Supreme Court rejects plea of Essar challenging special court's jurisdiction

The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed the pleas of Essar Teleholdings Ltd and its promoters challenging the Special CBI court's jurisdiction to hold trial against them in a case arising out of the probe in 2G spectrum scam, saying their submissions have been rejected earlier.

The court said the grounds raised by the company and its promotors Ravi and Anshuman Ruia were considered by another bench, which had not found merit in their contention that the case be heard by a magisterial court as there was no charge under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA).

"We are of the view that the petitioners are attempting to raise submissions which have already been rejected by this Court by its judgment dated July 1, 2013," a bench comprising Chief Justice H L Dattu and justices A K Sikri and R Nariman said.

"We find no infirmity in the impugned judgment. As a result, the appeal and the writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed," it said.

An apex court bench on July 1, 2013 had rejected the pleas of Essar Teleholdings and Loop Telecom that they and their promoters cannot be tried in a case by special CBI court and had directed that all cases pertaining to the scam should be heard by it.

On Tuesday, the bench refused to accept Essar's contention that a Special Judge appointed to try PCA cases cannot go into non-PCA cases unless there is a causal link between such cases and the corruption cases, when they can be tried together.

"As has been held by us, once the challenge to the administrative order dated March 15, 2011, is specifically rejected, the offences arising out of the second supplementary chargesheet, being offences under the Penal Code relatable to the 2G scam, can be tried separately only by the Special Judge," the bench said.

It said that since the apex court has held that the March 15, 2011 administrative order of the High court was valid, it is clear that even a Penal Code offence by itself would be within the Special Judge's jurisdiction as the order gives power to the Special Court to decide all offences pertaining to the 2G scam. 

The bench said that independent of the PCA provisions and the notification of March 28, 2011, of the Delhi government, the Special Judge has been vested with the jurisdiction to undertake the trial of all cases in relation to all matters pertaining to the 2G Scam exclusively, which would include Penal Code offences by themselves so long as they pertain to the 2G Scam.

The bench also rejected the contention of the petitioners for holding joint trial with other accused in the main 2G spectrum scam case, involving former Telecom Minister A Raja, saying the Special Judge in its order dated September 2, 2013, has given cogent reasons for not exercising his discretion to order a joint trial.

"This was correctly turned down by the Special Judge, regard being had to the fact that this Court, in paragraph 25 of the judgement dated July 1, 2013, only stated that a discretion was vested with the Special Judge which he may well exercise given the facts of the case," it said.

The apex court had on September 22 reserved its verdict on a petition filed by the company and its promoters contending that since there was no offence made out against them under Prevention of Corruption Act, Special 2G Court had no jurisdiction to prosecute them in the case.

They had submitted that the magisterial court had the jurisdiction to try them as they have been only charge sheeted for conspiracy and cheating under sections 120B and 420 of the IPC, respectively.

The CBI had opposed their plea, saying the company and its promoters were trying to scuttle the trial that was in an advanced stage.

They have been named in the charge sheet under section 420 (cheating) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC. The accused contended the charges were tried by a magistrate and not by the special court constituted for the 2G case.

Other accused named in the third charge sheet in 2G case are Anshuman and Ravi Ruia, along with Loop Telecom promoters Kiran Khaitan, her husband I P Khaitan and Essar Group Director (Strategy and Planning) Vikash Saraf.

The companies and their promoters have denied any involvement in the scam.

The special court had on May 25, 2012, framed charges against all the accused for the alleged offences of criminal conspiracy and cheating under the IPC, while substantive charge of cheating was made out only against Saraf.

The recording of prosecution evidence in the case started on July 26, 2012. The court has recorded the statements of 95 CBI witnesses, running into 1,056 pages, while the accused have examined 12 witnesses in their defence.