Special court acquits ex-telecom secy in 2G case, slams CBI
A special 2G court on Thursday discharged a former telecom secretary and three telecom companies in the 2002 additional spectrum scam case saying the chargesheet filed by the CBI was “false and fabricated.”india Updated: Oct 15, 2015 23:49 IST
A special court on Thursday dismissed the charges against former telecom secretary Shyamal Ghosh and three telecom firms in the 2002 additional spectrum allocation case, saying there was no evidence against them and the CBI’s chargesheet was “fabricated”.
The court observed the chargesheet filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on December 21, 2012 was made to mislead the court and ordered the CBI director to conduct an inquiry against erring officials.
“I find that there is no incriminating material on record against the accused and the accused deserve to be discharged,” Special Judge Saini said in a 235-page order dropping criminal conspiracy and corruption charges against Ghosh and the three companies.
“The chargesheet has been drafted in such a manner as to create an impression that the demand for additional spectrum began only on the joining of late Pramod Mahajan as minister.”
Pramod Mahajan, who died in 2006, was telecom minister in 2002.
Ghosh and three telecom firms — Hutchison Max, Sterling Cellular and Bharti Cellular — had been chargesheeted by the CBI in the case relating to the Department of Telecommunications allocation of additional spectrum that had allegedly led to a loss of `846 crore to the exchequer. All the accused were charged with criminal conspiracy and provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The 2G spectrum allocation put the role of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government and the then telecom minister Pramod Mahajan under the scanner.
The court said the chargesheet did not take into account relevant documents such as Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) reports and the principle of level playing field.
“The conclusion of aforesaid analysis of the events, evidence, documents and other material on record is that the chargesheet is a distorted and fabricated document, based on deliberately redacted and garbled facts,” the court said. “It has been drafted as to create an impression of a grave crime, where there is none.”