|
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday sought a reply from the CBI to DMK MP Kanimozhi's plea for quashing of various criminal and corruption charges framed by the trial court against her in the 2G spectrum allocation case. Justice M L Mehta issued the notice to the probe agency and fixed the matter for further hearing on May 10. Kanimozhi, in her plea, claimed she was falsely implicated in the case, and argued there is no evidence to justify the charges slapped by the CBI. The 44-year-old DMK leader, who got bail after spending over six months in Tihar Jail, also sought setting aside of all proceedings in this case. She had challenged the trial court's order framing charges against her contending that it was based on "wrong and misplaced understanding of the law on conspiracy". Special CBI judge O P Saini had framed charges against former telecom minister A Raja, Kanimozhi and 15 others on October 22, 2011, for offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act. All the accused were charged under various provisions of the IPC and the PC Act for alleged criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery, faking documents, abusing official position, getting bribe and criminal misconduct by public servant along with criminal breach of trust. The offences entail punishment ranging from six months in jail to life imprisonment. The CBI claims Kanimozhi was "an active brain" behind the operation of Kalaignar TV and was "in regular touch" with Raja to serve the cause of DMK-run TV channel that had allegedly received Rs 200 crore as bribe in lieu of the grant of UAS licence to Swan Telecom. Kanimozhi rebutted the charge, saying she wasn't aware of the events between October, 2007, and January, 2008, and said "in absence of such knowledge it is unthinkable that the petitioner had agreed to be part of conspiracy." "No allegation that a single penny of the alleged bribe money has gone to personal account of the petitioner or has in any manner benefited her on a personal level," she said in her plea. The petition said the order of trial court framing charges under Sections 120B / 409 was unfounded as the decision not to auction 2G spectrum is based on TRAI's recommendation and she had nothing to do with the same. "The trial court judge has committed a grave error in framing charges of 120B and 409 of the IPC against the petitioner as the decision not to auction 2G spectrum is based on TRAI recommendation of August 28, 2007 and there is no evidence on record that the petitioner had anything to do with the same," it added. |
| SOURCE: The Times of India |
