Witnesses deposed against me under CBI pressure, Kanimozhi tells court

New Delhi: Declined to lead the defence evidence, DMK MP Kanimozhi told a court here Thursday that prosecution witnesses have deposed against her in the 2G spectrum allocation case under CBI pressure.

While recording her statement in the court hearing the 2G case, Kanimozhi, daughter of DMK chief M. Karunanidhi, told Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Special Judge O.P. Saini that she had no role in the management, administration or day-to-day operations of Kalaignar TV (KTV).

Support TwoCircles

She was handed over a questionnaire with 1,700 questions running into 824 pages March 27 by the court. The questions are part of the recording of the statement of the accused in the case.

Replying to the court’s question as to why witnesses have deposed against her, Kanimozhi said: “Those who have deposed against me appear to have done so under pressure of the CBI.”

“I never had anything to do with the management and operations of M/s Kalaignar TV (P) Ltd., except having been a director for a short period of two weeks and being a shareholder. Yet I was arraigned as an accused in the case,” she said in her statement.

She has declined to lead defence evidence in the case.

Kanimozhi apprised court that she was 20 percent shareholder of the Kalaignar TV and acted as a director for a short period of two weeks between June 6, 2007 and June 20, 2007.

“After my resigning from directorship on June 20, 2007, I have had no role whatsoever in the management, administration or running of day-to-day operations of the company,” she said.

“The transactions which are the subject matter of the present case have taken place between December 2008 and February 2011. In the said period I had no role in any manner in the running of the company.”

According to the CBI, an amount of Rs.200 crore was paid by promoters of Swan Telecom, using their group entity Dynamix Realty, to KTV, through Kusegaon Fruits and Vegetables Pvt. Ltd. and Cineyug Films as loan application money.

The investigating agency claimed in the charge sheet that the payment was illegal gratification for and on behalf of prime accused, the then communications minister A. Raja and his associates in lieu of illegal favours.