In a relief to Maran brothers, a court here today discharged former Telecom Minister Dayanidhi Maran, his industrialist brother Kalanithi Maran and others in the Aircel-Maxis deal cases of CBI and ED saying the charges were based on "misreading of official files", speculation and surmises of the complainant.
Special CBI Judge O P Saini said that no prima facie case warranting framing of charges against any of these accused was made out on the basis of materials placed on record.
Dealing with the money laundering case, the court observed that since the accused were discharged in the case of scheduled offence registered by CBI, the Enforcement Directorate's matter has become "groundless" and nothing survives in it.
Also Read
"I am satisfied that the entire case (of CBI) is based on the misreading of the official files, contradictory statements of the witnesses as well as speculation and surmises of C Sivasankaran, the complainant. I have no hesitation in recording no prima facie case warranting framing of charge against any of the accused is made out," the judge said.
While discharging the accused in the ED's case, the judge said, "In view of the fact that the accused persons stand discharged in the case of scheduled offence, I am satisfied that the instant case has become groundless and nothing survives in it. Accordingly, all accused are ordered to be discharged and stand discharged.
"In such a situation, there is no existence of proceeds of crime. When there is no existence of proceeds of crime, there is no question of same being laundered or projected as untainted. Accordingly, there is no ground to proceed against the accused persons," it said in the order passed in ED's case.
However, today's order would not have any effect on the two accused Malaysian nationals -- Ralph Marshall and T Ananda Krishnan -- in the CBI's case as the court has already segregated the proceedings against them from that of Maran brothers and others.
CBI had filed a charge sheet against the Maran brothers, Ralph Marshall, T Ananda Krishnan and four firms -- M/s Sun Direct TV (P) Ltd, M/s Astro All Asia Networks Plc, UK, M/s Maxis Communications Berhad, Malaysia, M/s South Asia Entertainment Holdings Ltd, Malaysia -- and then Additional Secretary (Telecom) J S Sarma, who had died during the course of the probe.
They were chargesheeted for alleged offences punishable under section 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of IPC and under relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
In the money laundering case, ED had chargesheeted the Maran brothers, Kalanithi's wife Kavery, Managing Director of South Asia FM Ltd (SAFL) K Shanmugam, SAFL and Sun Direct TV Pvt Ltd (SDTPL) under provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The special court, in its two separate orders running into 526 pages, said that the case was based on the foundation that Dayanidhi and Sarma deliberately delayed the approval relating to several issues, including the issuance of UAS licences to Aircel, to force Chennai-based promoter C Sivasankaran to exit from the telecom sector.
"All the nine allegations have been found to be without any legal evidence. There is no legally admissible evidence on record to indicate any incriminating conduct of the two (Dayanidhi and Sarma). As such, the very foundation of the case is knocked out that the delay was meant to choke the business environment of Siva group of companies.
"Thus, the case can be disposed of on the basis of these findings alone as once the very concept of delay is not accepted, nothing survives in the case...," the court said.
It also said that other points contained in the charge sheet were also without any merit.
The court said that the statement of the complainant was not supported by material on record regarding non-consideration of his representations by the then minister.
While dismissing CBI's contention regarding conspiracy between Dayanidhi and Sarma, the court said, "From the material on record, it is difficult to infer any conspiracy between the two. Simply because the minister is asking a particular officer to perform certain official acts, one cannot call them conspirators...There is no material to indicate that Dayanidhi or Sarma were responsible for delay in considering the representations of Sivasankaran or for not considering them at all."
The judge further said, "I am satisfied that there were no issues which were the making of the minister or the secretary which constricted the business environment of C Sivasankaran resulting in the sale of company to Maxis."
While noting that Sivasankaran's statement was based on speculation, surmises and conjectures and was totally contrary to the record, the court said, "There is no ground to presume that the business environment of Siva group was constricted or choked enough as to pressurise them into selling its companies to Maxis and that the subsequent sale was the result of pressure from any quarter including the minister or Ralph Marshall...This allegation is based entirely on the oral statement of Sivasankaran.
