2G Spectrum: Delhi HC hears appeals by CBI, ED against acquittal of accused [LIVE UPDATES]

The Delhi High Court is continuing its hearing of the appeals preferred by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate (ED) against the acquittal of all the accused in the 2G Spectrum case.A Single-Bench of Justice Brijesh Sethi is hearing the appeals..The appeals are at the stage of 'leave to appeal'. Yesterday, the Court heard the parties at length on the issue of proper filing of the appeal before the High Court and on the question of CBI having the requisite sanction to file the appeal..2G Spectrum: Delhi HC hears CBI and ED appeals against acquittal of accused [LIVE UPDATES].Live Updates from the hearing today will feature on this page..Hearing begins..I don't find Mr Sanjay Jain ji: Court .He will join in a while. We have replied to two applications: Advocate Ripudaman for CBI.I will argue on Section 378 CrPC: Senior Advocte N Hariharan for Surendra Pipara..I have filed a similar application : Senior Advocate ANS Nadkarni for Vinod Goenka.Why have you not filed earlier.. Mr Vijay Aggarwal and Sidharth Luthra have argued very well.. on whether Mr Sajay Jain can argue.. scope of Section 378.. we need not repeat: Court.My application is on application of section 13 (1)( d) Prevention of Corruption Act: Nadkarni.We have give a compilation of judgement. The dispute is regarding the supply of (sanction)documents. We only have an oral response and there is a shifting change. Till we have clarity.. we will not have able to deal with it: Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra for Siddharth Behura..Senior Advocate N Hariharan begins. .The issue of sanction affects everyone. We will continue on arguements on the basis that separate applications by all Respondents will not be filed: Hariharan.There are 3-4 provisions that the court needs to look into. First and foremost, Section 2(u) CrPC on public prosecutor: Hariharan.Section 24 has two provisions that are important.. 24(1) and 24 (8): Hariharan.2(u) includes Special Public Prosecutor under section 24(8).. Section 24 (1) speaks of appointment of public prosecutors to prefer an appeal in consultation of High Court. Can notification issued by Centre suffice under Section 24(1)? : Hariharan.Harmonious construction implies that SPP also has to be appointed in consultation of High Court: Hariharan.Hariharan reads Section 25A on Directorate of Prosecution..Under Section 25A(8), if it is the Advocate General, he is exempted from being answerable to Directorate of Prosecution: Hariharan.In the present case, persons have been appointed as SPP under Section 24(8).. but criteria of Section 24(1) has to be satisfied: Hariharan.Entire thing has to be seen in the scheme of things: Hariharan.Hariharan seeks to distinguish Section 24 from Section 301 CrPC..Let us look into the truncated papers given by CBI: Hariharan as he reads the appointment notification of Sanjeev Bhandari as SPP. .Bhandari filed the appeal..This notification cannot help the Prosecution. It does not satisfy the criteria of Section 24 (1). The appointment was not in consultation with the High Court. It does not specify which class of cases Bhandari would be in-charge of: Hariharan.This person cannot file an appeal before teh High Court or appear in any such proceedings: Hariharan.The other proceeding is this leave to appeal. Leave to appeal was filed without the authority of law: Hariharan.At the threshold, the filing of the leave to appeal is under challenge: Hariharan.There are two dates that are relevant. There is a notification dated 16.02.2018: Hariharan as he reads the notification on appointment of SG Tushar Mehta as SPP for 2G cases. .The appointment is under Section 24(8): Hariharan.This appointment had made Mr Mehta as SPP. It is by Central Government but doesn't say that the appointment was in compliance of Section 24(1): Hariharan.Whether High Court was consulted in order to appoint an SPP is wanting.. as far Bhandari's notification was concerned, it was a general type of notification and would not even qualify under Section 24 (1): Hariharan.The passing of Mr Mehta's notification made all other notifications redundant. It said it was in supersession of all other notifications including that of Bhandari's: Hariharan.The next relevant date is of the date of filing on leave to appeal.. it was filed in March 2018: Hariharan.On the date of the filing, Mr Mehta had been appointed as SPP. How is Mr Bhandari filing it when everyone else had been ousted? Where is his authority to file the leave to defend?: Hariharan.All the documents are bereft of material particulars: Hariharan.The Notification is very categorical that it is only Mr Mehta who is vested with the power of being SPP. It doesn't say that he would be assisted by xyz: Hariharan.If Me Mehta satisfies the criteria of Section 24 (1), he would to be deemed to SPP.. : Hariharan.Hariharan