Acquitting all the accused in the 2G spectrum allocation case, Special trial court judge OP Saini on Thursday blasted the prosecution (CBI) for its “directionless” approach and “miserable” failure to prove its charges.
“Prosecution became highly cautious and guarded as case progressed. It was difficult to find out what the prosecution wanted to prove.
The quality of prosecution totally deteriorated and it became directionless and diffident in the end, “ the 2G case order read.
The special public prosecutor 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,” the order read.
“Several applications and replies were filed by 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,” the judgment read.
“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,” the judge said.
“During the final arguments, special public prosecutor (PP) had 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, Special PP did not file written arguments, but instead submitted that he would file it only when the defence would file its written arguments,’ the judgment read.
“When defence started arguments, they kept filing their written submissions contemporaneously with their oral submissions. Not only this, the most painful part is that the Special 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 anyoneIJ When questioned as to why the Special 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 Special PP to sign the written submissions, but all in vain,” Saini wrote in the judgment.
“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,” Saini said.
“In the end, examination of the action or inaction of officials belonging to various departments, that is, DoT, law Ministry, Finance Ministry and PMO, shows that the controversy about the issue of letter of Intents (lOIs) on January 10, 2008 and subsequent grant of licences and allocation of spectrum arose due to unnecessary questions and objections raised by some of the officials and unwarranted suggestions put forward by others. None of these suggestions were carried to logical conclusion and were left unaddressed in between. These were used by others to create unnecessary controversy,” Saini wrote in the judgement.
Ending his 1,552-page judgment, Saini wrote, “The end result of the above discussion is that, I have absolutely no hesitation in holding that the prosecution miserably failed to prove any charge against any of the accused, made in its well choreographed charge sheet”.