2G trial: Anil Ambani was not chairman of Swan
Besides RTL and Swan Telecom, three top executives of Reliance ADAG and promoters of Swan Telecom have been put on trial in the 2G case.
New Delhi: Anil Ambani was neither the
Director nor the Chairman of Swan Capital Private Ltd which
changed its name to Swan Telecom, a top Reliance ADAG official
on Thursday told a Delhi Court hearing the 2G spectrum case.
Reliance Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group (ADAG)-led Reliance
Telecom (RTL) and Swan Telecom has been put on trial by the
court which said Swan Telecom was "just a mask" for RTL to
secure 2G licences, a charge denied by ADAG.
AN Sethuraman, Group President of Reliance ADA Group,
who was deposing as a prosecution witness in connection with
the charge framed in the case, said Anil Ambani, Chairman
of Reliance ADAG, was not the Chairman or Director of Swan
"As per this document (which was shown to Sethuraman),
Anil Ambani was not Chairman of M/s Swan Capital (P) Limited
in January 2007. He was also not a Director in this company at
"As per my personal knowledge also, he (Anil Ambani) was
neither Chairman not Director of Swan Capital (P) Limited. It
is also correct that Anil Ambani was neither Chairman nor
Director of Swan Telecom (P) Limited," Sethuraman told Special
CBI Judge OP Saini.
He said Reliance ADA Group was formed in 2005 under the
Chairmanship of Anil Ambani.
Besides RTL and Swan Telecom, three top executives of
Reliance ADAG Gautam Doshi, Surendra Pipara and Hari Nair and
promoters of Swan Telecom Shahid Usman Balwa and Vinod Goenka
have been put on trial in the 2G case.
The counsel for the accused said the "contradictions and
errors" in the order of framing of charges against them need
to be corrected for a fair trial.
"If the error in the charges is such that the whole trial
will be vitiated and it will be a prejudice against the
accused, they must be corrected for a fair trial," advocate
Vijay Agarwal appearing for Chandolia and Asif Balwa said.
Agarwal said that before putting an accused on trial
under section 409 IPC (breach of trust) and 420 IPC (cheating
and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), the amount of
money or quantity of alleged `property` has to be specified.
The counsel for the accused said the order on charges
said the accused created false documents but did not specify
the documents falsely created.
"Which particular false document and when did I create
them? Document is to be marked and told to me. Unless and
until I know which document has been allegedly created
falsely, how will I be able to defend myself?" Agarwal said.
Senior advocate RN Mittal, appearing for Shahid Balwa,
said charges against each accused were "not clear" and the
charge of conspiracy has been jointly framed against all
accused, making it necessary for two separate entities like
Unitech and Swan Telecom to defend each other.
"This is a case of misjoinder (improper joining of
different actions) of charges. How can Unitech be expected to
defend Swan Telecom?" he said.
The application filed by Balwa said the charge of
criminal conspiracy has been framed separately against all
accused and it has also been added to all other charges.
"Even though the first charge is in respect of conspiracy
separately, in all other charges also the section of
conspiracy has been added and all charges have been framed
read with conspiracy.
"Hence, it is not clear whether the subsequent charges
are in respect of substantive offence or conspiracy only and
it is not clear against which accused exactly is the charge of
substantive offence so as to enable that accused to chart out
his defence," it said.
Meanwhile, Rajiv Agarwal, Director Kusegaon Fruits and
Vegetables and a co-accused in the case, also moved an
application seeking the court`s direction to call the "elderly
and ailing" and other "main witnesses" on a priority basis.
The court is likely to hear arguments on Rajiv Agarwal`s