$\"\"$ NEW DELHI: The public prosecutor in the 2G spectrum case<\/a>, Anand Grover, told the Supreme Court that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had not followed his recommendation to challenge a 2015 special court order acquitting all the accused in the excess spectrum<\/a> case.

Grover made the complaint even as the top court bench monitoring telecom cases demanded a status report from the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate on their investigations into alleged irregularities related to the Aircel-Maxis<\/a> deal.<\/p>\n

The public prosecutor had faced the special court’s flak last month when it acquitted all the accused, including former telecom minister and DMK leader A Raja<\/a> and his party colleague and MP Kanimozhi, in the 2G case.<\/p>\n

\n\tAn appeal against the December 22, 2017, judgement is expected to be filed in the Delhi High Court, challenging the acquittal and also seeking expunging of the adverse remarks the special court made against the public prosecutor.<\/p>\n

\n\tBut in the excess spectrum<\/a> case dating back to 2002, where the same court acquitted former telecom secretary Shyamal Ghosh and telecom firms Bharti Airtel and Vodafone India, the CBI has done nothing despite its officials agreeing with his opinion to challenge it, Grover said.<\/p>\n

\n\tAdditional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta claimed that a revision had not been filed in that case because the attorney general had given an opinion against it. He, however, sought more time to take a call on the issue. “Please grant us 10 days or two weeks to deal with it,” he said.<\/p>\n

\n\tGrover asked how the government could interfere on the basis of AG’s opinion when the top court was monitoring a case.<\/p>\n

\n\tIn that case, the CBI had argued that the exchequer had suffered a loss of more than ₹800 crore after excess spectrum was allotted to these companies at a lower price. But the special judge discharged all without framing charges citing lack of evidence.<\/p>\n

\n\tIn the Aircel-Maxis<\/a> case, the Maran brothers — Dayanidhi and Kalanithi — were discharged early last year by the same court, saying that they had been charged on a misreading of official documents.<\/p>\n\n<\/body>","next_sibling":[{"msid":62375717,"title":"GTL may recover Rs 2000 cr as rent cancellation charges from 3 telcos","entity_type":"ARTICLE","link":"\/news\/gtl-may-recover-2k-cr-as-rent-cancellation-charges-from-3-telcos\/62375717","category_name":null,"category_name_seo":"telecomnews"}],"related_content":[],"msid":62375797,"entity_type":"ARTICLE","title":"CBI failed to challenge 2015 excess spectrum order: Public prosecutor","synopsis":"Grover made the complaint even as the top court bench monitoring telecom cases demanded a status report from the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate on their investigations into alleged irregularities related to the Aircel-Maxis deal.","titleseo":"telecomnews\/cbi-failed-to-challenge-2015-excess-spectrum-order-public-prosecutor","status":"ACTIVE","authors":[],"Alttitle":{"minfo":""},"artag":"ET Bureau","artdate":"2018-01-05 09:14:40","lastupd":"2018-01-05 14:31:44","breadcrumbTags":["spectrum","2G spectrum case","Aircel-Maxis","industry","A Raja"],"secinfo":{"seolocation":"telecomnews\/cbi-failed-to-challenge-2015-excess-spectrum-order-public-prosecutor"}}" data-authors="[" "]" data-category-name="" data-category_id="" data-date="2018-01-05" data-index="article_1">

Telecom乐动扑克News
2分钟阅读

CBI未能挑战2015年超额光谱顺序:检察官

Grover的投诉尽管最高法院板凳监测电信CBI的情况下要求状态报告和执法局的调查涉嫌违规Aircel-Maxis相关交易。

等局

更新2018年1月5日下午02:31坚持

新德里:公共检察官2 g频谱情况阿南德•格罗弗告诉最高法院说,中央调查局(CBI)没有听从他的建议,挑战2015年特别法庭命令举步维艰,所有多余的指责光谱的情况。

Grover的投诉尽管最高法院板凳监测电信CBI的情况下要求状态报告和执法局的调查涉嫌违规行为相关Aircel-Maxis交易。

检察官曾面临特别法庭的批评上个月当它被所有的指责,包括前电信部长和DMK的领袖一个拉贾和他的政党的同事和MP Kanimozhi, 2 g。

上诉反对2017年12月22日,审判预计将在德里高等法院提起的,具有挑战性的无罪释放并寻求删除负面评论特别法庭对公诉人。

但在多余的光谱相同情况下可以追溯到2002年,法庭无罪释放前电信部长Shyamal Ghosh和电信公司Bharti Airtel和沃达丰印度,英国工业联合会无所作为,尽管官员们同意他的意见去挑战它,格罗弗说。

