RTL flays sum­mons is­sue to Anil, Tina

The Political and Business Daily - - FRONT PAGE -

NEW DELHI: Re­liance Tele­com Ltd on Mon­day as­sailed in the Supreme Court the or­der of the spe­cial court al­low­ing CBI plea to make Anil Am­bani and his wife Tina as wit­nesses in 2G spec­trum case say­ing it was aimed at "cov­er­ing the la­cu­nae" of the agency which has been "grop­ing in dark".

RE­LIANCE Tele­com Ltd to­day as­sailed in the Supreme Court the or­der of the spe­cial court al­low­ing CBI plea to make Anil Am­bani and his wife Tina as wit­nesses in 2G spec­trum case say­ing it was aimed at "cov­er­ing the la­cu­nae" of the agency which has been "grop­ing in dark".

Re­liance Tele­com Ltd, one of the three com­pa­nies named as ac­cused in the case, con­tended that the trial court wrongly ex­er­cised its power al­low­ing CBI plea to make Am­bani cou­ple along with 11 oth­ers wit­nesses in the case which would prej­u­dice the case of ac­cused.

"There is noth­ing to dis­cover from Anil Am­bani. He has al­ready given his state­ment (to CBI) un­der sec­tion 161 of Code of Crim­i­nal Pro­ce­dure on Fe­bru­ary 16, 2011. The rea­son for fil­ing the ap­pli­ca­tion (by CBI) is to cam­ou­flage its own la­cu­nae.

"It (CBI) is grop­ing in dark and fish­ing for some­thing. It is noth­ing but to cover up its la­cu­nae," RTL's coun­sel and se­nior ad­vo­cate Mukul Ro­hatgi sub­mit­ted be­fore a bench of jus­tices G S Singhvi and K S Rad­hakr­ish­nan.

Ro­hatgi made it clear that the pe­ti­tion chal­leng­ing the July 19 or­der of the trial court on the is­sue was not filed by Am­bani but by the RTL as it was passed on the mis­con­ceived ap­pli­ca­tion of the CBI at the fag end of the trial when 140 wit­nesses have been ex­am­ined.

He also ques­tioned the rea­son­ing of the trial court that the or­der sum­mon­ing fresh set of wit­nesses was in se­quence to the or­der of Novem­ber 19, 2012 when the CBI's plea for plac­ing ad­di­tional doc­u­ments re­lat­ing some banks was al­lowed.

The se­nior ad­vo­cate as­sailed this or­der say­ing "when pros­e­cu­tion has been un­able to prove its case af­ter ex­am­i­na­tion of 140 wit­nesses it should be the fu­neral of the case".

He sub­mit­ted that the trial court judge should not give "help­ing hand" to the CBI for its shoddy job as sec­tion 311 of the CrPC un­der which the agency's plea was al­lowed "is not a han­dle to help pros­e­cu­tion" more so when the whole trial pro­ce­dure has gone for toss.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.