In a setback to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED), special judge OP Saini said the prosecution had failed miserably to prove their case, while acquitting those involved.
Questions regarding why and how the prosecution lost the 2G scam case continued two days after a trial court acquitted all 21 accused, including some companies, of all charges of corruption.
Hitting out against the judgement, senior advocate Anand Grover, who took over as the special public prosecutor, said no fault can be found with his conduct or preparation of the case. "It is wrong for any officer of the court to impeach the integrity of an individual. It is simply damaging to the integrity of the institution," Grover said, while speaking to DNA on Saturday.
"I am very bothered by the insinuations made in the judgement. I had no choice but to respond," he added. Grover further said the judge breached the integrity of the institution by not telling the truth and using petty irrelevant arguments.
In a setback to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED), special judge OP Saini said the prosecution had failed miserably to prove their case, while acquitting those involved.
In a strongly worded judgement, the special judge said the prosecution was unable to prove a shed of evidence to make their case.
Reacting to the judgement, Grover said if there was no case, it would have been evident one and a half years ago, when the judge framed questions under section 313.
In a criminal trial, once the chargesheet is filed, the charges are framed. After the prosecution has presented their evidence, the trial court judge then frames questions, for which he seeks answers from the defence.
Special judge Saini had posed 1,800 questions against former telecom minister A Raja, one of the prime accused.
"The charge sheet was vetted by the Supreme Court before it was presented in the trial court, based on which the judge framed charges against the accused," Grover said.
Moreover, he pointed out, that he came in at a stage when the prosecution had completed presenting their case. "I merely argued on the money laundering charges," he said, referring to the fact that he succeeded justice UU Lalit, who was the SPP before him.
The prosecution has hinted at appealing against the verdict in a higher court as Grover believes the trial court's verdict "is riddled with errors".
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "spectrum")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}