbased on technicalities.
18. The first example of unfounded technicality is: that policy decisions cannot be questioned by this Hon’ble Court. If the policy decisions are arbitrary, unreasonable, and or malafide, there is a catena of judgments of this Hon’ble Court that indeed it can be [(1994) 6 SCC 651 at 675 para 70].
19. This is precisely what Mr. SubbaRao deposed under oath before the PAC. What Ld. Counsel for CBI read out was what SubbaRao did till 22/11/07.
20. Second example is: thatno criminality has been alleged. That is for the trial court to consider and not here. Raja resigned following the CAG Report and a case was registered, he was first summoned under Section 161(1). Or for that matter Jaswant Singh and Shourie.
21. Under PC Act Section 13(1)(d) money trail to Chidambaram is not necessaryeven for launching prosecution. Only public interest is necessary.
22. Third example of unfounded technicality is that the CBI monitoring was for the CBI case filed in the Trial Court. Not true. The CBI investigation came under monitoring of this Hon’ble Court much before the CBI filed its charge sheet on April 3, 2011.
23. Moreover there is no Application for closure from the CBI.
24. Nor the Narmadabai case helps the CBI and UOI. Even if the full and final Charge Sheet is filed in the trial court, even then two of the most recent judgments one of Narmada Bai [(2011) 5 SCC 79 at 102, para 70] andin JakiaAhesan case, this Hon’ble Court has not barred a new Application for further direction;
25. At this stage it needs to be pointed out that Your Lordships’ Order of December 16, 2010 on monitoring arose out of the SLP filed by CPIL.
26. It was not referenced to any CBI case because till I filed my private complaint in TizHazari, which was delayed due to the PM failing to act on my application for sanction, CBI was investigating offences by unknown persons. Hence to link my plea in this IA to “another case” is absurd.
27. Moreover, I cannot expect the Trial Court u/s Cr.P.C. 202 to order a CBI inquiry. The Court is barred by two SC judgments from doing so. Asking Delhi Police to investigate the Home Minister would be ridiculous.
28. Hence there is no substance in these technical argument.
CONCLUSION
29. Based on the records submitted herein in this IA, the CBI investigation into the question of culpability for the offence and subsequent loss of revenue willfully caused, is on the face of the records, is clearly truncated and incomplete.This Hon’ble Court could consider a SIT.
30. Thus, my Prayer [ IA No.18 p.7-8 ] herein is that the CBI be directed to investigate Mr. P. Chidambaram and file a status report in this Hon’ble Court.
Soiurce : Janata Party
Read the conclusion at the end of this article :
(1)that the licences were issued at a very nominal rate based on prices fixed in the year 2001.
(2) that Swan and Unitech were allowed to off load their shares to Etisalat and Telenor respectively even before roll—out.
2. Section 161 (1) in Chapter XII vests powers with the CBI to investigate these offences in the FIR, in particular to examine any person “supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case”.
3. It is my case here that the documents placed in my IA make out clearly that not only Mr. Chidambaram could be supposed tobe acquainted with the facts, butprima facie he was active in the commission of the said offences. P. P. Rao’s assurance in Written Submissions on p.4.
4. As far as the first offence of fixing licence price at the 2001 level is concerned, the October 2003 Cabinet Resolution mandated the FM and Mc&iT to jointly decide it, and in pursuance of this mandate the two Ministers did meet on three occasions i.e., 30.1.08; 29.5.08, and 12.6.08.
5. Chidambaram also wrote to Rajaon April 21, 2008 [ IA No.18, Annexure F p.33] to meet to“ reach some conclusions”( to finalise the Spectrum charges), before jointly presenting the conclusions to the PM on July 4, 2008. This the fourth meeting.
6. This makes it clear that it was a joint decision after a meeting of minds.That is, Chidambaram had a meeting of minds with A. Raja in acts of the latter for which Raja has become an accused in the CBI charge sheet.
7. In the second offence, Chidambaram had advised Raja that it was legal to “dilute” the shares [ IA No. 24, p.13]. This has to be legally analysed since the Swan and Unitech got a huge bonanza according to the FIR,
8. But the CBI in the Charge Sheet however, as late as April 2, 2011 [IA 18, p.14 last para], and in reply to my letters [ IA No.18,paras 5&6 p. 44B] gavea clean chit to the MoF.Even in the secret briefing yesterday by CBI Director.
