FirstpostEbook_TheBigTrial_2GSacm_20111111034721

7/31/2019 FirstpostEbook_TheBigTrial_2GSacm_20111111034721

1/54


2/54

Contents

The Bail bombshellDisappointment all over as bail eludes 2G accused, again 042G bail: Judge makes hard point but what about personal liberty? 05

Distressed Kanimozhi takes to meditation in jail 08Karunanidhi upset over denial of bail to daughter 09Raja says, We have to ght, ght, ght; trial to begin 11 Nov 10

The 2G note ruckus2G spectrum: What, where and who of a scandal 132G note row: Pranab meets PM, Sonia after new letter surfaces 15BJP cries foul over Finmins note on 2G scam 16Pranab and Chidambaram meets PM over 2G note 172G: Note that damns Chidu may have come from whistleblower 18JPC wants Finance Ministrys controversial note on 2G 21

The Chidu connectionCourt defers hearing on plea against Chidambaram in 2G scam 232G scam: Court reserves notice, CBI opposes probe against Chidambaram 24

Do the numbers add up?PAC to re-examine CAG report on 2G scam 262G: Loss numbers dont matter much, but crime is key 27

Maxis MayhemWas Malaysian govt silent partner in Maxis-Maran deal? 30Damning FIR: CBI says Maran got Rs 550 crore for Maxis favour 32CBI may have enough on Maran to ask for his arrest 34

Maxis owns effective 99% of Aircel through Suneeta Reddy 38

The Backstory2G Scam: A comprehensive timeline 412Gs Dabangg man- Prashant Bhushan 46How CBI pulled the rug under Raja on spectrum loss issue 482G scam: Raja, 16 others charged with criminal breach of trust 502G scam: What are the exact charges under section 409? 52

2G scam: Who said what in this tale of twists and turns 53

Kanimozhi, three other accused in 2G case move HC for bail 07


3/54

Chapter: 1

The Bail bombshell


4/54

Disappointment all over as baileludes 2G accused, again

Pallavi PolankiNov 3, 2011

The bails applications are dismissed. With that one-line delivered, Special CBI judge OP Sainistunned a jam-packed courtroom into silence. There was much anticipation of bail being grantedto some of the 2G accused, especially after the CBI had not opposed bail for ve of the eight whohad applied for bail at the special CBI court.

But the Judge dashed everyones hopesleaving the accused and relatives inutter shock and disbelief. Putting up a

brave front, DMK MP Kanimozhi, whowas joined by her husband and son in

court, after the order was read out, washeard saying to her well-wisher that thecourt wanted to send out a strong mes-sage. She hugged her son while peoplearound her, some of them in tears, triedto console her. Also present was formerTelecom Minister and accused A Rajas

wife who seemed shaken by the blanketdismissal of all bail applications. Dont

worry, she said to Kanimozhi.

Kanimozhis husband was visibly upset, briey losing his cool. Joining them in what was clearlya very emotional time, was south Indian actress Khushboo. It was at this point that the normallycomposed Kanimozhi was irked at the medias presence at the courtroom. Are you human be-ings, she said to journalists who were crowding around her family.

The order must have come as blow also for Bollywood producer Karim Morani, who had appliedfor bail on health grounds. His daughters broke down.

Kalaignar TV MD Sharad Kumar looked dejected as he sat with his family. Former Telecom Secre-tary Siddhartha Behura was seen discussing order with his lawyer and family. The order runs into76 pages.

The others accused in the 2G case whose bail pleas were denied today were RK Chandolia, Rajasformer private secretary, Swan Telecom promoter Shahid Balwa and Asif Balwa and Rajiv Aggar-

wal, directors of Kusegaon Fruits and Vegetables.

While lawyers held discussions with their clients the media was asked to leave the courtroom. Theaccused then emerged one by one, accompanied by their close relatives, out of the courtroom. Thedisappointment and heartbreak as they walked out of court was impossible to miss. More emotion-al scenes followed before they were taken back into custody by the police.

All eyes now are on the Supreme Court that has reserved its order on the bail pleas of ve of corpo-rate heads who are accused in the 2G case.

Trial in the 2G case begins on 11 November.


5/54

2G bail: Judge makes hard pointbut what about personal liberty?

Akshaya Mishra Nov 3, 2011

In the 2G case judges are making the unusual the norm. The jury is still out whether it agrees withthe fundamental principles of justice. Also, it raises the question whether the judicial thought proc-ess is being too differential to the public sentiment in this particular case.

The special CBI court today rejected the bail applications of Kanimozhi, parliamentarian anddaughter of DMK chief M Karunanidhi, and seven others accused in the spectrum allocation scan-dal. This, even after the investigation has been completed, chargesheet submitted and chargesframed by the court in the respective cases. Under judicial practice, its not normal to deny bail tothe accused after charges are framed.

Kanimozhi, who has beencharged with accepting bribe,criminal conspiracy to cheatthe exchequer and criminal

breach of trust, has been inTihar Jail since May 2011. Herrepeated bail pleas have beenthrown out by the courts herplea that she should get reliefsince she is a woman has cut

no ice with the judges. The fateof the bail applications of otheraccused, who have been inTihar jail longer, has been thesame.

It is interesting, given theSupreme Court, which is moni-toring the high prole case, has

put no restriction on the lower courts to grant bail to the accused. It has asked courts to go by themerit of each case while taking a call. Its apparent that extraneous factors are weighing heavy onthe minds of the judges.

Its possible they want to make an example of the case and send out the message to the rich and thepowerful that they cannot take the judiciary for granted and make a mockery of the law by manipu-lating it at will. It is possible they want to reassure the public at large that while other institutionsof the democracy have suffered erosion of credibility, the judiciary still stands rm and depend-able.

Theres absolutely no dispute if that is the case. Moreover, the 2G case is the biggest scandal in in-dependent India and the accused deserve exemplary treatment. However, the harshness in decid-

ing bail for the accused raises a few questions.

Presumed innocent till proved guilty thats one of the basic principles of the Indian law. The de-nial of bail to the accused runs counter to that principle. The bail is the norm, jail is the exception


6/54

principle introduced by Supreme Court judge V Krishna Iyer in the 1970s and followed by courtsall over the country has been turned on its head in the current case.

The issues of personal liberty of the accused and the fairness of the judicial process kick in at somepoint.

What if some of the accused were found not guilty after the end of the trial? Is the apprehension ofthe investigating agenciesthe CBI in this case that evidence could be tampered with is strongenough an argument to deny freedom to the accused? Why must the judiciary take a decisionprejudicial to the interest of the accused even when the investigators are no more keen on keepingthem in prison?

Judge OP Saini of the special CBI court, who dismissed the bail pleas, however, maintained thathis order was not inuenced by any external factors but solely keeping in mind the facts and cir-cumstances of the case. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passion beingaroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eyeon personal prot regardless of consequence to community, he said.

He asserted that the rights of accused were important but the rights of victims and witnesses wereno less valuable. Nothing to argue here. The court also said that lack of opposition from the CBI tothe bail plea did not mean much in terms of the law.

Its a very tough position. But it looks tad unfair to the accused. They have been punished evenbefore being found guilty. Does it amount to judicial authoritarianism?

The basic principles of the law are being rewritten by the judges. Hope it stands scrutiny of the lawitself.


7/54

Kanimozhi, three other accused in2G case move HC for bail

PTINov 5, 2011

New Delhi: DMK MP Kanimozhi and three others, arrested for their alleged roles in the 2G spec-trum allocation case, moved the Delhi High Court today for bail.

Besides Kanimozhi, the three otherswho moved the high court againsta special court order denying them

bail two days ago, are Kalaignar TVMD Sharad Kumar and KusegaonFruits and Vegetables Pvt Ltd direc-tors Asif Balwa and Rajiv Agarwal.

DMK Supremos daughter Kani-mozhi has been conned in TiharJail since her arrest on May 20. She

was denied bail on Thursday by thetrial court despite CBI not object-ing to pleas for bail by her and fourothers.

Special Judge OP Saini denied them

the bail saying the charges againstthem are of grave nature and the CBIs concession of not objecting their bail pleas was of no con-sequence in the eyes of law.

The CBI had preferred not to oppose the bail pleas of Kanimozhi, Kalaignar TV MD Sharad Kumar,Kusegaon Fruits and Vegetables directors Asif Balwa and Rajiv Agarwal and Bollywood lmmakerKarim Morani, whose names had gured in the supplementary charge sheet led on April 25.

The accused have been in the jail for last ve to nine months.

Denying bail to Kanimozhi, the court had also rejected her plea for it on grounds of being a wom-an, saying that she belongs to upper echelons of society and is also a member of Parliament andcannnot be suffering on account of being a woman.


8/54

Distressed Kanimozhi takes tomeditation in jail

PTINov 9, 2011

New Delhi: Denied bail in the 2G case, DMK MP MK Kanimozhi, who is lodged in Tihar prisonsince May, is now taking meditation lessons on the jail premises.On 3 November, the 43-year-old Rajya Sabha MP, who is the daughter of DMK chief M Karunani-dhi, had wept and hugged her mother Rajathi Ammal minutes after special CBI court rejected her

bail plea in the 2G case.

According to jail ofcials, Kanimozhi isdoing sadhana, engaging herself in in-trospection, spiritual empowerment anddhyan as part of the meditation lessons.

These lessons are being imparted byDivya Jyoti Jagrati Sansthan, the biggestNGO within the Tihar Jail complex en-gaged in rehabilitation and reformationprogramme inside the jail premises.

Kanimozhi has participated in one of theactivities spiritual empowerment conducted for correction and reformationof inmates inside the prison premises, a

jail ofcial said.

