![\"\"](\"\/\/www.iser-br.com\/Themes\/Release\/images\/responsive\/ettelecom-default.jpg\")
The authority of Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain to appear for the CBI was questioned through an application filed by Asif Balwa, an acquitted accused, seeking a copy of the direction by the Central government given under Section 378 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Balwa today sought a copy of the Central government's sanction letter which granted approval to the CBI to file the appeal against the acquittal of all accused. Advocates Vijay Agarwal, Mudit Jain and Ashul Agarwal argued for Balwa.
During the arguments, it was pointed out that the CBI has not placed on record the mandatory authority under Section 378 (2) CrPC and that the appeal has been filed under the signatures of advocate Sanjeev Bhandari under the stamp of the special public prosecutor.
However, advocate Vijay Agarwal argued that in the 2G cases, the special public prosecutor is appointed by way of a specific notification. He pointed out that earlier notification was issued for the trial, which was superseded and a notification issued in February 2018, appointing Tushar Mehta to act as a special public prosecutor.
It was also argued out that the notification was specific to the 2G cases and therefore the appeal filed itself was without any authority. Advocate Aggarwal also argued that the entire appeal will fail in absence of the said mandatory approval under Section 378 (2) of the CrPC.
Sanjay Jain argued that the aspect regarding authority by the government is merely in the nature of housekeeping and the same can be produced before the court in a \"sealed cover\" if so required. However, the same was countered by advocate Agarwal stating that the said issue goes to the very root of the matter and is a jurisdictional issue. He also said that when a law or the statue requires a thing to be done in a particular, it should be done in that manner.
Supporting Aggarwal, senior advocate Siddharth Luthra and N Hariharan appearing for other parties in the matter contended that the issue of sanction be kept to the root of the matter.After hearing the submission of the lawyers, Justice Brijesh Sethi said, \"I hope and believe that there is some kind of delegation. I need that clarification.\" Jain then sought time till tomorrow to seek instructions on the issue of sanction.
The matter will now be taken up by the High Court for further hearing tomorrow.
Meanwhile, an application was filed by Sanjay Chandra seeking a meeting with lawyers at the Delhi High Court chambers to prepare for the on-going hearing. However, the court has kept the said prayer open and in the meantime has directed the Tihar Jail Superintendent to arrange for an hour video conferencing of Sanjay Chandra with his lawyers three times in a week.
The Delhi High Court had last week, ordered a day-to-day hearing in the 2G appeal case while allowing the plea of the CBI and the ED seeking early hearing on their appeal against the acquittal of all the accused in the 2G spectrum allocation scam case.
All the respondents in the matter including former Telecom Minister A Raja, businessman Shahid Balwa and others had strongly opposed the applications for early hearing in the 2G appeal case in the Delhi High Court.
<\/body>","next_sibling":[{"msid":78495336,"title":"Apple ropes in Google Project Zero security researcher to make iOS safer","entity_type":"ARTICLE","link":"\/news\/apple-ropes-in-google-project-zero-security-researcher-to-make-ios-safer\/78495336","category_name":null,"category_name_seo":"telecomnews"}],"related_content":[],"msid":78496495,"entity_type":"ARTICLE","title":"Delhi HC starts day-to-day hearing on appeal against acquittal of accused in 2G scam case","synopsis":"The Delhi High Court on Monday started the day-to-day hearing on the appeal, filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) challenging the acquittal of all the accused in the 2G spectrum scam case.","titleseo":"telecomnews\/delhi-hc-starts-day-to-day-hearing-on-appeal-against-acquittal-of-accused-in-2g-scam-case","status":"ACTIVE","authors":[],"analytics":{"comments":0,"views":225,"shares":0,"engagementtimems":1107000},"Alttitle":{"minfo":""},"artag":"ANI","artdate":"2020-10-05 19:42:02","lastupd":"2020-10-05 19:47:41","breadcrumbTags":["2G scam case","delhi high court","enforcement directorate","2G scam","2G","Industry","CBI","3G case"],"secinfo":{"seolocation":"telecomnews\/delhi-hc-starts-day-to-day-hearing-on-appeal-against-acquittal-of-accused-in-2g-scam-case"}}" data-authors="[" "]" data-category-name="" data-category_id="" data-date="2020-10-05" data-index="article_1">
- Telecom乐动扑克News
- 3分钟阅读
德里HC开始日常上诉听证会无罪释放2 g的指控诈骗案件
德里高等法院周一开始日常的上诉听证会上,提起的中央调查局(CBI)和执法局(ED)挑战无罪的被告2 g频谱诈骗案件。
读到
额外的权威副检察长Sanjay Jain CBI的出现被阿西夫•Balwa质疑通过申请,被指责,寻求方向由中央政府给予的副本在第378节(2)刑事诉讼程序的代码。
Balwa今天寻求中央政府的批准信的副本,批准英国工业联合会文件所有指控无罪判决的上诉。提倡Vijay Agarwal, Mudit Jain和Ashul Balwa Agarwal说。
参数,指出英国工业联合会没有放在记录下的强制性权力Section 378 (2) CrPC,提起上诉已经签名的倡导者(Sanjeev班达里邮票下特别检察官。
然而,提倡Vijay Agarwal认为在2 g的情况下,任命的特别检察官的一个特定的通知方式。他指出,早些时候通知发布的审判,取代,2018年2月发布的一份通知,任命梅塔作为印度央行的特别检察官。
也认为,通知是特定于2 g的情况下,因此上诉申请本身是没有任何权威。提倡Aggarwal还认为,整个上诉会失败在没有说强制批准CrPC Section 378 (2)。
Sanjay Jain说,方面对政府权威的仅仅是管家的本质和同样可以产生之前,法院在“密封盖”如果是必需的。然而,同样被提倡Agarwal说反驳说问题是最根本的物质和管辖权的问题。他还说,当一个法律或雕像需要做的一件事在一个特定的,应该以这种方式来完成。
高级提倡支持Aggarwal哈斯Luthra和N Hariharan出现的其他各方认为,制裁问题的根源问题。听后的提交律师、司法Brijesh塞提说,“我希望和相信有某种代表团。我需要澄清。”Jain then sought time till tomorrow to seek instructions on the issue of sanction.
这件事将会被高等法院进一步听力明天。
与此同时,一个应用程序被桑杰提起钱德拉寻求会见律师在德里高等法院钱伯斯为正在进行的听力做准备。然而,法院一直说祈祷开放,同时指示Tihar监狱的主管安排一个小时的视频会议桑杰钱德拉和他的律师三次一个星期。
德里高等法院上周,下令日常听力在2 g上诉的情况下同时允许CBI的请求和ED寻求早期听力在上诉中所有被告无罪释放的2 g频谱分配诈骗案件。
所有的受访者包括前电信部长拉贾,商人Shahid Balwa和其他人强烈反对申请早期听力2 g在德里高等法院提起上诉。
评论
现在评论 阅读评论(1)所有评论
找到这个评论进攻?
下面选择你的理由并单击submit按钮。这将提醒我们的版主采取行动