Here’s What the 2G Scam Judgment Says

“Prosecution has miserably failed to prove any charge against any of the accused,” said special CBI judge OP Saini.

A packed courtroom watched with bated breath as special CBI judge OP Saini acquitted all the accused in the 2G spectrum scam on 21 December. Saini said that he had written a very brief judgment, given the record of the case.

The mood inside the Patiala House Court in Delhi was celebratory, with Rajya Sabha MP Kanimozhi, one of the main accused, bowing before Saini and thanking him.

Here are a few excerpts from the judgment, that almost runs into 2,000 pages:

“There is no evidence on the record produced before the Court indicating any criminality in the acts allegedly committed by the accused persons relating to fixation of cut-off-date, manipulation of first-cum first-served policy, allocation of spectrum to dual technology applicants, ignoring ineligibility of STPL and Unitech group companies, non-revision of entry fee and transfer of Rs 200 crore to Kalaignar TV (P) Limited as illegal gratification”.

On Having ‘Wasted Time’

“This indicates that everybody was going by public perception created by rumour, gossip and speculation. However, public perception has no place in judicial proceedings”.

On Inaccuracies

“Further, it is based on some oral statements made by the witnesses during investigation, which the witnesses have not owned up in the witness ­box. Lastly, if statements were made orally by the witnesses, the same were contrary to the official record and thus, not acceptable in law”.

“I may add that many facts recorded in the charge sheet are factually incorrect, like Finance Secretary strongly recommending revision of entry fee, deletion of a clause of draft LOI by A Raja, recommendations of TRAI for revision of entry fee etc”.

On Prosecution

“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”.

On ‘Public-Spirited Persons’

“It is also to be noted that there are many representations on record made by various prominent public spirited persons before various Authorities relating to wrongdoing in the instant case. However, none of them also volunteered to enter the witness ­box. What does all this mean?”

“It may be noted that trial of the instant case attracted lot of public attention. Everyone was curious to know about the case. Due to this, the Courtroom would always remain overcrowded, filled up with persons from all sections of society. Due to this, scores of people appeared before the Court and submitted that true facts had not been placed before the Court. However, when questioned as to whether they were in possession of any definite material for making such an assertion, almost all of them withdrew and left”.

On Department of Telecommunication

On Money Laundering Charges Against the Accused

“In view of acquittal of accused in the case relating to scheduled offence, there are no “proceeds of crime”. “Proceeds of crime” is the foundational fact for the offence of money-­laundering. Since there are no “proceeds of crime”, there can be no offence of money-­laundering, as nothing remains to be laundered. Thus, the very base of the instant case is gone and the alleged offence stands wiped out.”