The DMK lawmaker is lodged in Jail No 6 since 20 May. Some of the positive work done by theNGO towards inmates involves spiritual empowerment for correction and reformation, positiveengagements in cricket and music, drug abuse prevention and livelihood programmes.

Kanimozhi had moved the Delhi High Court after a special court here denied her bail on 3 Novem-ber. The high court today sought CBIs response on her pleas.


9/54

Karunanidhi upset over denial ofbail to daughter

PTINov 3, 2011

Chennai: DMK chief M Karunanidhi is very upset over rejection of bail to his daughter andparty MP Kanimozhi in the 2G spectrum case.

Karunanidhi was hoping that Kanimozhiwould be given bail as the CBI has not opposedher bail plea. He is very upset and had not spo-ken to anybody, including family members afterhe came to know of the dismissal of the bail ap-plication today, sources close to Karunanidhitold PTI here.

Noting that the charges levelled against Kani-mozhi and seven others in the case were ofvery serious nature, a Delhi court dismissedtheir bail pleas.

The others whose bail petitions were dismissedwere former Telecom Minister A Rajas erst-

while Private Secretary R K Chandolia, Swan Telecom promoter Shahid Usman Balwa, KalaignarTV MD Sharad Kumar, Kusegaon Fruits & Vegetables

directors Asif Balwa and Rajiv Agarwal and Bollywood lmmaker Karim Morani.


10/54

Raja says, We have to ght, ght,ght; trial to begin 11 Nov

Pallavi PolankiOct 22, 2011

They have charged me with everything, former Communications Minister Andimuthu Raja,prime accused in the 2G spectrum scam, told his wife in Tamil during hearings scheduled to readout the charges against him on Saturday morning.

What is thereWe have to ght, ght, ght, he told another well-wisher with a smile when thelatter greeted him inside the Delhi court where Special CBI Judge OP Saini framed the chargesagainst the 17 accused.

The accused, accompaniedby their police escorts and

an army of lawyers, packedthe small Central Bureau ofInvestigation court that wasalready jam-packed with re-porters and worried relativesof the accused.

Dressed in a white shirt andblack trousers, the rst ac-cused in the 2G case (Raja)looked the least bit troubled

by the criminal breach oftrust charge framed againsthim (among a series of othercharges under the IndianPenal Code and the Preven-tion of Corruption Act). If heis found guilty, he could facea life term.

But despite Rajas apparent nonchalance, his wife didnt seem to share his chirpy mood. Dressed

in a bright magenta silk saree, she sat next to a distraught Rajathi Ammal, mother of DMK RajyaSabha MP and 2G accused Kanimozhi, and wife of DMK boss M Karunanidhi.

Rajathi Ammal watched her daughter thoughtfully as Kanimozhi put on a brave face, talking andsmiling to acquaintances who were present in court.

Dressed in a green and black salwar kameez, Kanimozhi appeared to be at ease and seemed cheer-ful as she chatted with her son and husband, who were also sitting with Rajathi Ammal. She has

been charged under section 120 (b) read with section 409 of the IPC (criminal conspiracy) and sec-tion 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Her bail hearing is scheduled for Monday.

Swan Telecom promoter Shahid Balwa, in striped white shirt and jeans, looked unustered as hewatched the judge read out the charges. His mother looked almost tearful, praying with foldedhands, as she watched the proceedings, perplexed. With her were her husband, Balwas wife andother members from his family.


11/54

After the charges were read out, there was much confusion on how and under what section eachof the accused had been charged. Following the conclusion of the proceedings, the urry of activ-ity continued, with the accused sitting huddled with their lawyers and family members, discussingcharges and planning their next course of action.

The trial is scheduled to begin on 11 November.


12/54

Chapter: 2

The 2G note ruckus


13/54

2G spectrum: What, where andwho of a scandal

FP StaffSep 28, 2011

The 2G spectrum scandal is turning out to be a multi-faced mystery with a new revelation surfac-ing every day. The latest shocker is the Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjees note to the primeminister, which seeks to highlight that the current Home Minister P Chidambaram, who was thenance minister then, could have prevented the illegal 2G spectrum allocations. The scam wasenormous to begin with; it is getting bigger with the role of top ministers emerging.

There are even hints that the prime ministers ofce was in the know of the illegalities but pre-ferred to stay a mute spectator. This brings Prime Minister Manmohan Singh into the picture.

Firstpostgives you a quick recap of what the 2G case was really about, how it unfolded and who

were the people initially implicated in the case.

The 2G spectrum licenseswere announced in 2007and according to the initialannouncement made bythe government, eight newcompanies were to be giventelecom licences to startmobile services. The order

to the effect stated that theallocation would be madeon a rst-come-rst-served

basis. The licences were is-sued at the prices xed in2001 to keep tariffs low. Theidea behind the policy was toprovide cheaper services tothe customers.

But the major loophole, apoint which was exploitedby the companies later, was the lack of clarity on the terms and conditions on the rms and theirshareholding pattern. Some successful bidders availed their licenses at lower prices and then soldthem off at huge prots. Some companies were suspected to be proxies popped up by bigger play-ers. They sold a majority of their shares immediately after availing the licenses.

The awed policy pointed to the complicity of the department of telecom itself. For instance, SwanTelecom bagged licence for 13 circles for Rs 1,537 crore and then ofoaded 45 percent of shares toUAE based Etisalat for Rs 4,500 crore.

The loss to the exchequer was precisely because the policy ensured that while the initial biddersgot the licenses at cheaper prices; they got away with selling these at huge prots. According to theestimate of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India, the presumptive loss from the 2Gscam was Rs 1.76 lakh crore. The latest speculation is that while the bidders were selling off their


14/54

shares to foreign companies, those sales were actually overseen by the nance ministry at thattime. This is precisely why Chidambaram is being implicated in the scam now.

People whove been implicated in the scam

Former telecom minister A Raja, who is believed to have pushed this rather aky policy. In hisdefence Raja is stating that the allotment of spectrum was made on basis of recommendations byTRAI. Raja was arrested on 2 February, and charged with criminal conspiracy, cheating, abuse ofofce and forgery.

Siddhartha Behura, who was the secretary of the DoT then, has been charged with cheating andabuse of ofce.

RK Chandolia, who was the personal secretary of A Raja has been charged with cheating and abuseof ofce too.

On 8 February, the CBI also arrested Shahid Usman Balwa, Director of Swan Telecom Pvt Ltd, oncharges of criminal conspiracy, cheating and forgery. Swan Telecom is believed to be front com-

pany for Anil Ambanis Reliance Communications. In March, Asif Balwa, brother of Shahid Balwa,and Rajiv Agarwal from Kusegaon Fruits & Vegetables Pvt Ltd, were arrestd by the CBI. Balwa isalleged to have paid a bribe of nearly Rs 214 crore to A Raja for allotting licenses at throwawayprices.

The bribe was paid through a circitous route which involved the Kusegaon Fruits and VegetablesPvt Ltd company, Cineyug Films and Kalaignar Television in Chennai.

In April, the CBI followed it with arrests of Vinod Goenka, Director, Swan Telecom Pvt Ltd, forcriminal conspiracy, cheating and forgery, and the partner of Shahid Balwa in DB Realty, which

had oated Swan Telecom in the rst place.

The other persons who were arrested in the case were Sanjay Chandra Director, Unitech, GautamDoshi Group MD, Reliance ADAG, Hari Nair Company Secy, Reliance ADAG and Surendra PiparaSenior VP, Reliance ADAG charged with abetment to cheating, bribing government servants andforgery.

Kalaingar Television is owned by Karunanidhis daughter Kanimozhi and his rst wife Dayalu Am-mal. While Kanimozhi was arrested when the CBI led its second chargsheet, Dayalu Ammal wasnot because the CBI stated that she only speaks Tamil and thus could not be involved in the scam.

Kanimozhi, is charged with cheating, criminal conspiracy and accepting bribes. Along with her,Sharad Kumar the Managing Director of Kalaignar TV was also arrested on the same charges.

The 2G spectrum scam has thus revealed a major political and corporate nexus which ensuredmassive prots for those involved. As more details and the consequent name-calling goes on, it isclear that getting to the bottom of this scam is not going to be an easy task for the CBI.

For a complete look at our 2G scam coverage click here.
http://www.firstpost.com/?s=2G+scam+&submit=Submit#enhttp://www.firstpost.com/?s=2G+scam+&submit=Submit#en


15/54

2G note row: Pranab meets PM,Sonia after new letter surfaces

PTINov 1, 2011

Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee on Tuesday met Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Con-gress president Sonia Gandhi after surfacing of his letter which suggested his ministrys controver-sial 25 March note on 2G was revised after consultations with Cabinet Secretariat and the PMO.

Though it was not clear what transpired in these meetings, it is believed that the issue related tothe 26 September letter written by Mukherjee to the Prime Minister gured.

Congress, meanwhile, refused to be drawn into the issue but insisted there was no controversy.

Circumstances surrounding the note

have been discussed to death. We mustkeep in mind that the note is reiterationof what happened between December2003 and February 2011.

If at all there is any concern with regardto interpretation and sequence of thematter in the letter, then the judgementshould be left to the JPC, which has amandate to look into the entire gamut

of the spectrum allocation from 1998 to2009, party spokesperson Manish Te-

wari told reporters.

The Finance Ministry note of March 25had suggested that the then Finance Minister P Chidambaram could have averted the 2G scam in2008 if he had insisted on auctioning of Spectrum, triggering a huge controversy when it becamepublic in September.

