2G: CBI ignored my protest against statement: Sethuraman

Defence lawyer Majid Memon tore into prosecution witness AN Sethuraman, president of the Reliance Anil Ambani Dhirubhai Group (ADAG), today, making it the most damaging day in court for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the 2G trial. Sethuraman is the second prosecution witness after Anand Subramaniam, assistant vice-president of Reliance Capital, to depose in the case.

The riveting hour-and-a-half cross-examination — Memon was doing it on behalf of Swan Telecom director Vinod Goenka — reached its climax with Sethuraman telling the court that he had protested to the contents of his statement, recorded between January and March 2011, when it was shown to him by the CBI. He said his disagreement with the statement was regarding the “identification of the signature Hari Nair”. Nair is one of the three top Reliance officials accused in the 2G case; the other two being Surendra Pipara and Gautam Doshi.

Specifying the point of conflict, Sethuraman said: “The officer had recorded that I ‘identified his (Hari Nair’s) signatures’ but I wished that instead of this ‘appears to be signatures of Hari Nair’ may be recorded. On both occasions (the first protest having been made when the statement was recorded), my objection was not heeded to.” .Firstpost had earlier reported on Sethuraman’s backing down in court regarding Hari Nair’s signature.

Sethuraman added: “When I raised my objection on 9 November before Mr Chehal (deputy superintendent of police, CBI), he said it was too late and I cannot change my statement now. He also told me that whatever I had to say was to be said in the court.”

The CBI counsel seemed to be able to do little but watch and raise objections now and then even as their witness turned against them.

The witness, too, cut a sorry figure after he had to declare in court that despite having been shown his statement by the CBI less than two days before trial began, he had repeatedly told the court that he did not recall his statement to the CBI. Read more here.

Memon pointed out to the witness that no less than ‘116’ times during his deposition during the last two days had the witness said in court he did not ‘remember’ or ‘recall’ whether he had stated certain facts to the CBI.

Sethuraman had no choice but to agree with observation. “Last week I had gone through my statement. It is correct that I am unable to recall the date of my statement even though I have seen it last week. The purpose of making me read the statement was to refresh my memory, as told by the officer (referring to CBI officer). It is correct that despite having gone through my statement last week, I have told in my deposition at several places that I do not recall many facts.”

The witness, under intense pressure from Memon to reveal every possible detail, was asked to share with the court how exactly he had been contacted by the CBI on Wednesday and what had transpired during his meeting with the CBI on that day.

The witness told the court that he had received 10 missed calls on his mobile phone from a mobile number on Wednesday. “Since somebody had called me constantly ten times, I thought it must be important. I did not call back on that number, but I sent a text message…‘who is this please?” The text message was sent at 2.11 pm on 9.11.2011 from my phone. The response was received by me at 2.29 pm on the same day stating “please attend call regarding trial.”

Memon asked the witness to check his mobile phone and go through the call records, in court, to provide the details of the time, content and source of the calls and messages that he was seeking information on.

“He — the reference here is to Chehal, from whom Sethuraman had received the ten missed calls —told me to come at the reception of the new CBI office on the same day at 3.30 pm. I could not make out if I was being called for an official or unofficial purpose. I knew on 9.11.2011 that trial of the case was to begin on 11.11.2011. I also knew that I am witness in this case. It did not strike me to ask Chehal to call me in an official manner. I reached new CBI office at about 3.40 pm. I am aware that for entering the CBI office, an entry is required to be made in a register at the reception…I did not make an entry in the register at the reception.”

Sethuraman then went on to admit that,“I did feel that without making entry at the reception, entering the CBI office was not a proper act.” He, however, went on add, “It did not strike me that my subsequent acts in the CBI office would be improper.”

Memon had succeeded in establishing that the manner in which the CBI had contacted Sethuraman was more informal than formal. If that was not enough, he even managed to get Sethuraman to state in response to his question that “On meeting Chehal, I did not ask him as to why I was called in this suspicious manner.”

Sethuraman was also questioned about the details of the manner in which he was called by the CBI to record his statement between January and March 2011. He told the court that he was called from a landline number on his mobile phone.  “The caller introduced himself as one Sh Prakash, a CBI inspector…he told that some questions relating to 2G scam were to be put up to me and directed me to report to the CBI office.”

Succeeding to make an unstated point, Memon’s cross-examination ended for the day with the witness telling the court that, “I knew by that time that some of colleagues had already been questioned by the CBI…I do not miss any information regarding my organisation in the media. It is true that some arrests had taken place in the 2G scam…"