2G case: A Raja seeks Chidambaram's examination as witness

New Delhi, Sep 26 (PTI) Former Indian Telecom Minister A
Raja Monday told a Delhi court that then Finance Minister P
Chidambaram should be summoned and examined as a witness to
prove the minutes of a Cabinet meeting that cleared the
off-loading of shares by Swan Telecom and Unitech to two
foreign firms.
"In the meeting, the then Finance Minister had clarified
that dilution of shares to attract foreign investment does not
amount to sale of equity.
"Chidambaram is a party to it and I am not calling him as
an accused. CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) should have
recorded his statement and the next step should be the Prime
Minister. CBI should examine Chidambaram not as an accused but
as a witness," senior advocate Sushil Kumar, appearing for
Raja, told special CBI Judge O P Saini.
Raja refuted allegations of CBI that Swan Telecom (now
Etisalat DB) and Unitech Wireless (Tamil Nadu) Pvt Ltd,
alleged beneficiaries of the 2G scam, illegally secured "huge
windfall profit" by off-loading their equities to UAE-based
Etisalat and Norway-based Telenor respectively after getting
the Unified Access Services Licenses.
The issue of dilution of shares by these two Indian
companies were discussed in the meeting in the presence of
Chidambaram and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, he said.
"Call Chidambaram and ask him whether this meeting took
place or not in the presence of the Prime Minister and you
(Chidambaram) gave this advice or not. Call him (Chidambaram)
and confront him with the minutes of the meeting," the counsel
for Raja said.
On alleged loss caused to the exchequer, he said "none
less than the Prime Minister has said on the floor of
Parliament that there is no loss."
The counsel for Raja said that the court should call the
report of the Cabinet meeting and examine it.
"If you (judge) find that the meeting was attended by him
(Chidambaram) then take it on record otherwise leave it," he
said.
The decision to allow telecom firms to off-load their
shares was taken by the Cabinet and only Raja has been singled
out, he said, adding that the decisions, taken by the 2003
Cabinet, have been followed by successive governments.
He also accused CBI of taking different stands on the
status of probe in the case.
"In the Supreme Court, they (CBI) say the investigation
is on and here (in the trial court) they say the investigation
is over and frame the charges," Kumar said.
The agency should make their point clear as to whether
the probe was over or it is still on.
There are two pillars of CBI's case that the allocation
of 2G spectrum caused loss to the state and Raja favoured two
companies (Swan Telecom and Unitech) in grant of the licence.
"CBI has failed to prove that there was any loss to the
government and it has also failed to prove that Swan Telecom
was an associate of Reliance Telecom Ltd (RTL)," Kumar said.
He said the prosecution was "so impatient" that it filed
an "incomplete" charge sheet on April 2 and said the Telecom
Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) report was awaited.
"Who says there is a loss? Has the government said that
there was a loss? Though CBI placed on record the report of
expert committee of TRAI but the charge sheet is as incomplete
as it was on April 2 and the accused are still in jail," he
said.
The recent examination of Jaswant Singh, who headed the
finance portfolio in the National Democratic Alliance (NDA)
regime, by the CBI was also cited by the counsel for Raja to
allege that the probe was still on and there was no obligation
to auction the spectrum.
He accused CBI of "threatening the witness (expert
committee of TRAI) that gave us (CBI) a favourable report
saying otherwise we (CBI) will not accept it."
"This (TRAI report) is a solicited report and it
completely destroys CBI's case," Kumar said.
He also accused CBI of withholding documents saying it
has 1.35 lakh pages but had placed only 80,000 pages on
record.
The agency is withholding papers which go against it.
"The opinion of Solicitor General regarding lock-in
period in 2007 was against them and have not placed it on
record. The file is with them and have not placed it on
record because it is against them and then they say we (CBI)
are not relying on it.
"They (CBI) have closed the RTI Act and if they open it,
I will get those 50,000 pages in court through RTI," he said.
"The tragedy is that I am facing concurrent trials in
this court and as well as before the Supreme Court. I want to
know if the probe is on or not," he said, adding that no court
can monitor the investigation after filing of the charge
sheet.