)
The Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) revelation that it was not part of the decision to call tycoon Anil Ambani and his wife to testify in the telecom spectrum case has spotlit the issue on whether the lawyer in such cases can take such an independent decision.
CBI happens to be the investigating agency in the case. However, the prosecutor, U U Lalit, wasn’t its staffer or hired by it; he was appointed by order of the Supreme Court. CBI director Ranjit Sinha said on Sunday that his people were not consulted on the Ambani issue, the decision being taken by Lalit.
Sources close to the development, who did not want to be named, say the “prosecutor takes decisions, normally not without consulting CBI”. One had added that calling the Ambanis as witness could be a strategy by the prosecutor, with their testimony being handy at a later stage.
Ultimately, the objective of the CBI and of the public prosecutor is the same, to secure conviction of those charged, said another source. In the process, sometimes decisions are taken by the public prosecutor independently.
A government official said “the prosecuting agency, CBI in this case, does not have to be consulted”. Since the Ambanis were not named in the chargesheet but three officials of their ADA Groups were, it might have been necessary to call them to court. The Ambanis’ signatures are present in many documents critical to the case. In the court, both Anil Ambani and Tina Ambani were asked to identify their signatures, as well as those of the others on the documents. “Prosecutors are independent and do not have to go by the views of the agency head,” the official added.
CBI officials were not available for comment. While Lalit is the public prosecutor, the CBI lawyer in the case is K K Goel.
The trial court had earlier said the plea on behalf of CBI to summon Anil Ambani, wife Tina Ambani and 11 others as prosecution witnesses was essential for arriving at a just decision in the case.
On August 22, while deposing, Anil Ambani had claimed inability to recollect a number of matters on associate companies and decisions thereto. So much so that judge O P Saini had said: “You are forgetting too much. Try to recollect something…It can go against you, that you don’t even recall the names of your companies."
The following day, Tina Ambani told the court that being a housewife and a social worker, she had no knowledge of Swan Telecom, Zebra Consultants or any other company alleged to be associate firms of Reliance ADAG. The court observed that “her adverseness springs from her not recalling about the companies relating to which she signed the documents".