9. The Office Memo emanating from Finance Ministry signed by a Deputy Director show the sequence of meetings which make it clear that it was a decision solely of the then Finance Minister to go along or encourage Raja to commit the crime.
10. What is clear from the records is that CBI seems to be unaware of the any documents after the letter of the FS of 22.11.07 to the DoT Secretary.
11. Nothing on record shows that the CBI perused thesedocumentsof subsequent dates.The CBI’s charge sheet does not go beyond November 22, 2007.
12. In fact, the CAG Report [p.26-27] should have alerted the CBI to search for the documents if they did not have it. It appears the CBI chose not to do so.
13. It ignores the lead of CAG Report violating the Directions of this Hon’ble Court [in )2011) 1 SCC 560 at 576 para 19]. Hence it is a malafide truncated inquiry,
COUNTER ARGUMENTS
14. In their counter arguments, the Learned Counsels for the CBI and Mr. Chidambaram did not challenge any of my documents.
15. Nor the CBI’s Learned Counsel squarely answered Your Lordships’ query as to when the CBI, if at all, came to know of these documents that I had placed before Your Lordships.The CBI therefore needs to be put on the mat.
16. It is my submission therefore is that especially where a prima facie case of inexplicable truncation of the investigation takes place, this Hon’ble Court within the parameters of the December 16, 2010 Order must intervene and hold that for completeness, Mr. Chidambaram must necessarily be interrogated.
17. The Learned Counsel for CBI did not rebut these arguments but instead chose to make unfoundedargumentsbased on technicalities.
18. The first example of unfounded technicality is: that policy decisions cannot be questioned by this Hon’ble Court. If the policy decisions are arbitrary, unreasonable, and or malafide, there is a catena of judgments of this Hon’ble Court that indeed it can be [(1994) 6 SCC 651 at 675 para 70].
19. This is precisely what Mr. SubbaRao deposed under oath before the PAC. What Ld. Counsel for CBI read out was what SubbaRao did till 22/11/07.
20. Second example is: thatno criminality has been alleged. That is for the trial court to consider and not here. Raja resigned following the CAG Report and a case was registered, he was first summoned under Section 161(1). Or for that matter Jaswant Singh and Shourie.
21. Under PC Act Section 13(1)(d) money trail to Chidambaram is not necessaryeven for launching prosecution. Only public interest is necessary.
22. Third example of unfounded technicality is that the CBI monitoring was for the CBI case filed in the Trial Court. Not true. The CBI investigation came under monitoring of this Hon’ble Court much before the CBI filed its charge sheet on April 3, 2011.
23. Moreover there is no Application for closure from the CBI.
24. Nor the Narmadabai case helps the CBI and UOI. Even if the full and final Charge Sheet is filed in the trial court, even then two of the most recent judgments one of Narmada Bai [(2011) 5 SCC 79 at 102, para 70] andin JakiaAhesan case, this Hon’ble Court has not barred a new Application for further direction;
25. At this stage it needs to be pointed out that Your Lordships’ Order of December 16, 2010 on monitoring arose out of the SLP filed by CPIL.
26. It was not referenced to any CBI case because till I filed my private complaint in TizHazari, which was delayed due to the PM failing to act on my application for sanction, CBI was investigating offences by unknown persons. Hence to link my plea in this IA to “another case” is absurd.
27. Moreover, I cannot expect the Trial Court u/s Cr.P.C. 202 to order a CBI inquiry. The Court is barred by two SC judgments from doing so. Asking Delhi Police to investigate the Home Minister would be ridiculous.
28. Hence there is no substance in these technical argument.
CONCLUSION
29. Based on the records submitted herein in this IA, the CBI investigation into the question of culpability for the offence and subsequent loss of revenue willfully caused, is on the face of the records, is clearly truncated and incomplete.This Hon’ble Court could consider a SIT.
30. Thus, my Prayer [ IA No.18 p.7-8 ] herein is that the CBI be directed to investigate Mr. P. Chidambaram and file a status report in this Hon’ble Court.
Soiurce : Janata Party
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.