At the height of the row over his ministrys note, Mukherjee had written to the prime ministersuggesting that the sentence which appeared to blame Chidambaram was revised after consulta-tion with the Cabinet Secretariat and the PMO.

Tewari said the 2G issue has gone to the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC), Parliaments Pub-lic Accounts Committee and the Supreme Court after the reiteration of the developments betweenDecember 2003 and February 2011 appeared in the note.

When you have a JPC, PAC and the court looking into the matter, rather than reading out judge-ments on an issue, allow the agencies to come out with their nal ndings, the Congress spokes-man said.

Asked whether the JPC will be look into the latest letter of Mr. Mukherjee, Tewari said that in thecourse of its deliberations, it is obviously going to look into these matters.

He, however, added let us not come to premature judgements and allow the JPC to complete theprobe.


16/54

BJP cries foul over Finmins noteon 2G scam

PTIOct 31, 2011

New Delhi: BJP today sought to create ruckus in the Joint Parliamentary Committee probing the2G scam that a Finance Ministry note seen by Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee has been tam-pered with.

At the meeting, the BJP members said the note of 23 March, two days prior to the controversial 2Gnote that sought to implicate then Finance Minister P Chidambaram, was changed.

The word perusal has been substituted forthe word approval in the note put up byadditional secretary in the Finance Minis-

try, the members claimed.

The note said that based on the discussionsand deeper and detailed examination ofthe facts of the case, a chronology of thefacts has been prepared which is culled outof details of the relevant notes and lettersexchanged from time to time.

The 23 March note says some of the in-

terpretations now put forth on detailedanalysis of records/correspondences are at

variance with the replies sent to PAC andCAG earlier.

The ofcial says the note may be put up to the nance minister for his perusal before it is sharedwith the Cabinet Secretariat and the Prime Ministers Ofce.

Referring to the draft performance Audit report on the issue of licences and allocation of 2G spec-trum by the DoT, the note says the Finance Ministry had forwarded its comments on each of the

issues raised in the draft report to DG (Audit).

These two replies were sent without the perusal by Finance Minister, it adds. But in January2011, while sending copies of these replies to the principal secretary to the prime minister and theCabinet Secretariat, the nance minister was informed.

We had also submitted extracts of the relevant les as required by the PAC vide letter dated Feb-ruary 17, 2011 to PAC Branch of Lok Sabha Secretariat with copy to Cabinet Secretariat with theapproval of the Finance Minister, the note says.


17/54

Pranab and Chidambaram meetPM over 2G note

PTISep 29, 2011

New Delhi: Amid the raging controversy over 2G note, Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee andHome Minister P Chidambaram today met Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to discuss the issue.

This is the rst time the two Ministerscame face to face since the controversy

broke out a week ago after the surfacingof a Finance Ministry note which sug-gested that the 2G scam could have beenavoided if Chidambaram as the thenFinance Minister in 2008 had insisted on

auctioning of spectrum.

The meeting of Mukherjee andChidambaram with the Prime Minister,the rst after his return from visit to New

York, came on a day of hectic discussionsin the Congress camp.

In the morning, Mukherjee met CongressPresident Sonia Gandhi after senior leaders A K Antony and Ahmed Patel held confabulations with

her.

Later, Law Minister Salman Khurshid and MoS in the PMO V Narayanasamy met Chidambarambefore he left for the meeting with the Prime Minister. All is well. Dont worry, Khurshid saidafter their 20-minute meeting with Chidambaram.

The 2G note of the Finance Ministry is believed to have caused frictions between Mukherjee andChidambaram which the party leadership is keen to end.


18/54

2G: Note that damns Chidu mayhave come from whistleblower

Raman KirpalSep 24, 2011

On 11 March this year, long after Andimuthu Raja was safely in jail, a deputy director in the -nance ministrys department of economic affairs prepared a factual dossier on the allocation andpricing of 2G spectrum from 2003 and sent it to the Prime Minister.

The document created a sensation on Thursday when news channels andFirstpostmade referenc-es to it, as it seemed to suggest that the nance ministrys previous incumbent, P Chidambaram,could have stopped the issue of 2G spectrum on the dictates of Raja if he so wanted.

The document, ostensibly given out in response to a Right to Information (RTI) query just whenSubramanian Swamy was requesting a CBI inquiry into Chidambarams role in the 2G scam, hasshaken the UPA government at a time when it could least afford it: both the PM and Finance Min-ister Pranab Mukherjee were away in the US, the former to attend the UN General Assembly ses-sion and the latter to attend the annual meetings of the World Bank and IMF.

Among other things, the document has raised questions about whether there is serious inghtingin the UPA between the former and present nance ministers, and why Mukherjees ofce wouldeven want to damage Chidambarams reputation now.

All three the PM, Mukherjee and Chidambaram are in damage control mode. While the PM

has defended Chidambaram strongly, Mukherjee is rushing to New York to meet the PM to sortthings out.

The question everyone is asking is this: why was the note, signed by PGS Rao, Deputy Director in


19/54

the Infrastructure and Investment Division of the Department of Economic Affairs, written in therst place?

Did the PMs Ofce (PMO) ask for it? Unlikely, since whenever the PMO asks for a response fromthe nance ministry, the note would have been signed by someone at the rank of joint secretary orabove. In most cases, the nance minister would himself sign off on notes sought by the PMO.

The note is accompanied by this information: A copy of basic facts prepared on allocation andpricing of 2G spectrum is enclosed. This has been seen by the nance minister (Pranab Mukher-

jee).

If the PM did not ask for the 10-page note, the FM himself is unlikely to have done it on his own.Moreover, by 11 March, Raja was already in the jail. On 2 March 2011, the Central Bureau of Inves-tigation (CBI) had already led its rst charge-sheet in the 2G scam and the Supreme Court had

begun monitoring it. A Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) had been set up to investigate thescam.

Then why this note? Insiders in the ministry suggest that the note could have been prepared by

a whistleblower who could be either PGS Rao himself or someone else who routed it through him.The discovery of the note through an RTI thus seems providential, for it spares no one by statingthe facts.

The note just gives a chro-nology of developmentsregarding the telecom pol-icy as implemented since2003. However, it indictsChidambaram the most.

Even the CBI, which has col-lected all the evidence fromthe les of the ministries ofnance and communicationsand even the PMO does nothave this note. In fact, allthe les concerning telecompolicy matters and Rajasdeals (till December 2010)are in the Supreme Courts

safe custody.

The whistleblower, however,seems to have kept additionalles on this matter. And he churned out a factual story that is difcult to refute.

The story starts from 2003. The note says: In 2003, the Union cabinet decided that DoT (Depart-ment of Telecommunication) and ministry of nance would discuss and nalise spectrum pricingformulae, which would include incentive for efcient use of spectrum as wells as disincentive forsub-optimal usage. This move was initiated by the then Communications Minister Arun Shourieof the BJP and was approved by the then Finance Minister Jaswant Singh.

In 2005, the UPA was in power and Chidambaram was the nance minister. The Telecom Regula-tory Authority of India (Trai), on 13 May 2005, recommended that spectrum charges should havetwo components: a one-time spectrum charge and annual spectrum charges. Chidambaram did not


20/54

question Trai, but suggested that price discovery through auction may not be appropriate. Instead,he suggested a hybrid option of a base fee, combined with revenue share.

Chidambaram suggested that it should be put up for consideration to the committee of secretariesand then to the Group of Ministers (GoM). But his department of economic affairs (DAE) did notfollow up on it, nor did DoT care about it.

The cabinet secretariat constituted a GoM on 23 February 2006 and subsequently DAE askedDoT to include issues relating to spectrum pricing within the ambit of the GoM. DoT, however,maintained that spectrum pricing was within the normal work of the ministry. On 18 May 2007,

when Raja had replaced Dayanidhi Maran as communications minister, the nance secretary againrequested that spectrum pricing be discussed and determined by the GoM.

DoT, however, responded that the use of spectrum was a dynamic issue and it had to be reviewedand considered from time to time in the context of changing technology in consultation with Trai.The nance ministry did not take up the issue further.

On 22 November 2007, Finance Secretary D Subbarao (now RBI Governor) argued for an auction

of spectrum, but DoT argued against it on the ground that it would disturb the level playing eldand existent spectrum holders, who had already paid entry fees in 2001, would go to court.

Against this backdrop, Raja issued 122 letter of intent (LOIs) on 10 January 2008, even when heknew that a Telecom Commission meeting was to be held to discuss the revision of entry fees on 15January 2008.

Here comes the blow for P Chidambaram. The 11 March note from PGS Rao says: the fact thata Telecom Commission meeting on the issue was scheduled on 15 January 2008 was also men-tioned; no response, however, was sent by DEA to DoT Finally, a note was sent by the then -

nance minister (Chidambaram) to the Prime Minister on 15 January 2008 The note of the -nance minister did not deal with the need, if any, to revise entry fee or the rate of revenue share.

Firstpostwas the rst to put Chidambarams 15 January note in the public domain, and this notehad called for burying the past and suggested auctions of additional spectrum only in the future.

To prove the factual basis of how telecom policy evolved, the nance ministry whistleblower haslisted 31 references in the annexure 10 annexures about exchange of correspondence on theissues relating to spectrum pricing being a part of the GoM; and 21 annexures about correspond-ence between the PM and the nance ministry on 2G spectrum/licence matter from April 2003

onwards.

The Supreme Court on Thursday categorically asked the CBI if they had seen and examined the 15January 2008 letter of Chidambaram. The CBI said yes and insisted that they did not nd any-thing discriminatory in it. It wasnt enough to charge Chidambaram with any criminal intent. Butthe CBI has not seen 11 March note of the whistleblower. Either it escaped the CBIs attention or it

just wasnt there.


