'As The Case Progressed, The Prosecution Became Highly Cautious And Guarded,' Says 2G Spectrum Case Judge On Prosecution

A Special CBI Court on Thursday acquitted DMK politicians A Raja, Kanimozhi and fifteen others who were accused in the 2G Spectrum case, which dealt with the alleged loss of Rs 1.76 trillion caused to exchequer by Raja, who was Telecom Minister during the UPA regime, by selling spectrum cheap.

Acquitting all the 17 accused in the scam, the CBI court in a 2000 page judgment delivered by Judge O. P. Saini ruled that there was no criminality involved in the entire episode. The court has found nothing wrong in the allocation of the licenses and has found no evidence of the alleged kickbacks in the process. 

The judgment had some searing comments against the prosecution, which showed white heat but became rudderless as the case progressed.

Prosecution lawyers were Anand Grover, K.K Goyal, A.K Rao.

 The judgement said:

“In the beginning, the prosecution started with the case with great enthusiasm and ardour. However, as the case progressed,   it   became highly cautious and guarded in its attitude making it difficult to find out as to what prosecution wanted to prove.   However, by the end, the quality of prosecution totally deteriorated and it became directionless and diffident. Not much is required to be written as the things are apparent from the perusal of the evidence itself. However, a few instances   would suffice to indicate the behaviour of the prosecution. Several applications and replies were filed in the Court on behalf of the prosecution. However, in the latter and also in the final   phase of the trial, no senior officer or prosecutor was willing to sign these applications or replies and the same used to be signed by a junior most officer Inspector Manoj Kumar posted in the Court. When questioned, the reply of the regular Sr. PP would be that the learned Spl. PP would sign it and when the learned Spl. PP was questioned, he would say that CBI people would sign it. Ultimately, the petition/ reply would be filed under the signature of Inspector. This shows that neither any investigator nor any prosecutor was willing to take any responsibility for what was being filed or said in the Court.  Also, when final arguments started, learned Spl. PP submitted that he would file written submissions. But instead of filing written submissions, he started arguing the matter orally and argued it for   several months. On conclusion of final arguments for the prosecution, he did   not file written arguments, but instead submitted that he would file it only when the defence would file its written arguments. That was highly unfair. The   prosecutor should have filed his written submissions in the first instance or at least contemporaneously with the oral submissions, so that the defence had a clear view of  the case  of the prosecution.  The final arguments  for the defence started and they kept filing their written submissions contemporaneously with their oral submissions. When the rebuttal arguments started only then the prosecution started filing its written   arguments on day­to­day basis, apart from making oral submissions. In a sense, the main address of the prosecution was made during the rebuttal arguments. In order to meet this unique situation, the defence had to be given extra two days for further rebutting the arguments of the prosecution introduced through written arguments. Not only this, the most painful part is that learned Spl. PP was not ready to sign the written submissions filed by him. What is the use of a document in a Court of   law, which is not signed by anyone?  When questioned as to why the learned Spl. PP was filing unsigned written   submissions, his reply would be that some defence advocates had also not signed the written submissions. Great efforts had to be made to persuade the learned Spl. PP to sign the written   submissions, but all in vain.  Thereafter, written orders had to be repeatedly passed to make him sign the written submissions filed by him in the Court under the threat that unsigned written submissions would not be taken note of.  Only thereafter he yielded and signed the written submissions. When the learned regular Sr. PP and the Inspector present in the Court were questioned as to why they were not signing the written submissions, their reply was that the same were not coming from their office and were instead coming from the office of the learned Spl. PP. Their submission was that unless these written arguments were processed in their office, they would not sign it. This shows that the learned Spl. PP and the regular prosecutor were moving   in   two different directions without any coordination. Many more things can be said but that would only add to the length of the order.

Quote from judgement taken from Bar and Bench.