CBI wants 2G bench to hear Mittal and Ruia plea - Times of India

NEW DELHI: The CBI and Bharti chairman Sunil Mittal locked horns in the Supreme Court on Thursday as the agency repeatedly requested assigning hearing on the corporate czar's plea against trial court's decision to summon him as an accused in excess spectrum grant case to a bench which monitored probe into the 2G spectrum scam. After successive recusals of Justices Vikramjit Sen and A R Dave forcing two adjournments on hearing of petitions filed by Mittal and Essar promoter Ravi Ruia, the hearing before a new bench of Chief Justice of India Altamas Kabir and Justice S S Nijjar started with the CBI putting in its preliminary objection. Senior advocate K K Venugopal, appearing for the CBI, said, "The petitions should go before the bench which heard petitions on 2 G scam and monitored investigations into it. Importantly, the charge sheet (in the excess spectrum case) was filed after the 2G probe monitoring bench had asked the CBI to go ahead on the basis of CBI director's view." The CBI director had taken the view that the companies - Airtel, Vodafone and Sterling Cellular Ltd - be named in the charge sheet and disagreed with the investigating officer's view for naming their directors. Venugopal read out the November 29, 2012 order of the 2G probe monitoring bench headed by Justice G S Singhvi and because the charge sheet was filed pursuant to that order, the petitions by Mittal and Ruia should be placed for hearing before that bench. The CBI's request found support from advocate Prashant Bhushan, who had argued for an NGO which had brought the 2G scam to SC's notice. But, Mittal's counsel Harish Salve said he had no objection which bench heard the matter. "But it is a fallacy on the CBI's part to take the plea t hat the bench which monitored the probe into 2G scam must hear these petitions," he said. "Once a charge sheet is filed, the investigation monitoring bench's jurisdiction over the matter comes to an end. Any bench can hear these petitions. But, when propriety is raised as an issue it creates problem," he said. Salve asked: "I am not on the question of propriety but a pure question of law and this legal issue is not pending before any bench. Since it is a pure question of law any bench can hear it. Can we say the bench which monitored the 2G scam probe alone was better off in hearing a pure law point?" Though Venugopal persisted with his request for placing the petitions by Mittal and Ruia before the bench which monitored the CBI probe into 2G scam, the CJI-headed bench asked Salve to continue with his arguments. When Salve said the trial judge summoned his client as an accused despite the charge sheet not naming him, the bench said: "summoning of a pe rson not named in the charge sheet is not a strange thing." Salve said it became a strange thing when the trial Judge, in complete reversal of a settled legal principle - that officials wrong doing could be fastened on the company but not the reverse - summoned Mittal and others holding that the alleged wrong doings of the companies could be attributed to the managing directors without there being a murmur of evidence that they had participated in the alleged acts of accused named in the charge sheet. The special court had on March 19 summoned Mittal, Ruia, who was then a Director in one of the accused companies Sterling Cellular Ltd and Asim Ghosh, the then Managing Director of accused firm Hutchison Max Telecom Pvt Ltd. via Top Stories - Google News http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&fd=R&usg=AFQjCNHDncJsDs6c01yirSbZDy7WE4WCGA&url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/CBI-wants-2G-bench-to-hear-Mittal-and-Ruia-plea/articleshow/19733632.cms

Put the internet to work for you. via Personal Recipe 2953939