2G trial: Are you taking drugs, defence asks CBI witness; judge loses patience

Key CBI witness in the 2G spectrum case Aseervatham Achary was a relieved man today having survived the onslaught of nine defence lawyers in nine days at the special CBI court. But the final day of Achary’s cross-examination saw tempers fly with the special CBI judge losing his cool over the defence’s relentless pursuit to make a case of disproportionate assets against witness. “This is not a property dispute. You are crossing all limits,” the special CBI judge OP Saini warned the defence.[caption id=“attachment_173729” align=“alignleft” width=“380” caption=“Trial is on. PTI”]  [/caption] The judge took strong exception to the defence’s cross-examination when the witness was asked if he had taken any drugs that might have affected his memory. The judge disallowed the question on the grounds that it was irrelevant. The defence then asked if the witness’s memory lapse was chronic or temporary or recently acquired. To this the judge observed, “If such questions are put further, the question shall be disallowed at heavy cost.” The defence’s subsequent question to Achary on how many bank accounts he has was objected to by the public prosecutor on the grounds that it was a personal question and therefore not relevant to the case. After submission by the defence that the question was necessary to show that the witness was in possession of the disproportionate assets, the judge chose to disallow the question. Achary, who is former additional secretary to former telecom minister A Raja, told the court that on the 10 January 2008, when the LOI (Letters of Intent) to telecom operators (2G spectrum allocation) were issued he was in the Electronic Niketan office (office Department of Information Technology) and not in Sanchar Bhawan (Department of Telecommunicaitons) As minister of communication and information technology, Raja had three offices under his ministry: Sanchar Bhawan (Department of Telecommunications), Electronics Niketan (Department of Information Technology) and Dak Bhawan (Department of Post). “To the best of my knowledge I did not come to Sanchar Bahwan on that day….It is wrong to suggest that I was at Sanchar Bhawan on that day, throughout the day. It is wrong to suggest that she (corporate lobbyist Niira Radia) visited me in Sanchar Bhawan on that day,” Achary said. Achary denied the defence’s claim that the CBI had played several tapes of recorded conversation between him and Niira Radia to him and that there was incriminating evidence in those tapes against him. Achary denied the defence’s claim that under this threat by the CBI he gave incriminating evidence against the accused in the 2G case. Cross-examination by defence lawyer Majid Memon, appearing for DB Realty MD Vinod Goenka, left Achary unrattled as he successfully fielded questions that sought to question the circumstances under which his statement was recorded before the magistrate in March 2011. Achary was also cross-examined by defence lawyer DP Singh for Unitech Wireless (Tamil Nadu) Ltd. The final cross-examination was conducted by senior lawyer Sushil Kumar, appearing for Kalaignar TV MD Sharad Kumar. Sushil Kumar is also defending prime accused in the case A Raja and has previously cross-examined Achary. Achary told the court that he was not aware if a certain advocate, Ezhil, was authorised by Kalaignar TV to represent the company before the ministry of information and broadcasting in July 2007, and in March and August 2008. “I am not aware if this advocate was authorised by Kalaignar TV and was representing it before the ministry of information and broadcasting in the matters of licence,” Achary told the court. He denied the defence’s allegation that he had violated Rule 9 of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules 1996, which prohibits the criticism of the government by the Railway servants. “It is wrong to suggest that I supplied material to the Pioneer (the newspaper that broke the 2G scam story). It is wrong to suggest that I am liable to be dealt with under the aforesaid Rule 9. It is wrong to suggest that this is one of the reasons for my giving false evidence in the case.” And with that Sushil Kumar concluded his cross-examination. A visibly relieved Achary got up and thanked the senior lawyer with folded hands. To which Sushil Kumar quipped, “Are thanking me or my client”, referring to Sharad Kumar who standing behind him.