The CBI said it would file an appeal against a special court's verdict acquitting all the accused in the 2G scam case on Thursday, contending that the prosecution's charges "have not been appreciated in its proper perspective".
"The judgement relating to the 2G scam case of today has been prima facie examined and it appears that the evidence adduced to substantiate the charges by the prosecution has not been appreciated in its proper perspective by the learned court. The CBI will be taking necessary legal remedies in the matter," CBI spokesperson Abhishek Dayal said.
Asked whether an appeal would be filed in the Delhi High Court challenging the verdict, the spokesperson replied in the affirmative.
Former telecom minister A Raja and DMK MP Kanimozhi were today acquitted by the special court in the 2G spectrum scam case. Fifteen other accused in the 2G scam cases including three companies were also acquitted.
The CBI sources said that the initial analysis of the judgement has given them material which will form the basis of the agency's appeal in the Delhi High Court which might be filed much before the 60-day deadline.
Giving the primary line of argument which the agency will include in its appeal before the Delhi High Court, the sources claimed that the court has given credence to oral evidence of the defence over the documentary evidence presented by the prosecution.
They claimed that as per established law when oral and documentary evidences are in contradiction, written proof takes precedence which does not reflect in the special court order.
The money for alleged bribe was purportedly taken from market at 14 per cent rate of interest whereas it was given at a rate of five per cent to Kalaignar TV which did not make any business sense, they claimed, adding that it was returned after the case was filed.
The sources said the court ignored this fact as well.
The first-come-first-serve policy was operated in such a manner that it helped companies which were ready to submit necessary bank draft at short notices thus effectively keeping out many eligible companies, they said.
The sources claimed that the court has also not considered its evidence showing that front companies were created to bag more than one licence and that companies made speculative gains.
The agency also underlined that the probe was monitored by the Supreme Court where it was submitting regular reports.
Pulling up the CBI, special judge O P Saini noted in the beginning, the prosecution started with the case with great enthusiasm and ardour.
"However, as the case progressed, it became highly cautious and guarded in its attitude making it difficult to find out as to what prosecution wanted to prove," he said.
The judge said, "However, by the end, the quality of prosecution totally deteriorated and it became directionless and diffident. Not much is required to be written as the things are apparent from the perusal of the evidence itself."
"I may also add that for the last about seven years, on all working days, summer vacation included, I religiously sat in the open court from 10 AM to 5 PM, awaiting for someone with some legally admissible evidence in his possession, but all in vain. Not a single soul turned up," Saini said in his 1,552-page verdict.
He said this indicates that everybody was going by public perception created by rumour, gossip and speculation.
"However, public perception has no place in judicial proceedings," the court said.
In its charge sheet filed in April 2011 against Raja and others, the CBI had alleged that there was a loss of Rs 30,984 crore to the exchequer in allocation of 122 licences for 2G spectrum which were scrapped by the Supreme Court on February 2, 2012.
All the accused facing trial in these cases had denied allegations levelled against them by the CBI and the ED.
The court had in October 2011 framed charges against them under various provisions of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act dealing with offences of criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery, using as genuine fake documents, abusing official position, criminal misconduct by public servant and taking bribe.