SC reserves order on Essar, Ruias plea for delinking cases from 2G

New Delhi, Sep 22 (IANS) The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its order on plea by Essar Teleholding and its promoters Anshuman S. Ruia and Ravi S. Ruia, accused of alleged wrongdoings in 2G scam, seeking that they be tried by a magisterial court instead by special court hearing 2G cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

A bench of Chief Justice H.L.Dattu, Justice A.K.Sikri and Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman reserved the order after senior counsel Harish Salve, appearing for Essar and Ruias, sought the delinking of the cases against his clients from that of 2G cases so that they could be tried by a magistrates’ court.

He initially argued that if his clients accused of penal offences other than those covered under the Prevention of Corruption Act had to be tried by the special court hearing 2G cases, then it has to be a joint trial.

The plea for a joint trial meant that entire trial even the one involving former communications minister A. Raja had to be redone. Raja’s trial which is in final stages has already gone for last four years.

Opposing the plea, Special Public Prosecutor before 2G special court Anand Grover told the court that there could not be a joint trial as there was no provision providing for it and it has to be a separate trial by the special court.

He told the court that trial in two cases including the main case was at an advanced stage and any going back would bring the entire trial proceedings to a naught.

Grover told the court that Essar and Ruias were not oblivious of the point now being raised by them after the trial is already taken place for four long years.

However, at the end of the hearing, Salve, in his rejoinder arguments, said that it was the 2G court that had “amalgamated” the cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and that of those accused of the penal provisions that are triable by the magistrate court.

He referred to the provisions of law that spelt out the jurisdiction of the each court and noted the same could not be transgressed.

Leave a Reply