refers to Jayalalithaa judgement from Supreme Court. There was a difference of opinion between Justice Lokur and Justice Banumathi. There was a reference to a larger Bench. The larger Bench concurred with Justice Lokur's view: Hariharan.Hariharan states the procedural background of Jayalalitha case..Trial was transferred from Tamil Nadu to Karnataka.. Govt of Karnataka did not file an appeal but didn't appoint an Prosecutor. State of Tamil Nadu appointed a Prosecutor. This issue came before Supreme Court: Hariharan.All these provisions were examined by the Supreme Court.. it was held that Tamil Nadu appointee did not have the authority to appear as Prosecutor: Hariharan.The Supreme Court said that if SPP is to be appointed under Section 24(8), it must be done in consultation with Chief Justice, Kar HC in terms of Section 24(1): Hariharan.Let us examine 378 CrPc in this light : Hariharan.Word used in 378(2) is public prosecutor who would satisfy the provisions of Section 24 (1). As per 2(u), SPP is subsumed under Section 24(1): Hariharan.Hariharan refers to the dissenting opinion of Justice Banumathi. .She said that for a case, SPP would continue to appear before any court without any separate authority unless the same is revoked. She upheld the SPP appointed : Hariharan.Now I'll come to Full Bench: Hariharan.Hariharan reads the Full Bench judgement. .Section 24(1) has restricted the appointment of PP for High Court: Hariharan reads..SPP was appointed for trial. He sought right to audience in appeals. Justice Lokur was clear that such person must satisfy the criteria of Section 24(1): Hariharan.Do you mean to say that appointment of Mr Mehta was not in consonance with law ?: Court .Mr Bhandari, Mr Mehta or Mr Jain do not satisfy the criteria under 2(u), Section 24(1) and Section 24(8): Hariharan.Hariharan states that to get a clearer picture on the manner of appointment, it was important that all documents are shared..Hariharan concludes..Advocate DP Singh for Reliance Telecom begins. I agree with some arguements. I will read the appointment of Mr Mehta differently: Singh.The supersession was only with regards the notification dated February 8, 2018... but it doesn't mean that the appeal was filed correctly: Singh.Doesn't make a difference. He was still appointed as SPP: Hariharan.The 8 February Notification named Mr Mehta as Advocate instead of Senior Advocate. .I'm on the appointment of Mr Sanjeev Bhandari: Singh.2G is a class of case. There was a 2G court. Like there is a court which dealt only with coal cases: Singh.Not even SPP , State had appointed PP and additional PP only for 2G: Singh.There are more than 600 grounds taken.. there is an affidavit by VM Mittal, Additional Superintendent of Police. It says appeal is based on legal advice of Advocate. Which Advocate?: Singh.At no stage did any document reach Mr Bhandari.. PP is not a post office. He has to verify the contents. Let the ASG show to this court that there has ever been any communication to Mr Bhandari for scrutiny of appeal. Basic thing is application of mind: Singh.Recently, Delhi Riots notification was issued. It has a mix of all lawyers- designated seniors and otherwise..a senior advocate has to be assisted by somebody. When Mr UU Lalit was appointed, a PP and Additional PP was appointed by State: Singh.If it is Mr Bhandari, there has to be his appointment after judgement was passed. His appointment is 2014. Bhandari was never appointed for this class of case: Singh.Appeal was not settled by Senior Advocate..it was not settled by Bhandari..: Singh.Assuming Mr Jain has been authorised by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.. though there is no specific authorization for this case. It still can't be applied to the filing of the appeal by Mr Bhandari: Singh.The filing itself is bad due to lack of authority with persons filing this appeal: Singh.DP Singh concludes. .For the purpose of Section 378(2), Centre has to direct CBI.. there is no notification showing this direction: Senior Advocate Nadkarni.Direction is mandatory. It shows application of mind. Even before granting leave, court has to ascertain if appeal has been filed by CBI or has Central Govt directed them to file it: Nadkarni.Is Mr Sanjay Jain ji here?: Court .He is on his legs before another court: Counsel.Please give me 15 mins tomorrow: Vijay Aggarwal.ASG Sanjay Jain joins the hearing..Court sums up the submissions made by Respondents for ASG Jain..Senior Advocate Luthra once again presses for supply of documents. .ASG Jain asks Advocate Ripudaman to share whatever has been received. .Please give it on an affidavit: Luthra.Court asks ASG Jain if he wants to respond to the judgment relied upon by Senior Adocatev Hariharan..I'll respond tomorrow: ASG Jain.Court adjourns hearing for the day. Matter to continue tomorrow.

2G Spectrum: Delhi HC hears appeals by CBI, ED against acquittal of accused [LIVE UPDATES]

Related Stories