The "change of stand" by CBI over documents filed with its charge sheet in 2002 surplus spectrum case had led to the summoning of Bharti Cellular Ltd CMD Sunil Bharti Mittal, Essar Group promoter Ravi Ruia and one other as "additional accused" in the case, a special court today said.
The court, which discharged ex-Telecom Secretary Shyamal Ghosh and three telecom firms in the case, observed that while taking cognisance of the charge sheet it had not taken note of various documents filed by CBI as the agency had twice dubbed them as unrelied upon.
On March 19, 2013, the court had taken cognisance of the charge sheet and had summoned Shyamal Ghosh and three firms along with Mittal, Ruia and Asim Ghosh, then Managing Director of accused firm Hutchison Max Telecom Pvt Ltd.
Also Read
Mittal, Ruia and Asim Ghosh were not chargesheeted by the CBI in the case but were summoned by the court which had said that there was prima facie enough material to proceed against them in the case.
On January 9 this year, Supreme Court had set aside the special court's order summoning Mittal and Ruia, who was then a Director in Sterling Cellular Ltd, as accused in the case.
In its 235-page order discharging Shyamal Ghosh and the firms, Special CBI Judge O P Saini said, "By twice referring to the documents D-132 to D-274 as unrelied upon documents, the prosecution lowered the usefulness of these documents in the eyes of court."
"The unrelied upon documents are by and large considered to be of no use to the prosecution. In the instant case, on January 14, 2013 and also in the application dated January 30, 2013, the prosecution referred to documents as unrelied upon, but in the course of submission changed its stand that these documents may also be taken as relied upon one," it said.
"This change of stage distracted the attention of the court from these documents. In a sense, these documents lost credibility," the court observed.
It said that cognisance of the case was taken after going through charge sheet, statements of witnesses and documents annexed to it and believing the same to be correct.
"The documents D-132 to D-274 were not taken note of as the same were twice dubbed by the prosecution as unrelied upon conveying to the court that documents are of no consequence to the prosecution. This resulted into not only in taking cognisance of the case but also into summoning of additional accused as well," the judge said.
