New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Monday started the day-to-day hearing on the appeal, filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) challenging the acquittal of all the accused in the 2G spectrum scam case.
The authority of Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain to appear for the CBI was questioned through an application filed by Asif Balwa, an acquitted accused, seeking a copy of the direction by the Central government given under Section 378 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Balwa on Monday sought a copy of the Central government's sanction letter which approved the CBI to file the appeal against the acquittal of all accused. Advocates Vijay Agarwal, Mudit Jain and Ashul Agarwal argued for Balwa.
During the arguments, it was pointed out that the CBI has not placed on record the mandatory authority under Section 378 (2) CrPC and that the appeal has been filed under the signatures of advocate Sanjeev Bhandari under the stamp of the special public prosecutor.
Read:|'Everyone will be given effective hearing in 2G appeal case'
However, advocate Vijay Agarwal argued that in the 2G cases, the special public prosecutor is appointed by way of a specific notification. He pointed out that earlier notification was issued for the trial, which was superseded and a notification issued in February 2018, appointing Tushar Mehta to act as a special public prosecutor.
It was also argued out that the notification was specific to the 2G cases and therefore the appeal filed itself was without any authority. Advocate Aggarwal also argued that the entire appeal will fail in absence of the said mandatory approval under Section 378 (2) of the CrPC.
Sanjay Jain argued that the aspect regarding authority by the government is merely like housekeeping and the same can be produced before the court in a 'sealed cover' if so required. However, the same was countered by advocate Agarwal stating that the said issue goes to the very root of the matter and is a jurisdictional issue. He also said that when a law or the statue requires a thing to be done in a particular, it should be done in that manner.
Supporting Aggarwal, senior advocate Siddharth Luthra and N Hariharan appearing for other parties in the matter contended that the issue of sanction be kept to the root of the matter. After hearing the submission of the lawyers, Justice Brijesh Sethi said, "I hope and believe that there is some kind of delegation. I need that clarification." Jain then sought time till Tuesday to seek instructions on the issue of sanction.
The matter will now be taken up by the High Court for further hearing Tuesday.
Meanwhile, an application was filed by Sanjay Chandra seeking a meeting with lawyers at the Delhi High Court chambers to prepare for the on-going hearing. However, the court has kept the said prayer open and in the meantime has directed the Tihar Jail Superintendent to arrange for an hour video conferencing of Sanjay Chandra with his lawyers three times in a week.
The Delhi High Court had last week, ordered a day-to-day hearing in the 2G appeal case while allowing the plea of the CBI and the ED seeking early hearing on their appeal against the acquittal of all the accused in the 2G spectrum allocation scam case.
All the respondents in the matter including former Telecom Minister A Raja, businessman Shahid Balwa and others had strongly opposed the applications for early hearing in the 2G appeal case in the Delhi High Court.
ANI report
Read:|2G scam: HC to start hearing appeals against acquittal of Raja, others today