21/54

JPC wants Finance Ministryscontroversial note on 2G

PTISep 23, 2011

New Delhi: The Joint Parliamentary Commiittee, or JPC, investigating the 2G scam, has writtento the Finance Ministry seeking its note, which said 2G spectrum, could have been auctioned ifthen Finance Minister P Chidambaram had insisted.

JPC Chairman P C Chacko said hehad written to the Finance Ministryas he was sure members would bedemanding it at the next meeting ofthe Committee on 27 and 28 Sep-tember.

We want to take cognizance ofthe note, Chacko said about thecommunication of March this year

which said 2G spectrum could havebeen auctioned if Chidambaram,then Finance Minister, had insisted.

Chacko said after news reports sur-faced citing the note from Finance

Ministry to Prime Minister Manmo-han Singh, he enquired whether it

was available with the JPC secretariat.

When he was told that it was not among the documents submitted to his secretariat, he wrote tothe Finance Ministry, he said.

He did not reply when asked whether Chidambaram would be called by the JPC.

Sources, however, noted that the Committee had already announced its blanket decision to callall former Finance Ministers and Finance Secretaries from 1998 onwards.

Under this sequence, Chidambarams turn will also come, they said.


22/54

Chapter: 3

The Chidu connection


23/54

Court defers hearing on pleaagainst Chidambaram in 2G scam

PTIOct 24, 2011

New Delhi: A special CBI court today deferred its hearing on Janata Partys president Subrama-nian Swamys plea to make Home Minister P Chidambaram a co-accused in the 2G spectrum case.

Special CBI Judge OP Saini adjournedthe hearing on the plea till 8 Novem-

ber after Swamy pointed out thathis application seeking a CBI probeagainst the minister is pending beforethe apex court.

Earlier, on 15 September, Swamy hadsought to record his testimony afreshalleging complicity of Chidambaramin spectrum pricing.

He had said the court should bringon record purported new facts thatChidambaram and former TelecomMinister A Raja had a role in decid-ing 2G spectrum prices and entry fee.

The fact that the above named two ministers together decided that the prices of spectrum and en-try fee should be lumped together at the 2001 level and decided against the market price of 2007-08 period for the entry fee, is conrmed by the speech of the Prime Minister in Rajya Sabha on 24February, 2011, Swamy had said in his application.

Swamy, who is pursuing a private complaint in the 2G scam, had also sought to examine CBI of-cials concerned to establish the nexus of accused persons with others, who have intentionally not

been made accused by the prosecuting agency.

Watch Video
http://av.firstpost.com/2011/10/swamy_on_hearing.mp4


24/54

2G scam: Court reserves notice,CBI opposes probe againstChidambaram

PTIOct 10, 2011

The Supreme Court today reserved notice against Subramanian Swamys plea for a probe intoHome Minister Chidambarams role in the 2G scam. The court opposed the two applications, oneled by Prashant Bhushan asking for the setting up of an SIT to monitor the 2G case, and two,Subramanian Swamys application seeking probe in Chidambarams role.

When hearing commenced, the CBI led thecharge, followed by the Central governmentcouncil, both strongly opposing both demands.

The CBI said that demands for an SIT, and tomake Tata, Chidu and Anil Ambani accusedin the case would be throwing a cloud at CBIinvestigations. Moreover, the SC found CBIsinvestigations into the case satisfactory. TheCBI and the central government also said therehas been no precedent of an SIT being set upover and above the CBI.

Reacting to the court verdict, Swamy said:

They had no arguments. All their argumentswere based on technicality. It would be proper

for the Manmohan Singh government to suo moto order a CBI enquiry instead of suffering theshame of having the SC to order to do so.

Watch Video
http://av.firstpost.com/2011/10/201852_chiduswamyfinal-1.mp4


25/54

Chapter: 4

Do the numbers add up?


26/54

PAC to re-examine CAG report on2G scam

PTIOct 10, 2011

New Delhi: Parliaments Public Accounts Committee is all set to reopen examination of the CAGreport on the 2G scam by calling an ofcial who had conducted audit of the controversial allocationof airwaves in 2008.

PAC has decided to call RP Singh, formerDirector General of Audit (Post and Tel-ecommunications), at its next meeting asa witness. The Committee is expected toquestion him on the methods he used toestimate the losses in the 2G spectrum

allocation.

PAC Chairman Murli Manohar Joshi gavethis ruling at a meeting of the Commit-tee today after Congress member SanjayNirupam pointed to media reports whichstated that the CAG had overruled a jun-ior ofcial in estimation of losses in the2G scam.

Singh retired from the post on August 31. CAG Vinod Rai and Deputy CAG Rekha Gupta have alsobeen asked to explain to the Committee the methodology used for calculating the 2G losses.

RTI queries have revealed that Singh, in internal communications, had pegged the 2G losses atRs 2645 crore, much less than the presumptive loss of Rs 1.76 lakh crore stated by the CAG in itsreport.

Nirupam, in a letter to Joshi, had said that questioning of CAG ofcials should be the sole agendafor the meeting to allow members of the committee to comprehend thematter and decide on thefuture course of action. The PAC draft report on 2G scam had criticised the then Finance MinisterP Chidambaram and raised questions on the PMOs rst-come rst-serve basis policy in allocatingthe radiowaves.

Watch the CNN-IBN report on PAC summoning CAG:
http://av.firstpost.com/2011/10/183103_pacsummons.mp4


27/54

2G: Loss numbers dont mattermuch, but crime is key

Akshaya Mishra Oct 3, 2011

Rs 1,76, 000 crore is a dramatic number. That was one of the presumptive loss gures from the2008 2G spectrum allocations made by A Raja at 2001 prices, according to the Comptroller and

Auditor General (CAG) of India, Vinod Rai. It had its impact. It is part of the nations collectiveconsciousness now.

Rs 2,645 crore is not a small number either, though it pales in comparison with Rs 1,76,000 crore.This is the number supposed to have been arrived at by RP Singh, Director General of Audit (Post& Telecommunications), who conducted the 2G audit. Rai, according to a report in The IndianExpress, overruled it. He based his estimates on the auction of 3G spectrum prices, among otherthings, while Singh pegged it on the basis of ination costs.

The Central Vigilance Com-mission has put the lossgure at Rs 26,000 crore

while the Central Bureauof Investigation (CBI) at ashade beyond Rs 30,000crore. Telecom MinisterKapil Sibal has gone onrecord saying there waszero

loss to the exchequer fromthe spectrum transaction

but not many have boughthis estimates. There areother estimates based on theprices at which the bene-ciaries sold off spectrumafter availing themselvesof spectrum on Rajas ver-sion of the rst-come-rst-served policy evolved during

the NDA regime.

But these numbers serve to confuse rather than clarify. What is central to the 2G scam is not thenumbers oating around. It is the criminality and criminal intent involved in the allocation proc-ess by Raja and the alleged violation of the governments Business Transaction Rules that governcrucial nancial decisions.

Rajas crime is simple. He circumvented rules to favour companies who did not meet the eligibilityconditions for the licences. After he adopted the rst-come-rst-served basis for the allocation ofspectrum, Raja advanced the cutoff date for receiving applications by a week from 1 October 2007

to 25 September. This was done allegedly with the specic intent of favouring some rms close tohim.

This connes the 2G spectrum scandal to Raja alone. It was his decision.


28/54

The scope of the scandal gets wider when broader issues like Business Transaction Rules come intothe picture. The cabinet decision of 31 October 2003 with which the Department of Telecom con-curred in the present case species that the DoT and ministry of nance (MoF) would discussand nalise spectrum pricing formula, which will include incentive for efcient use of spectrum as

well as disincentive for sub-optimal usages.

According to the report of Justice Shivaraj Patil, which studied the allocations, the spectrum pric-ing had to be nalised by DoT and MoF as required by the cabinet decision of 2003. The report ofthe CAG, too, points at the lapse. But bigger than the relevance of the 2003 decision is Rule 4 ofthe Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules.

Article 77(3) of the Constitution clearly stipulates that any decision which may involveany abandonment of revenue or otherwise have a nancial bearing, whether involving expendi-ture or not, cannot be done without the concurrence of the nance ministry. In case the nanceministry fails to take a position, the issue would be decided by the cabinet.

Clearly there are too many loose ends in the governments position here. It has not even comeup with a coherent argument on whether Rajas decision was his own or it had the approval of

Chidambaram, the nance minister then. It has now come to light that senior ofcials at the -nance ministry were in favour of revising the prices at which spectrum was sold they were soldat 2001 prices and taking the auction route. Did Chidambaram work in tandem with Raja?

This gives credence to the oppositions position that the home minister is as much responsible forthe 2G mess as Raja is. He did not stop the latter.

Under Rule 7 of the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules, all the cases specied inthe second schedule, which include cases involving nancial implications on which the minister ofnance desires a decision of the cabinet, and the cases in which a difference of opinion arises be-

tween two or more ministers and a cabinet decision is desired, must be brought before the cabinet.Chidambaram, obviously, did not resort to it.

Was it nally an act of omission or commission from Chidambaram? That is for the Supreme Courtto decide.

Getting into numbers and different calculations of the loss gure at this point hints at an effort todistract attention from the core issue. It does not matter whether CAG came up with a number that

was fantastic. Rs 2,645 crore would not have lessened the crime in any way.


29/54

Chapter: 5

Maxis Mayhem


30/54

Was Malaysian govt silent partnerin Maxis-Maran deal?

