Dismiss CBI appeal against acquittals in case arising out of 2G scam: Loop to HC

The Delhi High Court was today informed that the CBI's appeal against the acquittal of Essar Group promoters Ravi Kant Ruia and Anshuman Ruia and others in a case arising out of the probe in 2G scam deserved to be dismissed.

The submission was made by Loop Telecom in an affidavit placed before Justice Najmi Waziri who listed the matter for hearing on October 9 after the other defendants in the CBI's appeal sought time to file their respective replies to the agency's plea.

Besides Ruias, the CBI had appealed against the acquittal of promoters of Loop Telecom Ltd I P Khaitan and Kiran Khaitan, Essar Group Director (Strategy and Planning) Vikash Saraf and three telecom firms - Loop Telecom, Loop Mobile India and Essar Tele Holding.

In its affidavit filed through advocate Arshdeep Singh, Loop said that the special CBI court "had carefully considered the material and evidence on record before acquitting the accused persons".

The company also said that the CBI court's December 21, 2017 verdict "suffers from no patent illegality, is not palpably wrong, is not based on an erroneous view of the law, is not manifestly unjust or unreasonable and neither ignores nor misreads any material evidence".

It said that CBI in its appeal apart from "merely making bald statements and unsubstantiated claims", failed to disclose any errors in the judgement and sought that the probe agency's plea be dismissed.

The probe agency said in its appeal that the special judge failed to appreciate the evidence and the law in proper perspective and the evidence on record clearly established the offence committed by the accused.

On December 21 last year, a special court had acquitted Essar Group promoters, Loop Telecom Promoters and others in a case arising out of the 2G scam probe.

The CBI had named them in its chargesheet on December 12, 2011, alleging they had cheated the Department of Telecommunication by using Loop Telecom as a "front" to secure 2G licences in 2008 in violation of Clause 8 of the Unified Access Service License Guidelines.