2G வழக்கில் அனைவரும் வெளியே வந்ததற்கு முக்கியமான காரணம் CBI. வழக்கில் பல முக்கிய இடங்களில் விசாரணை சரியாக செய்யாமல், சரியான கோப்புகளை/ அறிக்கைகளை சமர்பிக்காமல், பல இடங்களில் வாதாடாமல் மௌனம் காத்து உதவி செய்துள்ளனர். உதாரணத்திற்கு தீர்ப்பின் ஒரு சிறிய பகுதியை கீழே காணலாம். வழக்கில் முக்கியமான ஒரு பகுதி சுவான் டெலிகாம் நிறுவனம் தனது மற்ற நிறுவனங்களின் மூலம் கலைஞர் டி.வி.க்கு கொடுத்த ரூ 200 கோடி லஞ்சம். இந்த பணம் கொடுக்கப்பட்டது வெளிவந்தவுடன் அதை கலைஞர் டி.வி திரும்ப கொடுத்ததை நாம் அறிவோம். அதை கனிமொழி தரப்பினர் நியாயப்படுத்தும் போது, CBI எப்படி மௌனம் காத்தது என்பதை நீதிபதி கீழே குறிப்பிட்டுள்ளார். அவர்கள் லஞ்சத்தை நியாயப்படுத்த முன்தேதியிட்ட ஆவணங்களை சமர்ப்பிக்கின்றனர் என்று கூட CBI கேள்வி எழுப்பவில்லை என்று நீதிபதியே பதிவிட்டுள்ளார். ஊழலை ஒழிக்கும் CBI க்கு மௌன அஞ்சலி. லோக்பால் எங்கே என்று யாரும் பிரதமரை கேட்க வேண்டாம். அது வந்தால் இந்த வழக்கை போல் சிபிஐ வைத்து ஊழல் செய்யும் நிறுவனங்களையும் அரசியல்வாதிகளையும் காப்பாற்ற முடியுமோ முடியாதோ என்ற அவரது அச்சமும் சரிதானே!
Judgement Page No 1384 Justice O.P.Saini notes
"In the examination ¬in ¬chief itself, this witness justified the entire investment by Cineyug Films (P) Limited ino Kalaignar TV (P) Limited and return thereof, but the prosecution did not put any question to him challenging his version and the veracity of documents proved by him. No question at all was put to him to the effect that the entire documentation was created ex¬post to rationalize payment of illegal gratification as a bona fide business transaction.No suggestion was given that the documents were created to justify and validate an illegal transaction of payment of illegal gratification. The prosecution was happy with just getting the documents and the figures mentioned therein proved. It put no question to the witness about the purpose of transfer of money and the genuineness of documents. It put no question to the witness that it was an illegal gratification meant for the favours shown by Sh. A. Raja. However, the witness pleaded ignorance about the original of agreement dated 19.12.2008"
"In the examination ¬in ¬chief itself, this witness justified the entire investment by Cineyug Films (P) Limited ino Kalaignar TV (P) Limited and return thereof, but the prosecution did not put any question to him challenging his version and the veracity of documents proved by him. No question at all was put to him to the effect that the entire documentation was created ex¬post to rationalize payment of illegal gratification as a bona fide business transaction.No suggestion was given that the documents were created to justify and validate an illegal transaction of payment of illegal gratification. The prosecution was happy with just getting the documents and the figures mentioned therein proved. It put no question to the witness about the purpose of transfer of money and the genuineness of documents. It put no question to the witness that it was an illegal gratification meant for the favours shown by Sh. A. Raja. However, the witness pleaded ignorance about the original of agreement dated 19.12.2008"
Judgement Page No 1389 Justice O.P.Saini notes
"Thus, this witness in the examinationinchief as well as in crossexamination justified the entire payments and return thereof claiming the documents to be genuine, but the prosecution did not question him about genuineness of documents, either by way of reexamination or crossexamination. Thus, the prosecution was highly guarded and cautious. On the face of it, his deposition does not suffer from any grave lacunae or inherent absurdity so that it can be discarded even without reexamination or crossexamination by the prosecution. This witness deposed that documents were genuine and the money transferred was a loan. The question is How to reject this version and reach a diametrically opposite conclusion that it was not so but illegal gratification? To arrive at such a conclusion, there must be some evidence, direct or circumstantial. Mere some deficiencies in documents would not be enough to prove criminality. If the version of the witness regarding transactions being genuine is rejected, even then how does the money transferred becomes illegal gratification? If the witness was questioned and had he trotted out even a specious explanation, things might have been different and prosecution case would have got some traction. But it was not done"
"Thus, this witness in the examinationinchief as well as in crossexamination justified the entire payments and return thereof claiming the documents to be genuine, but the prosecution did not question him about genuineness of documents, either by way of reexamination or crossexamination. Thus, the prosecution was highly guarded and cautious. On the face of it, his deposition does not suffer from any grave lacunae or inherent absurdity so that it can be discarded even without reexamination or crossexamination by the prosecution. This witness deposed that documents were genuine and the money transferred was a loan. The question is How to reject this version and reach a diametrically opposite conclusion that it was not so but illegal gratification? To arrive at such a conclusion, there must be some evidence, direct or circumstantial. Mere some deficiencies in documents would not be enough to prove criminality. If the version of the witness regarding transactions being genuine is rejected, even then how does the money transferred becomes illegal gratification? If the witness was questioned and had he trotted out even a specious explanation, things might have been different and prosecution case would have got some traction. But it was not done"
No comments:
Post a Comment