[2G Appeals] After trial, Centre had absolute authority to appoint as many SPPs; No fault in filing: CBI argues before Delhi HC

After the competition of trial, the Central Government had the absolute authority to appoint as many Special Prosecutors for appeals in 2G cases, Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain today argued before the Delhi High Court. .At the same time, it can continue to utilise the services of already existing Prosecutors, Jain added as he defended filing of 2G appeals. .A Single Judge Bench of Justice Brijesh Sethi was hearing submissions on point of grant of "leave to appeal" to CBI in its appeals against the acquittal of all accused in 2G spectrum case. .Asif Balwa and Siddharth Behura, both acquitted accused, have moved applications before the Court seeking formal supply of documents to show that requisite sanction was provided by the Central Government to the CBI for filing of the appeals in terms of Section 378(2) CrPC. .[2G Appeals] CBI must show it had sanction from Centre to file the appeal: Acquitted accused argues before Delhi HC.Additionally, objections have also been raised on the manner of filing of CBI's appeal. Apart from Balwa and Behura, Surendra Pipara and Reliance Telecom have claimed that the Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) who filed the appeal i.e one Sanjeev Bhandari had no legal authority to do so..Broadly, it was contended that 2G being a special class of case, appeal could only be filed through and under the signature of a Special Prosecutor notified for the case. .Since the notification on the appointment of then Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta was in force before the filing of the appeal, the acquitted accused have contended that the same ought to have been done through him and not Sanjeev Bhandari. .Furthermore, even the appointment of SG Mehta is challenged on the ground that although his appointment was under Section 24(8) CrPC, the mandatory requirement of consultation with High Court under Section 24(1) CrPC was not followed. .Responding to the allegations, ASG Jain argued that for the appointment of Special Public Prosecutors under Section 24(8) CrPC, Central Government had no obligation to consult the High Court in terms of Section 24(1) CrPC. ."It is exclusively in the domain of the Central Government to appoint an SPP.", he said. .ASG Jain stated that the appointment of then ASG Tushar Mehta as SPP for the purposes of 2G appeals was approved even by the Supreme Court and the same did not supercede the appointments of any other existing SPPs, especially that of Sanjeev Bhandari. ."If the government appoints one person as SPP thinking that one person would be utilised for the appeal, it does not mean that all other SPP notifications get washed out. There is no such presumption in law.", he said. .He further stated that there was an inherent presumption in favour of a prosecutor who presented the appeal and there could be no allegation that there was non-application of mind. .As far as supply of sanction documents and prosecution files are concerned, ASG Jain asserted that he was under no obligation to do so. .He reiterated that grant of sanction was an administrative action and was of no concern to the acquitted accused. .Centre formed an opinion that 2G was a fit case for appeal, says CBI as it shows sanction order to Delhi HC [Live Updates].Contending that the Court must look at the nature of the application moved before it, ASG Jain stated that certain documents were shown by him only to satisfy the conscience of the Court. .The hearing will continue on October 12. .Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra and N Hariharan appeared for Siddharth Behura and Surendra Pipara, respectively. .Advocate Vijay Aggarwal appeared for Asif Balwa. Advocate DP Singh appeared for Reliance Telecom.