2G: Wrong to say I gave statement under CBI threat, says witness

New Delhi: A key prosecution witness in a case arising out of 2G scam probe today denied the accusation of the defence that he was threatened by the CBI. The issue arose during the cross examination of S Subramaniam, a former CFO of BPL Cellular Ltd, by senior advocate S V Raju who appeared for Essar Group promoter Anshuman Ruia, an accused in the case. “Did the CBI tell you that the investigating officer would write to your employer and you would lose your job?” Raju asked Subramaniam. “That is correct,” responded the witness. Subramaniam however denied the suggestion of defence counsel that he had given his statement under CBI’s “threat” before a magistrate under section 164 of the CrPC. “It is wrong to suggest that I gave my statement under section 164 CrPC to the magistrate under threat of CBI. It is wrong to suggest that the time of seven days was given to me to plan as to how to involve Vikash Saraf (an accused) and Essar Group in this case,” he said. [caption id=“attachment_1014797” align=“alignleft” width=“380”] A key prosecution witness in a case arising out of 2G scam probe today denied the accusation of the defence that he was threatened by the CBI. Image from IBN-Live[/caption] “It is wrong to suggest that I am falsely involving Vikash Saraf and Essar Group in this case because of threat given to me by CBI,” he told the court. The court, however, disallowed the question of the defence counsel on this aspect and warned that such queries would be ruled out" with a heavy cost. “Before ruling could be given on the question, the witness (S Subramaniam) had blurted out the answer. However the question is disallowed being in violation of section 162 CrPC. If such questions are persisted with and are ruled out, the ruling would be accompanied by heavy cost,” Special CBI Judge O P Saini said. The statements recorded by a magistrate under section 164 of the CrPC bind a person and any deviation during the trial would make him liable for prosecution for the offence of perjury. During his cross examination, which concluded today, Subramaniamiam said “It is wrong to suggest that my understanding that Essar group was controlling BPL Mobile group was wrong.” Essar group promoters Ravi Ruia and Anshuman Ruia and Loop Telecom promoters I P Khaitan and Kiran Khaitan and Essar group Director (Strategy and Planning) Vikash Saraf and three firms — ETHL, Loop Telecom Pvt Ltd and Loop Mobile India Ltd are facing trial in the case. ETHL and others are facing trial for the offence under Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) read with Section 420 (cheating) of IPC, while a substantial charge of cheating has been framed against Saraf. PTI