额外的副检察长Mehta声称印度修订并没有提出在这种情况下,因为司法部长给了意见。然而,他寻求更多的时间在这个问题上采取一个电话。“请给我们10天或两周的时间来处理它,”他说。

Grover问政府如何干预AG)的意见的基础上,当最高法院监控一个案例。

在这种情况下,英国工业联合会曾辩称大臣遭受的损失超过₹800卢比的后多余的频谱分配给这些公司以更低的价格。但是没有特别法官释放了框架指控缺乏证据。

在Aircel-Maxis情况下,马兰兄弟——Dayanidhi和Kalanithi——被同一法院去年年初出院,说他们被指控在官方文件的误读。

发表在2018年1月5日09:14点坚持

$\"\"$ NEW DELHI: The public prosecutor in the 2G spectrum case<\/a>, Anand Grover, told the Supreme Court that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had not followed his recommendation to challenge a 2015 special court order acquitting all the accused in the excess spectrum<\/a> case.

Grover made the complaint even as the top court bench monitoring telecom cases demanded a status report from the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate on their investigations into alleged irregularities related to the Aircel-Maxis<\/a> deal.<\/p>\n

The public prosecutor had faced the special court’s flak last month when it acquitted all the accused, including former telecom minister and DMK leader A Raja<\/a> and his party colleague and MP Kanimozhi, in the 2G case.<\/p>\n

\n\tAn appeal against the December 22, 2017, judgement is expected to be filed in the Delhi High Court, challenging the acquittal and also seeking expunging of the adverse remarks the special court made against the public prosecutor.<\/p>\n

\n\tBut in the excess spectrum<\/a> case dating back to 2002, where the same court acquitted former telecom secretary Shyamal Ghosh and telecom firms Bharti Airtel and Vodafone India, the CBI has done nothing despite its officials agreeing with his opinion to challenge it, Grover said.<\/p>\n

\n\tAdditional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta claimed that a revision had not been filed in that case because the attorney general had given an opinion against it. He, however, sought more time to take a call on the issue. “Please grant us 10 days or two weeks to deal with it,” he said.<\/p>\n

\n\tGrover asked how the government could interfere on the basis of AG’s opinion when the top court was monitoring a case.<\/p>\n

\n\tIn that case, the CBI had argued that the exchequer had suffered a loss of more than ₹800 crore after excess spectrum was allotted to these companies at a lower price. But the special judge discharged all without framing charges citing lack of evidence.<\/p>\n

\n\tIn the Aircel-Maxis<\/a> case, the Maran brothers — Dayanidhi and Kalanithi — were discharged early last year by the same court, saying that they had been charged on a misreading of official documents.<\/p>\n\n<\/body>","next_sibling":[{"msid":62375717,"title":"GTL may recover Rs 2000 cr as rent cancellation charges from 3 telcos","entity_type":"ARTICLE","link":"\/news\/gtl-may-recover-2k-cr-as-rent-cancellation-charges-from-3-telcos\/62375717","category_name":null,"category_name_seo":"telecomnews"}],"related_content":[],"msid":62375797,"entity_type":"ARTICLE","title":"CBI failed to challenge 2015 excess spectrum order: Public prosecutor","synopsis":"Grover made the complaint even as the top court bench monitoring telecom cases demanded a status report from the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate on their investigations into alleged irregularities related to the Aircel-Maxis deal.","titleseo":"telecomnews\/cbi-failed-to-challenge-2015-excess-spectrum-order-public-prosecutor","status":"ACTIVE","authors":[],"Alttitle":{"minfo":""},"artag":"ET Bureau","artdate":"2018-01-05 09:14:40","lastupd":"2018-01-05 14:31:44","breadcrumbTags":["spectrum","2G spectrum case","Aircel-Maxis","industry","A Raja"],"secinfo":{"seolocation":"telecomnews\/cbi-failed-to-challenge-2015-excess-spectrum-order-public-prosecutor"}}" data-news_link="//www.iser-br.com/news/cbi-failed-to-challenge-2015-excess-spectrum-order-public-prosecutor/62375797">