The Indian Express (Delhi Edition)
No case against Marans, misreading of files led to Aircel-maxis probe: Court
Special court dismisses charges of corruption and money-laundering levelled by CBI and ED
UPA TELECOM MINISTER, BROTHER, TWO FIRMS GET CLEAN CHIT
STATING THAT the “entire case” on the Aircel-maxis deal was based on “misreading of official files”, a special court in New Delhi gave a clean chit Thursday to former telecom minister Dayanidhi Maran, his brother Kalanithi Maran and two firms, discharging them of charges of corruption and money laundering in cases probed by the CBI and Enforcement Directorate.
A senior ED official said the agency will challenge the discharge order. Officials of the CBI offered no immediate comment, saying they were yet to receive the detailed order.
Discharging the Maran brothers, Special Judge O P Saini said “legally admissible evidence” was “wholly lacking” in the probe that was conducted. The CBI had alleged that the Marans received a bribe of Rs 742 crore for “coercing” C Sivasankaran to sell his telecom company Aircel to Malaysia-based Maxis.
The entire case, the judge said, was based on “contradictory statements of the witnesses”. The court also gave a clean chit to Sun Direct TV (P) Ltd and South Asia Entertainment Holdings Limited, Mauritius.
In addition to the Maran brothers, the CBI had named Kuala Lumpur-based business tycoon T Ananda Krishnan, and Maxis director Ralph Marshall in its chargesheet for offences punishable under Section 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code and under relevant provisions of the ■ Marans got bribe of Rs 742 crore for coercing Sivasankaran to sell Aircel to Maxis ■ Sivasankaran tried to resist, wanted to retain 26 per cent of shareholding ■ Rs 742 crore paid for Dayanidhi by Mauritius firms via companies owned by Kalanithi ■ That they are real brothers, shareholders not sign of any conspiracy ■ Kalanithi firm money for Dayanidhi only a perception or suspicion, not enough for prosecution ■ Legally admissible evidence wholly lacking... contradictory statements of witnesses