<p>“On the basis of a vague statement given by a witness that he saw Sanjay Chandra, managing director of Unitech, at (former communication minister) A. Raja's residence, the charge of conspiracy was levelled against him and his company. But there is no specific date with the CBI as to when the witness saw Chandra,” the company's counsel S.S. Gandhi told CBI special court's Judge O.P. Saini. <br /><br />The CBI relied on the witnesses' statements without asking them whether Raja was inside his house when Chandra allegedly went to meet him, Gandhi said. <br />There was no evidence with the CBI to suggest that the cut-off date for selecting the successful telecom licence applicants was changed to favour Unitech Wireless, he said.<br /><br />“The allegation that the date was changed such that no more companies could apply for licences is factually incorrect as applications for around 40 licences were made a day after Unitech Wireless applied for licence. Around 20 of them received it as well,” Gandhi said.<br /><br />“The allegation that licences were given irrespective of unavailability of spectrum is absolutely false as all the circles for which the company got licences had extra spectrum. It got the licences in areas that were remote and not profitable,” he added. <br /><br />Claiming that the company was not a part of any conspiracy, Gandhi said if that was so, why would the firm lose an interest of Rs.50 crore by keeping a demand draft ready three months before the actual allotment. “Unitech Wireless was following the UASL guidelines which said that the company would be called to fulfil all the obligations within 30 days of application. This is why Unitech prepared its demand draft on the 15th day of application. Where is the question of prior knowledge or criminal conspiracy?” he asked.<br /><br />Gandhi said that Unitech Wireless caused no loss to the national exchequer as people in custody (co-accused) were just following the policies. “The company and other accused cannot be held responsible for the loss as everything was done according to the policies that were framed by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India,” he said.<br />Gandhi would continue his arguments Tuesday.<br /></p>
<p>“On the basis of a vague statement given by a witness that he saw Sanjay Chandra, managing director of Unitech, at (former communication minister) A. Raja's residence, the charge of conspiracy was levelled against him and his company. But there is no specific date with the CBI as to when the witness saw Chandra,” the company's counsel S.S. Gandhi told CBI special court's Judge O.P. Saini. <br /><br />The CBI relied on the witnesses' statements without asking them whether Raja was inside his house when Chandra allegedly went to meet him, Gandhi said. <br />There was no evidence with the CBI to suggest that the cut-off date for selecting the successful telecom licence applicants was changed to favour Unitech Wireless, he said.<br /><br />“The allegation that the date was changed such that no more companies could apply for licences is factually incorrect as applications for around 40 licences were made a day after Unitech Wireless applied for licence. Around 20 of them received it as well,” Gandhi said.<br /><br />“The allegation that licences were given irrespective of unavailability of spectrum is absolutely false as all the circles for which the company got licences had extra spectrum. It got the licences in areas that were remote and not profitable,” he added. <br /><br />Claiming that the company was not a part of any conspiracy, Gandhi said if that was so, why would the firm lose an interest of Rs.50 crore by keeping a demand draft ready three months before the actual allotment. “Unitech Wireless was following the UASL guidelines which said that the company would be called to fulfil all the obligations within 30 days of application. This is why Unitech prepared its demand draft on the 15th day of application. Where is the question of prior knowledge or criminal conspiracy?” he asked.<br /><br />Gandhi said that Unitech Wireless caused no loss to the national exchequer as people in custody (co-accused) were just following the policies. “The company and other accused cannot be held responsible for the loss as everything was done according to the policies that were framed by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India,” he said.<br />Gandhi would continue his arguments Tuesday.<br /></p>