The Supreme Court Tuesday directed the listing of Reliance Telecommunications' plea challenging the 2G special trial court order summoning a number of people, including Reliance Group chairman Anil Ambani, as prosecution witnesses.
As senior counsel Mukul Rohtagi got up to address the court on the plea, an apex court bench headed by Justice G.S.Singhvi said: "Go to the bench which is hearing the matter."
Having said so, the court ordered: "Let the matter be listed before the bench seized of the 2G matter."
Rohatgi urged the court for an early hearing of the matter as the CBI special court was examining two to three witnesses every day.
Justice Singhvi said he would check with the other judge (Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan) on the bench dealing with 2G cases and decide on its listing.
The special court had asked Anil Ambani and his wife Tina Ambani to appear before it after the CBI made them witnesses in the 2G spectrum allocation case.
One of the main contentions of the probe agency is that Swan Telecom, which was among the companies that got telecom spectrum and licence in 2008, was a shell company of Anil Ambani Group and was hence not eligible -- a matter that has been denied by the defence.
Three executives of Reliance Group and the promoters of Swan are facing trial for this.
Pointing out to the court that the trial in the 2G case was going on for the last 20 months on day-to-day basis, the petition by the Reliance Telecom described the probe agency's application (before the trial court) for summoning of more witnesses as "incongruous" and "malafide".
Assailing the trial court's July 19 ruling allowing CBI's application summoning more witnesses, the petition said: "The attempt of the prosecution to add additional witnesses is being done with a motive of creating pressure on the accused and somehow implicate the accused by using fair or unfair means."
"The impugned order also prejudices the accused by protracting and prolonging the trial," the petition said.
Describing the action of the CBI as "misconceived" and liable to be set aside, the petition said: "The prosecution cannot be allowed to bring fresh witnesses on record merely because the witnesses cited in the charge sheet proved to be lacking to prove any case against the accused..."
The petition said this will cause a "great setback" to the hearing of 2G case which was going on day-to-day basis and was likely to be concluded soon.
It described the probe agency's move as a "flagrant and colourable attempt to further conduct investigation by abusing the process of the court by calling additional witnesses purportedly to prove documents already on record of the court..."
"What makes the application of the CBI incongruous is that the same contains no explanation for the inordinate delay and the malafide nature of the application," the application said.
The witnesses now sought to be projected as essential for a just decision of the case were all within the knowledge of the CBI and were consciously not cited as witnesses at the time of the charge sheet or any time thereafter, the petition said, adding that 133 witnesses have already been examined.
