Read Time: 12 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court has accepted the appeal of CBI against the Trial Court’s acquittal of A Raja and others in the 2G spectrum scam case. 

The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held, “The Trial Judge has to be an active participant in the trial displaying intelligence, active interest and quest to elicit all relevant materials necessary for reaching the correct conclusion to find out the truth and administer justice with fairness and impartiality to the parties. The ultimate object to as meet out justice, the trial should be a search for the truth and not bout over the technicalities”. 

A case was registered under various Sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA), 1988, against officials of the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), private entities, and others for alleged irregularities in the allotment of Letters of Intent (LOI), Unified Access Service (UAS) Licences, and spectrum. The FIR alleged that the UAS licences issued in 2008 were awarded without competitive bidding, favoring certain companies. There were accusations of selective leaking of information and arbitrary conditions in the issuance of LOIs. Additionally, the alleged offloading of equity by certain companies before the rollout of services resulted in substantial losses to the government. The CBI filed charge sheets against multiple accused persons, and after a lengthy trial, all accused were acquitted. The CBI appeared before the high court challenging the acquittal judgment.

Special Public Prosecutor Sanjay Jain appearing for CBI contended that the impugned judgment ignored material evidence and circumstances, considered irrelevant material, and drew illogical conclusions based on conjectures. He emphasized irregularities such as associations between accused officials and telecom license applicants, changes in the cut-off date, violations of the "First Come First Serve Policy" and pecuniary benefits received. The counsel also highlighted errors in the judgment regarding the association between accused officials and private entities, changes in policies, and manipulation of the distribution of LOIs.

Advocate Manu Sharma, appearing for the first respondent (A Raja), asserted that the CBI did not present a compelling case for the grant of leave to appeal. He emphasized that the trial court had meticulously analyzed the evidence and adopted a liberal approach towards witnesses, without discarding any evidence for hyper-technical reasons. Advocate Sharma contended that the judgment could not be deemed prima facie perverse.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra appearing for the second respondent (Siddharth Behura) contended that in an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC, the court must consider that the acquittal further strengthens the presumption of innocence. He emphasized that the appellate court should assess whether the trial court's view was a possible one based on the evidence. He stated that leave to appeal can only be granted if the trial court's order was perverse, a substantial error in its view, or if the acquittal was illegal or unwarranted. 

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohtag appearing for third respondent (R.K. Chandolia) argued that the trial court's order was well-reasoned and based on a correct appreciation of the evidence. He highlighted that the trial lasted for seven years and meticulously covered relevant sections of the judgment. Aggarwal emphasized that Chandolia had submitted detailed written arguments during the final arguments, addressing all the circumstances raised by the CBI.

The court opined that the right to first appeal is considered a matter of right. However, in cases of acquittal, this right is restricted by legislation and judicial precedents to ensure that the findings of acquittal should not be disturbed ordinarily. Section 417 of the unamended CrPC allowed State Governments to present an appeal to the high court from any court's ordinary or appellate order, other than the high court.

Furthermore, the bench observed the 48th Law Commission report that while appeals against acquittal may be necessary to avoid miscarriages of justice, they should generally not be encouraged. The court noted that in most common law countries, the general rule is not to allow an appeal against acquittal, with only limited rights of appeal granted in England. The Law Commission recommended re-examining the unlimited and general right of appeal against acquittal provided in the unamended CrPC, suggesting that appeals against acquittal should only be allowed with special leave from the high court.

In response to this recommendation, a joint committee proposed amendments to consolidate and amend the law relating to criminal procedure, suggesting that appeals against acquittal should only be allowed with special leave granted by the high court, even on the instance of the Central or State Government.

The court deliberated on the importance of ensuring justice, particularly in cases of economic offences, where the ramifications affect numerous innocent citizens. The bench emphasized that unmerited acquittals must be subject to appellate scrutiny to correct any errors. Granting leave to appeal is seen as necessary and in the interest of justice if valid reasons exist, the court added.

Furthermore, the bench opined that fairness in criminal trials demands that both the accused and the prosecution are treated fairly, with the interests of the victim and society also considered. The court underscored the active role of the trial judge in eliciting relevant evidence to reach the correct conclusion and administer impartial justice. The trial should focus on discovering the truth rather than technicalities.

In cases involving large financial transactions, the bench highlighted that a holistic view is essential, regardless of whether someone directly benefited. "The interconnected nature of the facts makes it difficult to segregate the cases of individual accused persons at this stage. Additionally, oral evidence should not be disregarded solely because it lacks documentary corroboration; instead, it should be weighed carefully", the bench added.  Accordingly, the court allowed CBI’s plea. 

Case Title: Central Bureau Of Investigation v A Raja & Ors (2024:DHC:2350)