New Delhi : The Supreme Court on Monday said it would hold hearing on April 30 on the CBI’s plea seeking registration of a fresh FIR against some of the 2G accused on the basis of fresh material that it had come across in the course of its investigations into the scam.
As senior counsel K.K. Venugopal, appearing for the CBI, sought the nod of the apex court bench of Chief Justice H.L. Dattu and Justice Arun Mishra to file the fresh first information report, the court asked if it can do so without hearing the people likely to be affected by it.
Venugopal told the court that they wanted to register a new case, involving conspiracy and false evidence, Chief Justice Dattu asked: “One more doubt we have. Can we permit you to register cases without hearing those people?”
As both Venugopal and Centre for Public Interest Litigation counsel Prashant Bhushan told the court that there was nothing that impeded the CBI from registering a fresh FIR and nobody was heard when earlier cases were registered, the court said that it would hold hearing on it on April 30.
“You don’t know what is in CBI report,” Chief Justice Dattu told Bhushan as he sought to impress upon the court to grant the permission for the registration of the fresh case.
The CBI needed the apex court’s nod as the special judge hearing the 2G scam cases covered cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the latest case the CBI is seeking to register is not covered under it.
The sources close to the central probe agency said the case relates to the “forging of the documents” trying to “obfuscate the names of two people”.
“They tried to create clouds by forging documents” and “books were cooked-up to protect and distance the accused from the accused company”, said the sources privy to the CBI report.
Meanwhile, the court on Monday declined BJP leader Subramanian Swamy’s plea objecting to the transfer of CBI’s Joint Director Ashok Tiwari, who was supervising 2G spectrum and Aircel-Maxis probes, to Himachal Pradesh — his parent cadre state.
The apex court dismissed as withdrawn, Swany’s plea saying that his plea was not finding support, for the first time, from the centre, CBI and the NGO – Centre for Public Interest Litigation – on whose plea the court monitored probe was ordered.
Referring to the affidavit filed by the CBI, the chief justice said it says that Tiwari was supervising the probe into cases relating to 2G scam and was not one of the investigators.
As the court said this, it referred to the statement of NGO counsel Bhushan, saying that Tiwari was not covered by the order of the court as he was supervisory officer and not the investigating officer.
The apex court by its earlier order had said officers involved in the investigation of 2G scam would not be shifted without its nod.
Not convinced by Swamy’s plea, the court observed that Tiwari had become the supervisory officer in 2011 and it was four years that he was working in that position. “How long he can continue in the CBI. Already it is four years down the line.”
While declining Swamy’s plea, the court said if Tiwari felt aggrieved with his repatriation to Himachal Pradesh then he can approach the court.
While directing the next hearing of the matter on April 30, the court took on record the status report filed by the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate on its investigations in 2G scam.