New Delhi, March 22: The Delhi High Court on Friday admitted the appeal moved by the CBI challenging the 2017 trial court order acquitting key accused, including former Telecom Minister A. Raja and companies, involved in the infamous 2G spectrum allocation scam case.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma pronounced the order on the leave to appeal filed by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Leave to appeal is permission granted to appeal against the decision of a court. “This court after going through the material on record, the impugned judgment and the submissions made at bar by both the sides is of the opinion that a prima facie has been made out which requires deeper examination of the entire evidence,” the judge said.
Earlier, the CBI had contended that there were “glaring illegalities” in the trial court order. The CBI's counsel had claimed that it was riddled with "erroneous conclusions" and lacked a solid legal foundation. The probe agency had argued that the evidence placed before the special court was “disregarded”.
Appearing for the CBI, advocate Neeraj Jain had said: “I will demonstrate that there are glaring illegalities in the (trial court) judgement. The evidence placed by the CBI was disregarded. Appreciation of evidence was completely wrong. I will show that the judgement was perverse and there were flaws in it.” The appeal was filed after the CBI had initially concluded its submissions on the matter of "leave to appeal".
According to the CBI lawyer, the case revolves around "five key issues" of misconduct, namely the collusion between government officials and telecom operators, manipulation of a cut-off date, violation of the first-come-first-serve principle, failure to revise the entry fee, and the presence of a money trail worth Rs 200 crore. The lawyer further stated that the unlawful actions of the accused resulted in a staggering loss of Rs 22,000 crore to the public exchequer.
The CBI had told the High Court that the trial court verdict in the 2G spectrum scam case, which acquitted all the accused persons, was challenged following an opinion from the Central government that it is a "fit case" for appeal.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor