2G CASE: ED MOVES DELHI HIGH COURT AGAINST ACQUITTAL OF RAJA, KANIMOZHI
THE FIRST CASE, PROSECUTED BY CBI, HAD 17 ACCUSED, WHILE THE SECOND MATTER, PURSUED BY ED, HAD 19 ACCUSED. THE THIRD INVOLVED EIGHT PEOPLE.
NEW DELHI: The Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Monday moved the Delhi high court challenging the acquittals of former telecom minister A Raja, DMK leader Kanimozhi and others involved in the alleged 2G scam case, claiming that the trial court had committed an error by not “appreciating the evidences” and “documentary records” during the trial.
The plea, filed through advocate Rajeev Awasthi, said that the accused were acquitted solely on the basis of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) case without looking at “clinching evidence” provided by the ED. “It is a stand-alone trial and the acquittal in the CBI trial does not render the trial of the money laundering case as meaningless,” Awasthi said.
The plea, which is yet to be listed for hearing, contended: “The trial court has gravely erred by not looking into the order of the adjudicating authority of Prevention of Money laundering Act (PMLA), which confirmed the attachment of properties worth ₹223 crore after hearing both the parties, i.e, ED and the accused persons. The order had recorded the clinching evidences which clearly proves the criminal conspiracy with regard to the payment of bribe.”
The appeal comes after a special court on December 21 last year acquitted 17 people, including DMK supremo M Karunanidhi’s wife Dayalu Ammal, Shahid Balwa and Vinod Goenka of Swan Telecom (P) Ltd (STPL), Asif Balwa and Rajiv Aggarwal of Kusegaon Fruits and Vegetables Pvt Ltd, film producer Karim Morani, P Amirtham and Sharad Kumar, director of Kalaignar TV. The probe agency in its charge sheet had alleged that ₹200 crore was paid by STPL promoters to the DMK-run Kalaignar TV. Following the acquittal, both the probe agencies had claimed that Special Judge OP Saini had ignored the evidences that were produced by them against the accused under the PMLA and other charges of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Saini, however, had then held that the prosecution had “miserably failed” to prove the charges.
The first case, prosecuted by CBI, had 17 accused, while the second matter, pursued by ED, had 19 accused. The third case involved eight people.
The legal representatives of Raja and Kanimozhi could not be reached for comments.