2G: Raja's aide Chandolia questions haste in granting sanction

New Delhi: Former Telecom Minister A Raja’s personal secretary RK Chandolia, an accused in 2G scam, today told a Delhi court that “the sanctioning authority had acted without application of mind” to give the nod for his prosecution in the case. Chandolia said he could have been a witness instead of accused in the case and contended it was “humanly impossible” for the sanctioning authority to go through lengthy documents and case diaries in a day for according sanction for his prosecution. “Is it not gross that on 31 March, 2011, the statement of the last prosecution witness was recorded and the sanction to prosecute me was granted the next day on 1 April? How can the sanctioning authority go through all the documents and statments plus the case diaries in a day?”, Chandolia argued before Special CBI Judge O P Saini. [caption id=“attachment_45060” align=“alignleft” width=“380” caption=“Chandolia had claimed that there is no sanction to prosecute him for the offences punishable under section 120-B (criminal conspiracy) and 420 (cheating) of the IPC. Reuters”]  [/caption] Chandolia also contended he could have been the “best possible witness” in the case. He said “the Justice Shivraj Patil Committee report on the 2G spectrum allocation does not refer to me. Though I am above Joint Secretary level, I was only Raja’s personal secretary. What function did I have other than following his orders as an efficient worker? I had no application of my mind. What was my fault if Raja wanted to have a person above the joint secretary level as his PS?” Countering the arguments, Special Public Prosecutor U Lalit said “In the first place, the question on sanction does not arise as the offence committed by Chandolia did not form part of discharge of official duties.” “If there is some hidden agenda in the acts of public servant such that the public office becomes a subterfuge, no sanction is required,” Lalit said. On the allegation of “non-application of mind” by the sanctioning authority and it being humanly impossible to accord santion in a day, Lalit said “you (Chandolia) cannot make a general statement. Non-application of mind is purely subjective and no objective statement can be made that such and such time should be taken before according sanction.” “May be for the sanctioning authority, certain documents are enough to form an opinion. That authority can be questioned on the manner of according sanction as and when it steps in the box (called in the court),” he said. Chandolia had claimed that there is no sanction to prosecute him for the offences punishable under section 120-B (criminal conspiracy) and 420 (cheating) of the IPC and had also sought interim bail till the disposal of his application. He had accused CBI of not having any order of the competent authority under Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act to probe the case against him. PTI