Raman KirpalNov 3, 2011

The 2G scam is beginning to create ripples abroad. While that was always likely with companiesranging from Etisalat to Telenor and Maxis having invested in Indian partners who are now undera cloud of suspicion or in jail for the rst time a foreign government has begun to be impactedindirectly.

Reason: Maxis group, which is a Malaysia-based group owned by T Ananda Krishnan, and theMalaysian government are partners in Astro, which invested Rs 629 crore in Sun Direct TV, theMaran familys direct-to-home company.

If, as the Central Bureau of

Investigation (CBI) alleges,Krishnan paid Rs 550 crore tothe Sun TV Group for allegedfavours shown by DayanidhiMaran when he was Commu-nications Minister, by impli-cation the Malaysian govern-ments money has been usedfor something illegal thoughit may have been completely

unaware of it.

The CBI stumbled uponMalaysian government links

while investigating DayanidhiMarans alleged role in forc-ing C Sivasankaran to sellhis stake in Aircel to MaxisGroup. It found that Khaz-

anah Nasional, a Malaysian government-run company, owns nearly 40 percent in Astro All Asia

Networks.

Astro, which is majority-owned by Krishnan, is alleged to have invested in Sun Direct, allegedly asa quid pro quo for favours shown to Maxis in spectrum licences. The Sun TV group is run by Daya-nidhi Marans brother Kalanithi.

Khazanahs chairman is none other Malaysian Prime Minister Haji Mohammed Najib bin Tun HajiAbdul Razak (or Najib Razak, for short). Given its high stake in Astro, the chairman of Astro is agovernment appointee former government minister Haji Badri Haji Masri.

The situation is tricky for the CBI, which is planning to send a number of letters rogatory (LRs)

to Malaysia to seek information on Ananda Krishnans companies and activities. The LRs will besent on the assumption that the Malaysian government does not know about the details of AnandaKrishnans corporate involvement with the Sun TV Group. But with Ananda Krishnan now becom-ing an accused in the 2G scam case, it is becoming embarrassing both for him and the Malaysian


31/54

government, which is his partner.

CBI sources are in the process of sending a formal request to the Malaysian government for in-formation, which, they believe, could set off separate formal investigations against Krishnan forpaying the alleged bribe from a company in which the government has a high stake. KhazanahNasional has listed Astro as one of its industry partners on its website. The website says: Khaz-anah Nasional is a driving force in shaping selected strategic industries in Malaysia, nurturingtheir development and doing so with the objective of pursuing the nations long-term economicinterests. In its code of ethics, which applies to all its partners, including Astro, Khazanah be-lieves in sustainable business relationships based on the key principles of integrity, accountability,management of conicts of interests, honest representation, compliance with applicable laws andregulations and gifts policy.

In its annual report, Astro says that its wholly-owned subsidiary South Asia Entertainment Hold-ings Ltd (SAEHL) subscribed to shares in Sun Direct, in which it holds a 20 percent stake. Astros2010 annual report reads: As on 31 January 2010, the group had invested some INR 5,990 million(Malaysian ringgit 490 million) in Sun Direct TV for a 20 percent equity interest. During the year,the group accounted for INR 1,102 million (RM81 million) for its share of the anticipated start-up

losses arising in Sun Direct TV.

Its not yet known if Astros chairman and government appointee Haji Badri Haji Masri was awarethat some of this investment may have been made for collateral reasons. Astros deputy chairmanand group CEO Ralph Marshall, however, knew about the malade intentions, the CBI claims.He too nds himself listed as an accused in the 2G scam.

The CBI, which has named Ananda Krishnan as an accused in its FIR, charges that Sun DirectTV had grossly overvalued its assets. Astro bought a 20 percent stake for Rs 629 crore, while theMaran family paid only Rs 79 crore to buy 80 percent in the company. Thus Astro pumped in an

additional Rs 550 crore for favours showered by Dayanidhi Maran.

The CBI claims in its FIR that Maran had favoured Maxis Communications by clearing seven spec-trum deals and, in return for this favour, Maxis sister concern Astro invested Rs 629 crore at therate of Rs 69.57 per share.

As the CBI readies its formal LR to seek help from the Malaysian judicial and regulatory authori-ties, it expects the news to impact Malaysian politics. As a near 40 percent owner of Astro, theproportionate part of the quid pro quo amount of Rs 550 crore would be Rs 220 crore. This can,quite legitimately, be considered as use of government funds for unintended purposes and per-

sonal gains.

Astro could theoretically claim that it had to do some things to gain entry in a foreign market withopaque rules. In fact, its report to shareholders says it faces risks of unexpected changes in laws,regulations, licensing, taxation and other policies, as it invests in foreign ventures and operatesoverseas. Whether this broad disclosure will cut any ice with the Malaysian government remains to

be seen and also whether the CBI manages to prove quid pro quo.

The CBI, in its LRs, clearly mentions criminal intent on the part of Ananda Krishnan and RalphMarshall in investing funds in the Maran familys Sun Direct business.
http://www.khazanah.com.my/portfolio.htm#com7http://www.khazanah.com.my/portfolio.htm#com7


32/54

Damning FIR: CBI says Marangot Rs 550 crore for Maxis favour

Raman KirpalOct 12, 2011

Former Communications Minister Dayanidhi Maran beneted indirectly by Rs 549,96,01,793 (Rs549.96 crore) as quid pro quo for various favours to Aircel, owned by Malaysia-based companyMaxis, alleges a new First Information Report (FIR) led by the Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI) in the 2G spectrum case early this week.Firstposthas seen the FIR that has been led.

The amount of Rs 550 crore (rounded up) was allegedly received by a company owned by Maransbrother Kalanithi, and is much larger than the Rs 200 crore allegedly paid to Andimuthu Raja.

Raja, who had succeededMaran in the ministry, is

said to have favoured SwanTelecom and the latters pro-moters had in turn given Rs200 crore to DMK-control-led Kalaignar TV. DMK chiefM Karunanidhis daughterKanimozhi is in jail for that,though she claims the mon-ey was a loan and has since

been returned.

According to the FIR, on 1June 2007, a Mumbai-basedcompany Enam SecuritiesPvt Ltd had determined the

valuation of Sun Direct TV,owned by the Maran family,in the range of Rs 3,465.76

crore and Rs 4,039 crore.

The FIR says it was grossly overvalued. In 2007, Tata Sky, with 50 percent of the DTH market,had a fair value of Rs 2,500 crore. Sun Direct TV, which had not even rolled out its DTH services,at best had a value of Rs 400 crore, argues the FIR.

The miscalculation in valuation of Sun TV was deliberate, it would seem. Maran had cleared sevenlicence and spectrum deals with Maxis Communication and, as an equal and fair favour, Maxissister concern Astro All Asia Networks invested Rs 629 crore at the rate of Rs 69.57 per share, al-leges the FIR. Astro bought 20 percent stake in Sun Direct TV.

In contrast, Marans brother Kalanithi Maran bought 80 percent equity at the rate of Rs 10 a share.At this rate, Astro was supposed to spend only Rs 79 crore for 20 percent stakes. So calculating the

bribe amount on a pro-rata basis, Astro pumped in additional Rs 550 crore for favours showeredby Dayanidhi Maran .

The FIR begins with a retelling of how Maran had designs to favour Maxis Communications and


33/54

how he counselled former Aircel owner C Sivasankaran to sell his 100 percent stake in Aircel toMaxis. According to the report, Maran had malade intentions in forcing Siva to sell Aircel to T

Ananda Krishnan of Maxis. He sat over Sivasankarans applications for spectrum for years by is-suing show-cause notices. Despite repeated requests to meet Maran in 2005, the latter declined tomeet Siva for ulterior motives.

Immediately after, the report says, Ralph Marshall, who is CEO of Maxis Communications, metSivasankaran and told him to sell his company, as he had already taken all the necessary clear-ances from the Maran brothers.

On 12 November 2005, the FIR says, Kalanithi Maran met Siva in Chennai with his brother Daya-nidhis message that Siva should sell his 100 percent stakes in the company and my brother willcall you.

Things moved very quickly thereafter. The same day (12 November 2005) Maran called Siva, in-structing him to work out the deal with Maxis and moments after Siva met Ralph Marshall at TajCoromandal Hotel, Chennai. Marshall made Siva talk to T Ananda Krishnan on telephone.

The deal was struck. Four months later, Astro All Asia Networks through South Asia Entertain-ment Holding Ltd, invested $166 million (Rs 629 crore, according to the CBI FIR) in Sun DirectTV Private Ltd. Maran allegedly took Rs 550 crore as quid pro quo and rendered a disservice to thenation, theFIR adds. (Click for document)
http://www.firstpost.com/politics/damning-fir-cbi-says-maran-got-rs-550-crore-for-maxis-favour-105951.htmlhttp://www.firstpost.com/politics/damning-fir-cbi-says-maran-got-rs-550-crore-for-maxis-favour-105951.html


34/54

CBI may have enough on Maranto ask for his arrest

R Jagannathan Oct 10, 2011

With the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) ling a rst information report (FIR) againstformer Communications Minister Dayanidhi Maran, the stage is set for his formal arrest shortly.Maran will be the second former cabinet minister to face arrest after A Raja, who succeeded Maranas communications minister in May 2007.

CBI sources, who believe their case against Maran is as strong as, if not stronger than, the oneagainst A Raja, say they have seized several documents from the raids on Marans premises inDelhi and Chennai on Monday.Firstposthas access to some of these documents and the story thatemerges is that Maran helped the promoters of Aircel the Malaysian Maxis Group with licencesand spectrum for a consideration of around Rs 625 crore.

