By Indo Asian News Service | IANS
New Delhi, Sep 6 (IANS) The Supreme Court was told by an accused in the 2G case Tuesday that the Central Bureau of Investigation was tampering with evidence by asking the telecom regulator to revisit its opinion that the precise value of the spectrum, if it had been auctioned, could not be arrived at.
Senior counsel Ram Jethmalani told an apex court bench of Justice G.S. Singhvi and Justice H.L. Dattu that 'your (CBI) intended correspondence so that TRAI (Telecom Regulatory Authority of India) should change its opinion amounts to tampering with evidence - a habit we (his client) are totally free of'.
Jethmalani was arguing on the bail plea of Unitech's Sanjay Chandra. The court was hearing a plea by Chandra and Vinod Goenka of Swan Telecom challenging the Delhi High Court's May 23 verdict rejecting their bail applications.
As Jethmalani told the court that 'if they (CBI) don't want to rely on a piece of evidence as it does not suit them, it is entirely up to them. But the disclosure (of that evidence) must be made', Additional Solicitor General Harin Raval gave the copy of TRAI's opinion to the court and the petitioner's counsel.
Senior counsel told the court that normally the apex court did not interfere with the high court's findings in bail matters, but if 'there is grave, blatant and atrocious miscarriage of justice and raises important question of law' then the apex court may interfere with it.
The court was told that Chandra had cooperated and made himself available to the investigating agency as and when it asked him to. The court was told that in one instance when Chandra was abroad and was required by the investigating agency, he cut short his visit and came back to India.
Describing the high court judgment as 'wonderful', Jethmalani said that the fact that his client was not arrested by the investigating agency was held against him (in the high court) as his being 'very influential'.
Referring to certain media reports, the court said: 'Irrespective of the dignity of any person in the society, leave aside those who are accused in the case, they are assassinated in the society.'
New Delhi, Sep 6 (IANS) The Supreme Court was told by an accused in the 2G case Tuesday that the Central Bureau of Investigation was tampering with evidence by asking the telecom regulator to revisit its opinion that the precise value of the spectrum, if it had been auctioned, could not be arrived at.
Senior counsel Ram Jethmalani told an apex court bench of Justice G.S. Singhvi and Justice H.L. Dattu that 'your (CBI) intended correspondence so that TRAI (Telecom Regulatory Authority of India) should change its opinion amounts to tampering with evidence - a habit we (his client) are totally free of'.
Jethmalani was arguing on the bail plea of Unitech's Sanjay Chandra. The court was hearing a plea by Chandra and Vinod Goenka of Swan Telecom challenging the Delhi High Court's May 23 verdict rejecting their bail applications.
As Jethmalani told the court that 'if they (CBI) don't want to rely on a piece of evidence as it does not suit them, it is entirely up to them. But the disclosure (of that evidence) must be made', Additional Solicitor General Harin Raval gave the copy of TRAI's opinion to the court and the petitioner's counsel.
Senior counsel told the court that normally the apex court did not interfere with the high court's findings in bail matters, but if 'there is grave, blatant and atrocious miscarriage of justice and raises important question of law' then the apex court may interfere with it.
The court was told that Chandra had cooperated and made himself available to the investigating agency as and when it asked him to. The court was told that in one instance when Chandra was abroad and was required by the investigating agency, he cut short his visit and came back to India.
Describing the high court judgment as 'wonderful', Jethmalani said that the fact that his client was not arrested by the investigating agency was held against him (in the high court) as his being 'very influential'.
Referring to certain media reports, the court said: 'Irrespective of the dignity of any person in the society, leave aside those who are accused in the case, they are assassinated in the society.'
No comments:
Post a Comment