Begin typing your search above and press return to search.

Court seeks CBI response in 2G case

By The Assam Tribune

NEW DELHI, Nov 17 � A Delhi court today asked CBI to file its response to the allegation of an accused in the 2G spectrum allocation scam case that the agency resorted to an �unhealthy practice� of calling a witness �unofficially� to its office in a bid to �tamper� with the evidence.

Special CBI Judge OP Saini issued a notice to the agency seeking its response by

November 23 on a plea filed by Vinod Goenka, a director of Swan Telecom and an accused in the case.

Advocate Majid Memon, appearing for Goenka, filed the application saying prosecution witness A N Sethuraman, Group President of Reliance ADA Group, was �unauthorisedly� and �suspiciously� called by CBI two days before recording of his statement on November 11 in the court.

This was done in the name of refreshing his memory and it amounted to interfering with the trial in an illegal manner, Memon alleged.

The allegation also got the support from Sethuraman, whose cross-examination concluded today as he testified �the CBI official did say to me to follow whatever I had earlier stated in my statement (given to the agency).�

�It has transpired in the cross-examination of Sethuraman that shortly before giving of evidence, the witness (Sethuraman) was suspiciously and unauthorisedly invited to the CBI office by a CBI officer and was given his statement under section 161 CrPC to be read for the first time. This is impermissible in law.

�If the law permits refreshing of memory of the witness, there is a settled established legal methods for such an excercise. What has surfaced in evidence of Sethuraman is alarming and amounts to attempt to tamper with the witness,� the application alleged. � PTI

Next Story
Similar Posts

— Dalai Lama(THIS IS STATIC)

Court seeks CBI response in 2G case

NEW DELHI, Nov 17 � A Delhi court today asked CBI to file its response to the allegation of an accused in the 2G spectrum allocation scam case that the agency resorted to an �unhealthy practice� of calling a witness �unofficially� to its office in a bid to �tamper� with the evidence.

Special CBI Judge OP Saini issued a notice to the agency seeking its response by

November 23 on a plea filed by Vinod Goenka, a director of Swan Telecom and an accused in the case.

Advocate Majid Memon, appearing for Goenka, filed the application saying prosecution witness A N Sethuraman, Group President of Reliance ADA Group, was �unauthorisedly� and �suspiciously� called by CBI two days before recording of his statement on November 11 in the court.

This was done in the name of refreshing his memory and it amounted to interfering with the trial in an illegal manner, Memon alleged.

The allegation also got the support from Sethuraman, whose cross-examination concluded today as he testified �the CBI official did say to me to follow whatever I had earlier stated in my statement (given to the agency).�

�It has transpired in the cross-examination of Sethuraman that shortly before giving of evidence, the witness (Sethuraman) was suspiciously and unauthorisedly invited to the CBI office by a CBI officer and was given his statement under section 161 CrPC to be read for the first time. This is impermissible in law.

�If the law permits refreshing of memory of the witness, there is a settled established legal methods for such an excercise. What has surfaced in evidence of Sethuraman is alarming and amounts to attempt to tamper with the witness,� the application alleged. � PTI

Similar Posts

— Dalai Lama(THIS IS STATIC)