Maran, who was the youngestcabinet minister at 38 whenhe joined the UPA govern-ment in 2004, allegedly pres-sured C Sivasankaran to sellhis stake in Aircel to T Anan-da Krishnan, owner of Maxis.Sivasankarans requests forlicences and spectrum were

delayed to add to the pressureto sell to Maxis.Dayanidhi Maran

The CBI rst informationreport mentions DayanidhiMaran, his brother and SunTV owner Kalanithi Maran, T

Ananda Krishnan, and AstroAll Asia Networks CEO Ralph

Marshall. The agency hasalready sent a Letter Rogatory (a judicial request for help on information from another country) toMalaysia to ascertain the details of Maxis Communications ownership structure and for informa-tion on the groups other companies, including Astro All Asia Networks.

The following, according to the CBI, is the chronology of the conspiracy allegedly hatched by Daya-nidhi Maran:

C Sivasankaran, who earlier owned Aircel (then known as Dishnet Wireless Ltd), had applied forspectrum in 2004 and 2005 for six circlesSee document.

Maran choked Sivasankaran by sitting over his applications for nearly two years and thus forcedhim to sell Aircel to Malaysia-based Maxis Group.

On 23 February 2006, the UPA government set up a Group of Ministers and authorised it to de-
http://www.firstpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Maran-Documents-001.jpghttp://www.firstpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Maran-Documents-001.jpg


35/54

cide on the pricing of spectrum.

Five days later, on 28 February 2006, Maran wrote to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh stronglyobjecting to GoMs power to decide on the spectrum pricing issue. He said GoM should focus itsefforts on getting defence to vacate spectrum, and pricing should be left to his ministry.See documents

In November 2006, when Aircel was with T Ananda Krishnan, Maran released spectrum to Air-cel.

On 5 April 2007 before Maran left the communications ministry a Maxis Group media com-pany, Astro All Asia Networks, through South Asia Entertainment Holding Ltd, invested US $166million (Rs 625 crore) in Sun Direct TV Private Ltd owned by Dayanidhi Marans brother KalanithiMaran.

Maxis Group invested Rs 625 crore for a 20 percent stake in Sun Direct, when Kalanithi allocated80 percent of the shares to himself at just Rs 10 per share.

At the price at which Maxis bought its Sun Direct stake, the company was being valued at Rs2,700 crore when it had not even rolled out its direct-to-home services. Tata Sky and Dish TV,

which had over 15 lakh subscribers each and a 50:50 share of the DTH market, were valued atmuch less than Rs 2,700 crore. CBI thinks Sun Direct TV overvalued itself to camouage the con-sideration received from Maxis Group.

In its quarterly report, Astro All Asia Networks said: Sun Direct TV, the DTH joint-venture in In-dia, is on track for a service rollout by end 2007/early 2008. Typical of similar start-ups, the busi-ness is expected to incur losses The group expects to account for its share of Sun Direct TV lossesof up to US $166 million representing its 20 per cent equity stake, over a period of ve years. See

document 1 andSee document 2.

Maxis Group also invested Rs 100 crore in Sun FM Radio Network and acquired a minority stakeof 20 percent.

Aircel had only two telecom licences till 2004, but by 2006 it sold licences and spectrum at 2001prices in 21 more circles, making it a pan-India operator. The licence period of Aircel for ChennaiCircle was also extended without any fee.

Aircel beneted through the allotment of excess spectrum of 3.6 MHz, which was beyond the up-

per limit laid down in the Unied Access Service Licence (UASL), which, according to the Comp-troller of Auditor General, caused a loss to the public exchequer of Rs 75 crore.

Maran served as communications minister for three years. He fell out of favour with his granduncle, DMK supremo M Karunanidhi, in May 2007 and was forced to resign. His place was taken

by Andimuthu Raja, now in jail. However, by 2009, the relationship with Karunanidhi had beenmended, and Maran returned to the Union cabinet as textiles minister. He was forced to resignagain in the wake of the CBIs investigations against him in the 2G spectrum scam.

Marans tenure as communications minister was notable for dropping call rates and the decision toraise the foreign direct investment limit to 74 percent. But it also set the stage for possible spec-

trum scandals later.

Initial CBI investigations suggest that 2G spectrum money worth Rs 1,000 crore may have beentraded during Marans term. During his tenure, Maran allocated over 70 bits of spectrum to GSM
http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/68167500?access_key=key-2o5mxrl7x32u5han93r6http://www.firstpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Maran-Documents-1-001.jpghttp://www.firstpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Maran-Documents-2-001.jpghttp://www.firstpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Maran-Documents-2-001.jpghttp://www.firstpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Maran-Documents-1-001.jpghttp://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/68167500?access_key=key-2o5mxrl7x32u5han93r6


36/54

(Global System of Mobile) operators.

Sivasankaran launched the Aircel brand in Tamil Nadu after he bought over RPG Cellular in TamilNadu and cornered over 2.2 million subscribers in quick time.

A Raja

That was just four months before Maran came in as communications minister. Marans antago-nism to Sivasankaran is traced to the time when he aligned himself with the Tata group, which hada tieup with Rupert Murdochs direct-to-home project, Tata Sky. The latter was in direct competi-tion with the Sun Network owned by Kalanithi Maran, and had already got a head start over SunDirect in DTH.

The CBI believes that Ma-ran targeted the Tatas and

Aircel immediately afterhe took over as minister.Though Siva was known forlaunching new projects and

then selling them for a biggain, his sudden exit from

Aircel caught the CBIs eye.A year after Maran tookover, Sivasankaran sold hisstake to Maxis Communica-tions and the Reddys of the

Apollo Group of Hospitalsfor Rs 4,700 crore.

Reddy came close to theMaran family in 2000, whenDayanidhis father MurasoliMaran was miraculously

saved from a rare cardiac condition, hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy, by the ChennaiApollo Hospital. I have got my life back. I am really proud of this world-class institution, said thesenior Maran on the day he was discharged after a 34-day stay in the hospital.

Maxis, which holds a 74 percent stake in the Aircel group, also has a sizeable investment in SunNetwork thorough its sister concern Astro. Apollos Dr Pratap C Reddy and his family theoretically

control 26 percent in Aircel but Maxis is probably the real benecial owner of the bulk of theReddy stake.

In 2004, when the Tatas joined hands with Sivasankarans Dishnet Wireless Ltd (now Aircel),Dishnet sought more UASL licences. The then telecom secretary had endorsed the application, butMarans ofce put up a note demanding details that were vague and irrelevant, according to theJustice Shivraj V Patil Committee. The committees mandate was to look into procedural lapsesduring 2001-09 in the communications ministry.

But once Siva was out, the Marans cleared spectrum for Dishnet Wireless in Kolkata within a day.Dishnet had a cellular service in West Bengal, but it did not have enough spectrum. On 4 April

2007, a proposal was put up for the allocation of spectrum, and Telecom Secretary DS Mathurcleared the proposal within a day with the noting that the matter had been discussed with the min-ister.


37/54

The Justice Patil Committee report faulted the functioning of Maran during his tenure from May2004 to May 2007. The report says Maran did not consult the Telecom Commission and ignoredthe Group of Ministers (GoM) while taking crucial policy decisions.

Actions during Mr Marans tenure fell foul of the procedures laid down in the government of India(Transactions of Business) Rules, which stipulate that when a policy has any nancial bearing, noorders shall be issued without the concurrence of the nance ministry. The minister deviated fromextant policy by not discussing the issue of determining the entry fee for telecom licence with thenance ministry, the report reads.

Its another matter, that neither P Chidambaram, the then nance minister, and the PMO, en-forced the same business transaction rules. Maran, like his successor Raja, effectively ran his ownspectrum policy by violating the business transaction rules.

His sins may be catching up on him now.


38/54

Maxis owns eective 99% ofAircel through Suneeta Reddy

Raman KirpalSep 16, 2011

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has stumbled upon a new possible irregularity in theshareholding structure of Aircel, an all-India mobile services operator owned by Malaysian entre-preneur T Ananda Krishnans Maxis Group.

While the CBI is checking to see if Maxis was shown any special favours by the then Communica-tions Minister Dayanidhi Maran, it now appears as if Maxis is an indirect owner of the nearly 99percent of Aircel. Telecom regulations do not allow foreign parties to own more than 74 percent inIndian mobile phone companies.

While investigating C Sivas-

ankarans allegation that Ma-ran pressured him to sell hisstake in Aircel to Maxis, theCBI stumbled upon the realshareholding pattern of Aircel.

While 65 percent of the equityis held by Maxis directly, the

balance 35 percent is held byDeccan Digital, in which Maxis(through subsidiaries) has 26

percent and Sindya Securities& Investment Pvt Ltd 74 per-cent.

Sindya belongs to P Dwar-akanath Reddy and SuneetaReddy , who is Joint ManagingDirector of the Apollo Hospi-tals Group.

With this equity structure, Maxis gets an effective 74 percent holding in Aircel (65 percent directly,and an effective 9 percent through Deccan).

But heres the dicey part. While Sindhya paid Rs 34.17 crore for its 74 percent equity stake in Dec-can, Maxis paid Rs 11.82 crore for the equity and also invested Rs 1,664 in the preference capital ofDeccan. In short, the total investment of the Maxis Group in Aircel is a whopping Rs 7,880.8 croreagainst just Rs 34.17 crore by Sindya.

According to CBI sources, this investment break-up suggests that Sindya is just a front for Maxisand hence needs to be investigated further by the enforcement directorate for possible ForeignExchange Management Act violations.

CBI had questioned Suneeta Reddy early this week to nd links between T Ananda Krishnan, theReddy family and Dayanidhi Maran.Firstposthas requested Suneeta Reddy for her version ofevents by email, but did not receive any reply at the time of writing.


