DMK Rajya Sabha MP Kanimozhi on Friday moved the Delhi High Court, challenging the framing of charges against her in the 2G spectrum allocation case. Her petition, seeking quashing of the allegations and her discharge in the case, is likely to come up for hearing next week.
She along with 16 others is facing trial in the case in a CBI special court here. Several other accused, including three top executives of Reliance Telecom, have also approached the court for quashing of charges against them. Ms. Kanimozhi said the impugned order was based on a completely wrong and misplaced understanding of the law of conspiracy.
“There is not even an allegation that a single penny of the alleged bribe money has gone towards the personal account of the petitioner or has in any manner benefited her on a personal level.”
As per the investigating agency, the alleged bribe money was paid to Kalaignar TV between December 2008 and August 2009.
But during this phase, the petitioner was only a shareholder of 20 per cent equity of the company and nothing more. She did not take part in any of the company's board meetings, where decisions on the alleged transaction were taken. Nor did she sign any of the agreements or documents pertaining to the same, the petition said.
The special judge committed a grave error in law in framing charges under 120B/420 (criminal conspiracy and cheating) of the Indian Penal Code against her, the petition said. For, the decision not to auction 2G spectrum allocation was based on the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India's recommendations dated August 28, 2007. Secondly, there was no evidence on record that the petitioner had anything to do with the same, the petition stated.
Framing the charges against all the 17 accused, including Ms. Kanimozhi, in October last, Special Judge O.P. Saini said: “…you all committed an offence punishable under Sections 120B read with 409 [criminal breach of trust], 420, 468 [forgery for purpose of cheating], and 471 [using as genuine a forged document] of the IPC and Section 7 or in the alternative Section 11 read with [r/w] Sections 12 and 13 r/w 13[d] of the Prevention of Corruption Act.”