Begin typing your search above and press return to search.

Court rejects plea to make PC accused in 2G case

By The Assam Tribune

NEW DELHI, Feb 4 � In a huge relief to Home Minister P Chidambaram and to the UPA Government, a Delhi court today threw out a plea to make him an accused in the 2G case holding that he did not indulge in any criminal conspiracy or derived any pecuniary advantage in the decisions taken with former Telecom Minister A Raja, reports PTI.

Giving a clean chit to the Finance Minister at the time of controversial allocation of 2G spectrum in 2008, Special CBI Judge O P Saini, said Chidambaram was party to only two decisions � keeping spectrum prices at 2001 level and dilution of equity by two companies � which �are not per se criminal�.

Apart from being a matter of relief personally for Chidambaram, today�s verdict is also the first good tidings for the UPA Government that has been battered by a series of judicial pronouncements in the recent days in the 2G and other issues.

The Special Court said that in the absence of any other incriminating act on his (Chidambaram) part, it cannot be said that he was acting in pursuit of the criminal conspiracy.

�There is no evidence on record that he was acting in pursuit of the criminal conspiracy, while being party to the two decisions regarding non-revision of the spectrum pricing and dilution of equity by the two companies.

�Accordingly, I do not find any sufficient ground for proceeding against P Chidambaram. The plea is without any merit and the same is dismissed,� the judge said in his 64-page order rejecting the private criminal complaint filed by Janata Party President Subramanian Swamy.

While the verdict was hailed by Congress Party and ministers, Swamy expressed �dissatisfaction� saying the judge has made an �error� and he would challenge it in higher courts.

The judge said there is no evidence on record to suggest that there was an agreement between Chidambaram and Raja to subvert telecom policy and obtain pecuniary advantage for himself or for any other person.

�There is no evidence of any substantive act being committed by him,� the court said.

Next Story