39/54

Interestingly, Ananda Krishnan, a Malaysian businessman of Sri Lankan Tamil origin, did not hidehis 99 percent ownership from the Malasiyan stock exchange, Bursa Malaysia, in a March 2006ling. Krishnan said: With equity interest of 74 percent in Aircel and 100 percent subscription ofcumulative redeemable non-convertible preference shares in Deccan Digital, this effectively givesthe group 99.3 percent economic returns from the investment in Aircel.

CBI is in the process of acquiring all the concerned documents from Malaysia.

The Telecommunication Ministry under Dayanidhi Maran allotted 2G spectrum to Aircel in 14 cir-cles without verifying the holding structure of Aircel. In 2004, Aircel existed only in two circles Chennai Metro circle and Tamil Nadu circle. C Sivasankaran, then the owner of Aircel, had appliedfor Unied Access Service Licence (UASL) 13 times, but Maran raised objections and issued showcause notices on various pretexts.

Maran began allotting telecom circle licences only after T Ananda Krishnan of the Maxis Groupbecame the majority owner of Aircel. On 16 May 2006, Dayanidhi Marans ministry delinked allthe show-cause notices served on Aircel in the past and initiated a process to allot spectrum to

Aircel under Ananda Krishnan. Withing nine days (between 20 and 29 November), Aircel became

the eighth largest telecom company in the country, as Maran cleared all the pending requests forUASLs to Aircel.

Firstposthad earlier reported that Krishnan had reciprocated favours received from DayanidhiMaran by investing Rs 725 crore in the Maran familys companies Sun TV Group. KrishnansGroup company South Asia Entertainment Holding Ltd. (SAEHL) invested Rs 625 crore in Sun Di-rect for a 20 percent state in the company. And Maran family had invested Rs 12.6 crore to own theremaining stake (80 percent). Besides, Maxis had invested Rs 100 crore in Sun FM Radio Networkand acquired a minority stake of 20 percent.


40/54

Chapter: 6

The Backstory


41/54

2G Scam: A comprehensivetimeline

PTIOct 22, 2011

New Delhi: Following is the chronology of the events related to the 2G spectrum allocation scamcase in which former Telecom Minister A Raja is the main accused:

May, 2007: A Raja takes over as Telecom Minister.

Aug, 2007: Process of allotment of 2G spectrum for telecom along with Universal Access Service(UAS) Licences initiated by the Department of Telecommunications (DoT).

Sept 25, 2007: Telecom Ministry issues press note xing deadline for application as October 1,

2007.

Oct 1, 2007: DoT receives 575 applications for UAS licences of 46 companies.

Nov 2, 2007: The Prime Minister writes to Raja directing him to ensure allotment of 2G spec-trum in a fair and transparent manner and to ensure that licence fee was properly revised. Raja

writes back to the Prime Minister rejecting many of his recommendations.

Nov 22, 2007: Finance Ministry writes to DoT raising concerns over the procedure adopted by it.Demand for review rejected.

Jan 10, 2008: DoT decides to issue licences on rst-come-rst-serve basis, preponing the cut-offdate toSeptember 25, from October 1, 2007. Later on the same day, DoT posted an announcement on its

website saying those who apply between 3.30 pm and 4.30 pm would be issued licences in accord-


42/54

ance with the said policy.

2008: Swan Telecom, Unitech and Tata Teleservices sell off a part of their stakes at much higherrates to Etisalat, Telenor and DoCoMo, respectively.

May 4, 2009: An NGO Telecom Watchdog les complaint to the Central Vigilance Commission(CVC) on the illegalities in the spectrum allocation to Loop Telecom.

May 19, 2009: Another complaint was led to the CVC by Arun Agarwal, highlighting grant ofspectrum to Swan Telecom at throwaway prices.

2009: CVC directs CBI to investigate the irregularities in allocation of 2G spectrum.

July 1, 2009: Delhi HC holds advancing of cut-off date as illegal on a petition of telecom com-pany S-Tel.

Oct 21, 2009: CBI registers a case and les an FIR against unknown ofcers of DoT and un-known private persons/companies under various provisions of IPC and Prevention of Corruption

Act.

Oct 22, 2009: CBI raids DoT ofces.

Nov 16, 2009: CBI seeks details of tapped conversation of corporate lobbyist Niira Radia to ndout involvement of middlemen in the grant of spectrum to telecom companies.

Mar 31, 2010: CAG says that there was large scale irregularities in the spectrum allocation.

Apr 2, 2010: CBI DIG Vineet Agarwal and DG I-T Milap Jain, who were investigating the case,

transferred.

May 6, 2010: Telephonic conversation between Raja and Niira Radia made public by the media.

May, 2010: NGO Centre for Public Interest litigation moves the Delhi High Court seeking investi-gation into the scam by SIT or CBI.

May 25, 2010: Delhi HC dismisses the petition.

Aug, 2010:Appeal led in the Supreme Court against the High Courts order.

Aug 18, 2010: HC refuses to direct the Prime Minister to decide on a complaint by Janata Partychief Swamy seeking sanction to prosecute Raja for his involvement in 2G scam.

Sept 13, 2010: SC asks government, Raja to reply within 10 days to three petitions led by CPILand others alleging there was a Rs 70,000 crore scam in the grant of telecom licences in 2008.

Sept 24, 2010: Swamy moves SC seeking direction to the PM to sanction prosecution of Raja.

Sept 27, 2010: Enforcement Directorate informs SC of probe against rms suspected to haveviolated FEMA. Says cant deny or conrm now Rajas involvement in the scam.

Oct 8, 2010: SC asks government to respond to CAG report about the scam.

Oct 21, 2010: Draft reports of CAG placed before the Supreme Court.


43/54


44/54

case.

Dec 8, 2010: ED submits report. Says money trail covers 10 countries, including Mauritius.

Dec 14, 2010: Another PIL in SC seeking cancellation of new telecom licences and 2G spectrumallocated during Rajas tenure.

Dec 15, 2010: Swamy les petition in a Delhi court seeking his inclusion as a public prosecutor in2G spectrum case.

Dec 15, 2010: Swamy mentions in complaint that Raja favoured ineligible private companiesSwan Telecom Pvt Ltd and Unitech Wireless Ltd in allocating the spectrum.

Jan 4, 2011: Swamy moves SC seeking cancellation of 2G spectrum licences.

Jan 10, 2011: Supreme Court issues notice to Centre on the plea seeking cancellation of 2G li-censes. Also issues notices to 11 companies which allegedly did not fulll the roll-out obligations or

were ineligible.

Jan 30, 2011: Governments decision to regularise licences of the companies which failed to meetthe deadline for roll-out obligation challenged in the Supreme Court.

Feb 2, 2011: Raja, former Telecom Secretary Siddartha Behura and Rajas former Personal Secre-tary R K Chandolia arrested and next day they were remanded in CBI custody.

Feb 8, 2011: Raja remanded to two more days of CBI custody. Behura and Chandolia sent to judi-cial custody.

Feb 8, 2011: Shahid Usman Balwa, promoter of Swan Telecom, arrested by CBI.

Feb 10, 2011: SC asks the CBI to bring under its scanner corporate houses which were beneciar-ies of the 2G spectrum. Raja remanded to CBI custody for four more days by a special CBI courtalong with Balwa.

Feb 14, 2011: Rajas CBI custody extended for three more days. Balwas custody extended for fourdays.

Feb 17, 2011: Raja sent to Tihar Jail under judicial custody.

Feb 18, 2011: Balwa sent to judicial custody.

Feb 24, 2011: CBI tells a Delhi court that Balwa facilitated transaction to Kalaignar TV.

Feb 28, 2011: Raja seeks judicial proceedings through video conferencing stating that he facesthreat to life from fellow prisoners.

Mar 1, 2011: CBI tells SC that 63 persons are under scanner. Raja allowed by CBI court to appearbefore it via video-conferencing.

Mar 14, 2011: The Delhi High Court sets up special court to deal exclusively with 2G cases. Balwaalso allowed to appear via video-conferencing.

Mar 29, 2011: SC permits CBI to le charge sheet on April 2 instead of March 31. Two more per-


45/54

sons Asif Balwa and Rajeev Agarwal arrested.

Apr 2, 2011: The CBI les its rst charge sheet in the 2G spectrum allocation scam.

Apr 25, 2011: CBI les second charge sheet and court issues summons to Kanimozhi, SharadKumar and Karim Morani taking congizance of the charge sheet.

May 6, 2011: Kanimozhi and Sharad Kumar appears before court and les bail pleas while Mo-rani sought exemption from appearance on medical ground.

May 7, 2011: Court reserves order on Kanimozhi and Sharad Kumars bail applications.

May 14, 2011: Court defers order on their bail pleas for May 20.

May 20, 2011: Court rejects bail pleas of Kanimozhi and Sharad Kumar and orders their forth-with arrest.

June 20, 2011: SC rejects Kanimozhis bail plea

July 25, 2011: Arguments on Charge begins. Raja seeks to make Prime Minister and former -nance minister P Chidambaram as witness.

Sept 22, 2011: CBI defends Chidambaram in SC, blames DoT for all wrongs.

Sept 26, 2011: CBI moves plea for framing fresh charge for criminal breach of trust against Raja,Chandolia and Behura.

Sept 29, 2011: CBI says role of Anil Ambani being probed, gives a virtual clean chit to Tata and

Videocon group.

Oct 9, 2011: CBI les FIR against Maran and his brother.

Oct 22, 2011: Court nds prima facie evidence to put on trial all 17 accused including Raja onvarious counts like criminal conspiracy, breach of trust, cheating and forgery.


