[2G Appeals] CBI must show it had sanction from Centre to file the appeal: Acquitted accused argues before Delhi HC

As the Delhi High Court began its quest to conclude hearing in "leave to appeal" in 2G appeals in two months, Asif Balwa, one of the acquitted accused, today sought a copy of Central Government's sanction letter which granted approval to Central Bureau of Investigation to file the appeal against the acquittal of all accused. (CBI vs A Raja & Ors).[BREAKING] Delhi HC allows early hearing plea by CBI, ED in 2G Appeals; Case to be taken up on daily basis from Oct 5.Asserting that Rule of Law required all to follow the mandate of law, appearing for Asif Balwa, Advocate Vijay Aggarwal pointed out that the existence of the sanction/approval from the Central Government was a mandatory prerequisite under Section 378(2) CrPC as well as Chapter 23 of the CBI Manual. .In response, Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain, who appears for CBI and Enforcement Directorate, submitted that in law, unless there were facts to prove otherwise, there was a presumption that the requisite procedure is followed by authorities. .Calling it a housekeeping issue, he nonetheless agreed that the documents could be placed in a sealed cover only for the Court's perusal. . "If the Court wants to see if Section 378 and CBI Manual has been followed, the documents can be given to the Court.. but it cannot be given to the other side to be used as a working tool..Documents cannot be given to the Respondents for their perusal.", he stated, .Aggarwal, however, argued that what was forbidden for him, was forbidden for the Court as well. .Relying on an order passed by the Bombay High Court against the practice of placing documents in sealed covers, Aggarwal asserted that the Court could not deny his request to see documents which impacted his rights. ."I'm sharing (documents on) the (virtual hearing) screen and everyone is seeing. There cannot be a sealed cover.. Sadda Haq, Aithe Rakh! It is my right."Adv Aggarwal."At least in my Court, there will never be a question of anything being done in sealed cover", Justice Gautam Patel of Bombay HC.Agarwal further pointed out that as per the Notification issued by the Central Government in February 2018, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta was appointed as the Special Public Prosecutor for all cases 2G Spectrum cases. .However, the appeal was not filed through him or in his name, he added. .Supporting Aggarwal, Senior Advocates Siddharth Luthra and N Hariharan, who appear for certain other accused in the appeals, contended that the issue of sanction went to the root of the matter. .It was added that given the history of the case, there ought to be a notification on ASG Jain appearing in the appeals before the High Court..After hearing the parties, the Court stated, ."I hope and believe that there is some kind of delegation. I need that clarification.".ASG Jain sought time till tomorrow to seek instructions on the issue of sanction. .Meanwhile, following an application, the Court allowed counsel for Sanjay Chandra to meet him virtually thrice a week for one hour each. .Chandra is presently in Tihar Jail in relation to an EOW FIR. Advocate Vishal Gosain appeared for Chandra. .The matter would be heard tomorrow.. Read full account of the hearing here:.Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.