Former Telecom Minister A Raja's plea was on Thursday allowed by a Delhi court which directed the CBI to produce before it the inquiry report of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) in connection with the 2G spectrum allocation scam.
The order came on an application filed by Raja in which he had said that in 2009, an inquiry was conducted by the CVC into the allegations of allotment of 2G spectrum by Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and on October 12, 2009, CVC had forwarded its direct inquiry report to the CBI.
Special CBI Judge OP Saini, in his order, said the agency had argued that CVC's communication cannot be disclosed and had not filed any response on Raja's plea.
"CBI has admitted that the aforesaid communication and direct inquiry report (of the CVC) is in its custody. However, its case is that the communication was sent in official confidence and as such cannot be disclosed.
"However, the CBI has chosen not to even file a reply to the application despite the opportunity given to it, what to talk of claiming privilege," the court said.
It also observed that CBI had not said disclosure of the CVC's communication would make public interests suffer.
"Accordingly, I find no merit in the submission of the CBI. The prayer is allowed. The aforesaid communication of the CVC along with its direct inquiry report be produced in court and the accused/applicant A Raja would be at liberty to take a copy of it," the judge said.
Raja had said in his plea that CVC had asked the CBI to take "necessary action in the matter" and CVC's October 12, 2009 communication and direct inquiry report are in "custody of CBI and have a material bearing on this case and are relevant for the cross-examination of the investigating officers in this matter".
Raja, along with others, including DMK MP Kanimozhi is facing trial in the case.
During the proceedings, the court dismissed the separate pleas of Raja and accused firm Reliance Telecom Ltd seeking deferment of cross-examination of investigating officers (IOs) in the case till examination-in-chief of all the IOs are over.
The court said that there was no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) which restricts the discretion of prosecution to examine witnesses in the order it chooses.
"When a witness is examined-in-chief, cross-examination of him should follow immediately," it said, adding witnesses were to be examined in an order as to bring out facts in their logical sequence.
"This can be called as the regular order of examination of witnesses. Ordinarily, the witnesses should be examined in a regular order so that the facts of the case unfold in the court in a logical and sequential manner to make them clear and easily understandable," the judge said.
The court said the apprehension of the accused regarding filling up of lacunae by the prosecution was totally unfounded and such a prayer was unusual.
"Every witness is supposed to tell the truth and would depose only relating to the area covered by him during investigation of the case.
"If something is left by a witness and is deposed to by another witness correctly and truthfully, that does not amount to filling up lacunae, but amounts to correct narration of facts," it said adding prayer of accused were "unreasonable".