SC declines to stay trial in 2G money laundering cases

The Supreme Court Tuesday declined to put on hold the trial of the 2G accused against whom the Special CBI court conducting trial in 2G cases has framed charges under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

The apex court was moved by Shahid Usman Balwa, Rajiv B. Agarwal, Asif Blawa, Vinod Goenka, M/S Mystical Construction, M/S Kusegaon Reality, M/S Dynmix Reality, M/S DB Reality, and Eversmile Construction challenging the trial court's Oct 31 order framing charges.

The trail court is proceeding against ten people including former Telecom Minister A. Raja, DMK supremo M Karunanidhi's daughter Kanimozhi and wife Dayalu Ammal, and nine companies under the Prevention Of Money Laundering Act 2002.

While declining to stay the trial of the 2G accused under the provisions of Prevention Money Laundering Act, 2002, the apex court bench of Chief Justice H.L. Dattu, Justice Madan B. Lokur and Justice A.K. Sikri asked the Enforcement Directorate to file its response on the appeal of the accused, and directed the hearing of the matter Nov 26.

Senior counsel Harish Salve told the court that the CBI court was relying on the statements by the custom officers adding that custom officers were not police officers and the statement recorded by them could not be used in the trial. Addressing the court, Salve said that all are connected matters.

Finding that the court was not inclined to stay the trial, Salve told the court that it could direct that statements of the customs officers may not be relied upon by the trial court.

If we say that you proceed with the trial but don't reply on the evidence, we can't say that, the court said declining Salve's plea.

The court was told that "the complaint and charges are violative of Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India, as the offences, on the date on which they are alleged to have been committed were not covered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002."

The offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the petitioners said, were added as Scheduled Offences under the PMLA much after the completion of the commission of the offence.

Meanwhile, the CBI Director Ranjit Sinha Tuesday once again invoked the apex court rules to contend that the petitioner NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation was obliged to disclose the identity of the whistle-blower who gave information about his allegedly over-ruling his officers investigating 2G cases.

Senior counsel Vikas Singh who appeared for Sinha - who is going to demit office as CBI Director Dec 2 - said: "Every fact alleged against me that I over-ruled my colleagues is false. I have never over-ruled. Only in the case of difference between the investigating officer and Director of Prosecution, the matter was referred to the Attorney General. This is what even CBI manual also says."

Appearing for the NGO CPIL, senior counsel Dushyant Dave told the court that technicalities of rules don't come in the way of plea that are of larger public interest and there is no personal interest.

He also said that NGO would not raise the shield of its plea being bonafide, if it decided to hold back the identity of the source and the information given by the source later turns out to be wrong.

The hearing will continue tomorrow.