Raja wants Chidambaram as witness,cites his stand on dilution of shares

Chidambaram offered at a meeting,where both PM Manmohan Singh and Raja,the then telecom minister,were present,that,“Dilution of shares to attract foreign investment does not amount to sale of equity”,Kumar said.

The meeting cleared the sale of equity by Swan and Unitech Wireless to Etisalat and Telenor respectively. Chidambaram thus became part of what Kumar called the “two pillars” of the case against Raja: that the jailed minister should have auctioned the spectrum,and that he showed favour to two companies that in turn transferred equity to other companies. “Call him (Chidambaram) as a witness. Ask him,‘Is this correct: did you give this opinion in the presence of the PM?’,” said Kumar. “If he admits to the presence of the PM (at the meeting),

it is your discretion to call him or not,” Kumar told Judge Saini.

Kumar,however,clarified that he did not want the Home Minister listed as an accused: “I want to call Chidambaram as a party to the case. I am not calling him as an accused.”

The senior advocate told the court that the file relating to the meeting was seized the day after the CBI filed the first FIR in the case. The FIR was filed on October 21,2009. “The CBI has 1,35,000 pages with it. They have submitted hardly 80,00; they are withholding. The opinion was submitted to the Supreme Court on July 19,2010. Why are they withholding 50,000 pages?” asked Kumar.

Kumar even gave the number of the file: 20-100/2007-AS 1 (PD) 11. He said the minimum the CBI could have done was record a statement of Chidambaram in relation to the meeting. “Please call for the file under (CrPC) section 91. It is a part of SC records,” he said.

The lawyer said he had to plead with the court to call for the document as,“This department (CBI) which is investigating is closed to RTI.”

Kumar also referred to the CBI continuing the probe despite filing a chargesheet. Kumar said the CBI was too impatient,and that they filed an incomplete chargesheet.

He went on to remind the court that the report of the “legally illiterate” CAG is not part of the chargesheet.