Former Telecom Minister A Raja today told a special court that all decisions taken by him regarding 2G spectrum allocation were "unanimous" and he had shared the details with then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and other cabinet colleagues at all crucial stages.
Initiating his final arguments in 2G spectrum allocation case in which Raja, DMK MP Kanimozhi and 15 others are facing trial, the DMK leader said that "no departures" were ever made from the proposal of Department of Telecommunications (DoT).
"Every decision A Raja had taken were all proposals of department and all the decisions were unanimous. All decisions were in the exact fashion as they were set out in the file notings. No departures were ever made," advocate Manu Sharma, appearing for Raja, told Special CBI Judge O P Saini.
"At all crucial stages, the decisions were shared with the then Prime Minister and other cabinet colleagues," he said, adding, concurrence of then External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee and then Solicitor General G E Vahanvati were also taken.
During arguments, the court asked Raja's counsel, "ordinarily, the conspiracy is hatched in secrecy but can the offence of conspiracy be made out if it is done in open?"
The court's question came after the counsel argued that there was no conspiracy as alleged by CBI as whatever Raja had done was in public domain and even Parliament was informed about it.
Regarding the court's query, Sharma said he would respond to it during his final arguments.
Raja's counsel also argued that not a single penny came as a pecuniary gain to his client from the whole episode and every act which was attributed to him can be viewed from the prism of the 'New Telecom Policy of 1999' and can be verified whether the objectives were achieved or not.
"At various forums, his (Raja) stand has been vindicated and the then Prime Minister as well as his successors have all supported the claims made by him in Parliament," Sharma said adding that even DoT has relied on his decisions.
Raja's counsel further said that the necessary ingrediant of dishonest intention was not satisfied in the present case.
On August 29 last year, the CBI had filed the charge sheet in the case containing the names of 151 prosecution witnesses and a set of 655 documents, on which it has relied upon during its probe.
CBI had alleged in the court that Dayanidhi had "pressured" and "forced" Chennai-based telecom promoter C Sivasankaran to sell his stakes in Aircel and two subsidiary firms to Malaysian firm Maxis Group in 2006.
In ED's case, its prosecutor N K Matta had earlier claimed that there were money transactions which allegedly showed that SDTPL and SAFL had received Rs 742.58 crore as "proceeds of crime" from Mauritius-based firms in the Aircel-Maxis deal.
The agency had claimed that "proceeds of crime" amounting to Rs 549.03 crore and Rs 193.55 crore were received by SDTPL and SAFL, allegedly controlled by co-accused Kalanithi, respectively through various Mauritius-based entities.
The ED prosecutor had referred to the details of money transactions between these firms and alleged that SDTPL had received Rs 549.03 crore from Mauritius-based firm M/s South Asia Entertainment Holding Ltd.
ED had earlier alleged before the court that Dayanidhi had generated funds worth Rs 742.58 crore through illegal means and there was sufficient prima facie material to proceed against him and other accused in the case.
It had alleged that Dayanidhi had obtained "illegal gratification" of Rs 742.58 crore and the money was "parked" in the firms of Kalanithi by projecting it as untainted.
ED had also claimed that Kalanithi was controlling both SDTPL and SAFL, where the money was infused through Mauritius -based companies.
