2G trial: Day 1 focuses on alleged RCom-Swan links

The trial in the 2G telecom scam case opened on Friday in a packed court room. An estimated 350 people, including the accused, their families, lawyers and the media, fought for space in the room.

The questioning and cross examination on the first day were related to the alleged links between Reliance Communications and Swan, one of the beneficiaries in the 2G spectrum allocation in 2007-08. Former telecom minister, A Raja, and 13 others were arrested earlier this year for their alleged roles in the scam. The trial would revolve around the Reliance-Swan case through this month, with 28 witnesses listed for November.

The first witness at the trial, Anand Subramaniam, assistant vice-president, Reliance Capital, faced a volley of questions by the prosecution and defence counsels on links between Reliance Communications and Swan. Documents, cheques, letters and bank papers were laid out in the open for vetting and verifications.

The highlight of the day was Raja's counsel, Sushil Kumar's, stand on cross-examination. He gave a petition to the court that he would not cross-examine any of the witnesses till the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed the next charge sheet and declared the investigation complete. However, his plea was dismissed. Kumar later told reporters, “I am walking out. I am going to exercise my right not to argue till the investigation is complete.” Raja's counsel was referring to the third charge sheet the CBI may file in the Essar-Loop case. When asked by special O P Saini about his stand on cross-examination of witnesses, Raja said, “I stand by my advocate.”

During the cross-examination, Subramaniam said he had signed a HDFC Bank cheque on behalf of Reliance Communications, despite being on the payrolls of Reliance Capital.

“It is a normal practice in the private sector to be on the payrolls of one company and to be an authorised signatory for many other companies,” he said.

On many occasions, Subramaniam said he could not recollect particular events. For instance, he failed to remember whether he had been “an authorised signatory for five, ten, 100 or 200 companies.” He said he had been shown a shareholders’ agreement dated March 3, 2007, between Reliance Telecom, Tiger Traders and Swan Telecom, pursuant to letter of Dynamix Balwa Infrastructure. “I do not have any knowledge about this agreement…it is correct that various companies of Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group keep funding each other for business transactions…I am not aware if other companies (it funds) must necessarily be a non-banking finance company.”

He also told the defence counsels he did not have complete understanding of Swan Telecom’s composition. He said the CBI had approached him in March and within a week, his statement was recorded, a copy of which he did not receive.