<p>Union Home Minister P Chidambaram on Saturday got a breather as a Delhi special court rejected a plea to make him a co-accused with former telecom minister A Raja in the 2G spectrum allocation scam case.<br /><br /></p>.<p>The order was a welcome relief for the United Progressive Alliance government that has faced a series of setbacks in the apex court over the 2G case.<br /><br />Special CBI Judge O P Saini declared that Chidambaram had no criminal intent when he agreed with Raja in 2008 to fix the spectrum prices at 2001 level. The judge said he found no criminal culpability or pecuniary gain on behalf of Chidambaram when two companies—Swan Telecom (P) Ltd and Unitech Wireless (Tamil Nadu) Ltd— were allowed to dilute their shares before the roll-out of services.<br /><br />“There is no material on record to suggest that Chidambaram was acting with such corrupt or illegal motives or was in abuse of his official position, while consenting to the two decisions. There is no evidence that he obtained any pecuniary advantage without any public interest,” the court said.<br /><br />The court dismissed the application filed by Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy seeking prosecution of Chidambaram for being a party to the criminal conspiracy with Raja in not revising the spectrum prices and allowing companies to dilute their shares.<br /><br />“Chidambaram was party to only two decisions, that is, keeping the spectrum prices at 2001 level and dilution of equity by the two companies. These two acts are not per se criminal. In the absence of any other incriminating act on his part, it cannot be said that he was prima facie party to the criminal conspiracy,” the judge pointed out in the order.<br /><br />Coming out of the courtroom, Swamy, one of the petitioners in the 2G case before the apex court, said he would file an appeal against the order in the Delhi High Court or approach the Supreme Court directly. According to Swamy, the Union Cabinet on October 31, 2003, gave Chidambaram and Raja freedom to decide the spectrum pricing formula.<br /><br />“Chidambaram met Raja on four occasions on January 30, 2008, May 29, 2008, June 12, 2008, and July 4, 2008, and both had conveyed their agreement on the question of entry fee, spectrum price and annual charges to the prime minister,” he contended.<br /><br />Swamy said Chidambaram was guilty of commission of offences under Prevention of Corruption Act, for which Raja was already facing trial.<br /><br />He also accused the home minister of “guilty of breach of trust on question of national security for not disclosing that Etisalat and Telenor, which were off-loaded shares, were black-listed by the Home Ministry.”<br /><br />The court, however, did not find merit in Swamy’s arguments to the extent that Chidambaram was acting with criminal motive.<br /><br />“A decision taken by a public servant does not become criminal for the simple reason that it has caused loss to the public exchequer or resulted in pecuniary advantage to others. Merely attending meetings and taking decisions therein is not a criminal act. <br /><br />It must have the taint of use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of his official position by public servant for obtaining pecuniary advantage by him for himself or for any other person or obtaining of pecuniary advantage by him without any public interest,” the court said.<br /><br />* There is no material on record to show that P Chidambaram was acting mala fide in fixing the price of spectrum at the 2001 level or in permitting dilution of equity by the two companies<br /><br />* These two acts are not per se illegal and there is no further material on record to show any other incriminating act on the part of P Chidambaram<br /><br />* A decision taken by a public servant does not become criminal simply because it has caused loss to the public exchequer or resulted in pecuniary advantage to others<br /></p>
<p>Union Home Minister P Chidambaram on Saturday got a breather as a Delhi special court rejected a plea to make him a co-accused with former telecom minister A Raja in the 2G spectrum allocation scam case.<br /><br /></p>.<p>The order was a welcome relief for the United Progressive Alliance government that has faced a series of setbacks in the apex court over the 2G case.<br /><br />Special CBI Judge O P Saini declared that Chidambaram had no criminal intent when he agreed with Raja in 2008 to fix the spectrum prices at 2001 level. The judge said he found no criminal culpability or pecuniary gain on behalf of Chidambaram when two companies—Swan Telecom (P) Ltd and Unitech Wireless (Tamil Nadu) Ltd— were allowed to dilute their shares before the roll-out of services.<br /><br />“There is no material on record to suggest that Chidambaram was acting with such corrupt or illegal motives or was in abuse of his official position, while consenting to the two decisions. There is no evidence that he obtained any pecuniary advantage without any public interest,” the court said.<br /><br />The court dismissed the application filed by Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy seeking prosecution of Chidambaram for being a party to the criminal conspiracy with Raja in not revising the spectrum prices and allowing companies to dilute their shares.<br /><br />“Chidambaram was party to only two decisions, that is, keeping the spectrum prices at 2001 level and dilution of equity by the two companies. These two acts are not per se criminal. In the absence of any other incriminating act on his part, it cannot be said that he was prima facie party to the criminal conspiracy,” the judge pointed out in the order.<br /><br />Coming out of the courtroom, Swamy, one of the petitioners in the 2G case before the apex court, said he would file an appeal against the order in the Delhi High Court or approach the Supreme Court directly. According to Swamy, the Union Cabinet on October 31, 2003, gave Chidambaram and Raja freedom to decide the spectrum pricing formula.<br /><br />“Chidambaram met Raja on four occasions on January 30, 2008, May 29, 2008, June 12, 2008, and July 4, 2008, and both had conveyed their agreement on the question of entry fee, spectrum price and annual charges to the prime minister,” he contended.<br /><br />Swamy said Chidambaram was guilty of commission of offences under Prevention of Corruption Act, for which Raja was already facing trial.<br /><br />He also accused the home minister of “guilty of breach of trust on question of national security for not disclosing that Etisalat and Telenor, which were off-loaded shares, were black-listed by the Home Ministry.”<br /><br />The court, however, did not find merit in Swamy’s arguments to the extent that Chidambaram was acting with criminal motive.<br /><br />“A decision taken by a public servant does not become criminal for the simple reason that it has caused loss to the public exchequer or resulted in pecuniary advantage to others. Merely attending meetings and taking decisions therein is not a criminal act. <br /><br />It must have the taint of use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of his official position by public servant for obtaining pecuniary advantage by him for himself or for any other person or obtaining of pecuniary advantage by him without any public interest,” the court said.<br /><br />* There is no material on record to show that P Chidambaram was acting mala fide in fixing the price of spectrum at the 2001 level or in permitting dilution of equity by the two companies<br /><br />* These two acts are not per se illegal and there is no further material on record to show any other incriminating act on the part of P Chidambaram<br /><br />* A decision taken by a public servant does not become criminal simply because it has caused loss to the public exchequer or resulted in pecuniary advantage to others<br /></p>