46/54

2Gs Dabangg man- PrashantBhushan

Meenal Dubey May10, 2011

Bollywood often churns out stories of a middle class hero taking up cudgels fearlessly againstthe rich and the mighty. In real life though, there are few like the Delhi-based lawyer and activistPrashant Bhushan.

He is ghting a crucial public interest litigation (PIL) in the 2G spectrum allocation case. An out-come in his favour, many powerful people will see the insides of a jail for the rst time in theirlives. If you ask anyone in Delhis legal circles about Prashant Bhushan, they will tell you one thingThe man means business and if you are on the wrong side of the law, then he will come after you.

The name Bhushan is synonymous with fear for corrupt judges, politicians, bureaucrats and now

corporate honchos, says a top Supreme Court lawyer.

Unlike many well-heeledlawyers of the Supreme Court,Bhushan is known to haveturned down fees worth croresand remuneration like largetracts of land for defending aguilty person.

If he has taken up your case,then it means that he is con-

vinced of your innocence andwill ght tooth and nail toprove it, the lawyer adds.

His contemporaries alsoacknowledge that Bhushanrefused to charge a penny forthe needy and won their cases.

A former alumnus from St.Josephs College Allahabad, he joined IIT, Madras, in 1973. However, he left a year later and pur-sued a BA programme with Philosophy, Economics and Political Science. Thereafter, he went toPrinceton University and completed his Masters in Philosophy in 1982. A year later, he returned toIndia and enrolled as an advocate.

Bhushan has worked on 500 public interest litigations (PIL) in a career span of 15 years and thegure has only grown over the last few years. Many say that he has inherited this streak for justicefrom his renowned father and Indias former law minister Shanti Bhushan, who has been namedon the panel for the Jan Lokpal Bill.

Many high-prole cases have seen the appearance of Bhushan. These include the Niira Radiatapes, Narmada Bachao Andolan, Bofors, the contempt of court case against Arundhati Roy, En-ron, the Right to Information Act, and the oil companies disinvestment case.


47/54

At a time when PILs are led on anything from the name of a Bollywood lm to a serious cause, hisprinciples and upright approach to law have earned him the formidable reputation of a man not to

be taken lightly.

I think the general public is fed up of the corruption and the callousness of our enforcementagencies and politicians who are a part of it, he said.

He argues that there is no need for fear if one is on the right side of law. With the spotlight on himafter his petition demanding the prosecution of the likes of Ratan Tata, Anil Ambani, and SharadPawar in the 2G scam, he appears remarkably cool and collected.

I will never ask the government for protection because I know that the accused can only try tomalign my reputation. They will not harm me, Bhushan assures.

An avid badminton player, Bhushan does not get too much time for watching sports on televisionbut he likes to indulge himself in an occasional Bollywood or Hollywood ick.

Unlike other rich and powerful lawyers, Bhushan prefers to keep a low prole. He avoids glitzy

parties and is most comfortable in his non-branded regular clothes and shoes.

Post the 2G spectrum case, Bhushans primary preoccupation is the Jan Lokpal Bill. While hewould like to holiday with wife and sons for the summer break, he knows there will be no holidaythis year.

But then, no regrets, comes the cheerful reply.


48/54

How CBI pulled the rug underRaja on spectrum loss issue

Raman KirpalNov 3, 2011

If Andimuthu Raja had any hopes of getting bail on the plea that his spectrum sales did not in-volve any losses, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has cleverly squashed all hopes in thisregard.

Reason: it has not used the revenue loss argument anywhere while framing charges against Rajaand his other co-accused. Instead, the core of the CBI accusation is that Raja unduly favouredUnitech Wireless Ltd, Reliance Telecom and Swan Telecom.

In short, even though the big ruckus at the Joint Parliamentary Committee or the Public AccountsCommittee or the law ministry, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) or the Comptrol-

ler and Auditor General is the quantum of revenue loss from selling spectrum at 2001 prices, noneof this confusion will help Raja.

Kapil Sibals famous zero-loss statement will remain

just that: theory with noimpact on the culpability ofRaja or business tycoons inthe 2G scam.

A Raja

It was on hopes of cashingin on the zero-loss theorythat Raja claimed in the trialcourt that since there was noloss, he should not be kept in

jail.

The CBI, however, side-stepped Rajas ruse by fram-ing charges that had nothingto do with losses. The keycharges framed are:

Raja unduly favoured two ineligible companies Unitech and Swan through a conspiracy alongwith his ofcers to allocate them licences and spectrum.

Unitech and Swan sold off a part of their spectrum at a hefty premium even before they hadrolled out services. Thus, Rajas undue favour led them to earn Rs 7,105 crore through the sale.

Raja sold off spectrum at 2001 prices despite warnings from the Member, Telecom (Finance)

Madhu Madhavan and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

Raja and Kanimozhi Karunanidhi were in regular touch to pursue pending works of KalaignarTV.


49/54

Raja not only helped Kanimozhi register Kalaignar TV with the ministry of information andbroadcasting, but also the Tata Sky bouquet of channels.

Kanimozhi was the active brain behind the operations of Kalaignar TV and thus the amount ofRs 200 crore paid by Dynamix Realty to Kalaignar TV through Kusegaon Fruits and Vegetables PvtLtd and Cineyug Films Pvt Ltd was not a genuine business transaction. It was illegal graticationin lieu of favours showered by Raja on Swan Telecom.

If the transaction of Rs 200 crore was in the nature of a loan, as claimed by Kanimozhi subse-quently, it was a valuable thing for a consideration which is not known.

Thus, the charges framed against all the accused go on to mention the minute details of the crimi-nal conspiracy, cheating, fraud and criminal breach of trust, but the charges do not anywhere deal

with the losses caused in selling 2G spectrum cheaply. Raja will thus have no reason to rake up thecontroversial loss issue in his favour when the trial begins on 11 November.

Read the order given by the designated CBI court when the charges were framedagainst A Raja, Kanimozhi and others.
http://www.firstpost.com/breaking%20views/how-cbi-pulled-the-rug-under-raja-on-spectrum-loss-issue-122425.htmlhttp://www.firstpost.com/breaking%20views/how-cbi-pulled-the-rug-under-raja-on-spectrum-loss-issue-122425.htmlhttp://www.firstpost.com/breaking%20views/how-cbi-pulled-the-rug-under-raja-on-spectrum-loss-issue-122425.htmlhttp://www.firstpost.com/breaking%20views/how-cbi-pulled-the-rug-under-raja-on-spectrum-loss-issue-122425.html


50/54

2G scam: Raja, 16 others chargedwith criminal breach of trust

FP StaffOct 22, 2011

2G order is a milestone: Shahid Balwas lawyer

1:15 pm Meanwhile Shahid Balwas lawyer Majid Menon said in a matter os such importance itwas necessary for the court to explain each accusation. He said the court has given the accusedsome time to glance through the order and sign the plea of non guilty. The court wanted to framethe charges today itself but all the accused said they need time to go through the over 700-pageorder on charges to be framed later.

Delhi court nds prima facie evidence against all 17 accused, including former Tel-ecom Minister A Raja, in 2G case.

12.30 pm: All of accused arenow charged with section 120 B,

which deals with criminal con-spiracy. Kanimozhi charged withsection 120 B which deals withpunishment for criminal conspir-acy which also carries a possibleimprisonment term. Raja alsocharged with section 420, 468 and

479. A Raja and Kanimozhi alsocharged under the anti-corruptionact. Morani and Goenka chargedunder 192.

A special CBI Court has upheldCBIs contention and has chargedall 17 accused, including Kani-mozhi and A Raja under criminal

breach of trust. Trial will go onunder section 409. If convicted, those accused can face a minimum of 7 years imprisonment anda a maximum of life sentence. Besides this Raja and other public servants have been charged withmisuse of ofcial position punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Each accused, par-ticularly Kanomozhi were hopeful to get bails after the charged are framed. But Section 409, how-ever, dashes their hopes. Only possible hope is now to appeal in the High Court.

Meanwhile, telecom companies Reliance Telecom Ltd, Swan Telecom and Unitech Wirelesscharged with criminal conspiracy and faulty implementation of documents and violating corporatelaw in the case. Also Shahid Balwa and Rajeev Agarwal have also been charged with fabricatingfalse evidence.

Nature of charges

Section 409, which is criminal conspiracy and means conviction of life sentence, has been upheldby the Special Court for 14 of the 17 accused.


51/54

In addition, the court said there was evidence for framing of charges against Raja, Behura andChandolia under section 409 of the IPC for the offence of breach of trust against them which at-tracts maximum punishment of life term.

With an important milestone crossed in the case, the ccused can now now move for bail as ob-served by the Supreme Court during the hearing of bail petition by Kanimozhi earlier.

Special CBI Judge O P Saini said evidence is there for framing of charges against telecom rmsReliance Telecom Ltd, Swan Telecom and Unitech (Tamil Nadu) Wireless Ltd. The judge alsosaid CBI has also brought evidence to frame charges against corporate executives of Reliance AnilDhirubhai Ambani groups Managing Director Gautam Doshi, Surendra Pipara, Groups Presidentand Hari Nair, senior Vice President.

Others against whom charges will be framed are Swan Telecom promoter Shahid Usman Balwa,his cousin Asif Balwa, their colleague Rajeev Agarwal, Unitech Ltds MD Sanjay Chandra and DBRealty MD Vinod Goenk

FirstpostEbook_TheBigTrial_2GSacm_20111111034721

Documents

Transcript of FirstpostEbook_TheBigTrial_2GSacm_20111111034721