A bench of Justices G.S. Singhvi and A.K. Ganguly, monitoring the probe by the CBI, ED and IT in the 2G scam, expressed satisfaction on the investigation done by the agency so far while taking note of its counsel K.K. Venugopal’s statement that the probe against telecom industry honchos was not yet over. While considering a note of petitioner NGO, Centre for PILs, alleging that the CBI was going “soft” against telecom industry honchos, including Reliance Communications’ Anil Ambani, Loop Telecom’s Prashant Ruia and some other top industrialists, the bench expressed satisfaction on the investigation.
“You look at the case with a particular angle and the CBI looks at it with particular format. A person is wealthy or holding shares (in a company) or holding high position, these will not confer immunity from law,” the bench told CPIL counsel Prashant Bhushan, who in his note referred to certain alleged shortcomings in CBI chargesheet, particularly with regard to the “letting of” the heads and owners of telecom companies but arresting their paid employees.
Mr Venugopal said investigation against the persons named by Mr Bhushan in the note, were being investigated, including the “Delphi” an alleged front company of Reliance and the same had been specifically stated in the March 15 report by the CBI.
He said that the CBI investigators will be going to Mauritius soon to carry out further probe to follow up the “letters rogatory (letter of request)” sent to that country earlier.
In response to Mr Bhushan’s query how Mr Ambani was “let off” when as the head of the company only he had the authority to sigh cheques above `10 crores whiel his paid employees could sign only those up to `10 crores, Mr Venugopal said it was not true as Reliance’s MD Gautam Ghosh was authorised to sign cheques up to `1,000 crores.
“In particular instance, he had signed `10 crores cheques nine times. This is a massive investigation. We will file another report after summer vacation after the investigation in Mauritius,” the CBI counsel stated, while opposing CPIL’s plea for setting up of a two-member independent panel to supervise the investigation and report to the court, which could not give instruction on every aspect of the case.