<p>The CBI on Thursday told the Supreme Court that the officers who investigated the Aircel-Maxis deal, involving former Telecom Minister Dayanidhi Maran, differed on the issue of filing a charge sheet, forcing it to seek the Attorney General’s opinion.<br /><br /></p>.<p>Explaining the delay, the CBI, represented by senior advocate K K Venugopal, admitted before a bench of Justices H L Dattu and K S Radhakrishnan that it was still awaiting the response from the country’s top law officer. <br /><br />The response came after advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), submitted that the CBI had in August last stated that they had completed their investigation.<br /><br />But the probe agency still failed to file a final report (charge sheet or closure) due to contrary views held by the CBI director as against those of the investigating officers, Bhushan said.<br /><br />He urged the court to ask the probe agency to submit the file notings along with the status report. <br /><br />The court, which at once directed Venugopal to produce the file notings, decided not to call for any records after the CBI counsel urged to read a particular paragraph in the status report.<br /><br />“There is some difference of opinion. They are seeking the opinion of the Attorney General. Once an opinion is there, they will place it before the court. I don’t think the court is required to call for records,” Justice Dattu said.</p>
<p>The CBI on Thursday told the Supreme Court that the officers who investigated the Aircel-Maxis deal, involving former Telecom Minister Dayanidhi Maran, differed on the issue of filing a charge sheet, forcing it to seek the Attorney General’s opinion.<br /><br /></p>.<p>Explaining the delay, the CBI, represented by senior advocate K K Venugopal, admitted before a bench of Justices H L Dattu and K S Radhakrishnan that it was still awaiting the response from the country’s top law officer. <br /><br />The response came after advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), submitted that the CBI had in August last stated that they had completed their investigation.<br /><br />But the probe agency still failed to file a final report (charge sheet or closure) due to contrary views held by the CBI director as against those of the investigating officers, Bhushan said.<br /><br />He urged the court to ask the probe agency to submit the file notings along with the status report. <br /><br />The court, which at once directed Venugopal to produce the file notings, decided not to call for any records after the CBI counsel urged to read a particular paragraph in the status report.<br /><br />“There is some difference of opinion. They are seeking the opinion of the Attorney General. Once an opinion is there, they will place it before the court. I don’t think the court is required to call for records,” Justice Dattu said.</p>
