INTHECOURTOFO.P.SAINI:SPL.JUDGE,CBI(04)(2GSPECTRUMCASES),NEWDELHI

1.CCNo:01/11

2.CaseRCNo:45(A)2009,CBI,ACB,NewDelhi.

3.Title: CBIVs.(1)A.Raja(A1);(2)SiddharthaBehura(A2);(3)R.K.Chandolia(A3);(4)ShahidUsmanBalwa(A4);(5)VinodGoenka(A5);(6)M/sSwanTelecom(P)Limited(now

M/sEtisalatDBTelecom(P)Limited)(A6);

(7)SanjayChandra(A7);(8)M/sUnitechWireless(TamilNadu)

Limited(A8);(9)GautamDoshi(A9);(10)SurendraPipara(A10);(11)HariNair(A11);(12)M/sRelianceTelecomLimited(A12);(13)AsifBalwa(A13);(14)RajivAgarwal(A14);(15)KarimMorani(A15);(16)SharadKumar(A16);and(17)KanimozhiKarunanithi(A17).

4.DateofInstitution : 02.04.2011

5.DateofCommencementofFinalArguments : 15.04.2015

6.DateofConclusionofFinalArguments : 26.04.2017

7.DateofReservingOrder : 05.12.2017

8.DateofPronouncement : 21.12.2017

CBIVs.A.Rajaandothers Page1of1552

Presence/Appearance:

Sh. Anand Grover Sr. Advocate/ Special PP

with Sh. K. K. Goel &Sh. A. K. RaoSr. PPs, Ms.

SoniaMathurAdvocate,Sh.NikhilBorwankar;Ms.

ChitralekhaDas&Sh.MihirSamsonJuniorCounsel

andInspectorManojKumarforCBI.

Sh. R. S. Cheema & Ms. Rebecca John Sr.

Advocates with Sh. Sushil Bajaj, Ms. Tarannum

Cheema,Ms.HiralGuptaandSh.ManvendraSingh

AdvocatesforaccusedSanjayChandra;

Sh.AmarendarSharanSr.AdvocatewithSh.

BalajiSubramanianAdvocateforaccusedKanimozhi

Karunanithi;

Sh.AmitDesaiSr.AdvocatewithSh.Sandeep

Kapur,Sh.VirInderPalSinghSandhu,Sh.Mayank

Datta and Sh. Abhimanshu Dhyani Advocates for

accusedKarimMorani;

Sh. Sidharth Luthra Sr. Advocate with Sh.

PramodJalan,Sh.VibhorKushandSh.AkhilKumar

AdvocatesforaccusedSiddharthaBehura;

Sh. S. V. Raju Sr. Advocate with Sh. Majid

Memon&Sh.RajneeshChuniAdvocatesforaccused

VinodGoenka;

Sh. Saurab Soparkar Sr. Advocate with Ms.

ManaliSinghalandSh.GauravSrivastavAdvocates

foraccusedRelianceTelecomLimited;

Sh.HariharanSr.AdvocatewithSh.A.K.Dua

CBIVs.A.Rajaandothers Page2of1552

AdvocateforaccusedSurendraPipara;

Sh. Manu Sharma & Sh. Babanjeet Singh

AdvocatesforaccusedA.Raja;

Sh.VijayAggarwal,Sh.MuditJain,Sh.Ashul

Aggarwal,Sh.EhteshamHashmi&Sh.RohanGupta

Advocates for accused R. K. Chandolia, Shahid

UsmanBalwa,AsifBalwaandRajivAgarwal;

Sh. D. P. Singh, Ms. Sonam Gupta and Ms.

IshitaJainAdvocatesforaccused UnitechWireless

(TamilNadu)(P)Limited;

Sh. H. H. Ponda and Sh. Mohit Auluck

AdvocatesforaccusedGautamDoshi;

Sh. Sidharth Aggarwal Advocate for accused

HariNair;

Sh.BalajiSubramanian,Ms.RidhimaMandhar

and Sh. Siddharth Nath Advocates for accused

SharadKumar;and

Sh.VijaySondhi,Sh.VarunSharmaandMs.

DeekshaKhuranaAdvocatesforSwanTelecom(P)

Limited(nowEtisalatDBTelecom(P)Limited).

JUDGMENT:

RegistrationofFIRThe instant case was registered on 21.10.2009

againstunknownofficialsofDepartmentofTelecommunications

(DoT), Government of India, unknown private

persons/companies and others for the offences punishable

CBIVs.A.Rajaandothers Page3of1552

under sections 120B IPC read with 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of

PreventionofCorruptionAct,1988,(hereinaftertobereferred

as the PC Act) on allegations of criminal conspiracy and

criminalmisconduct,inrespectofallotmentofLettersofIntent

(LOI),UnifiedAccessServices(UAS)Licencesandspectrumby

the Department of Telecommunication. Following allegations

wereleveledintheFIR:

(a) TheentryfeeforthenewpanIndiaUASlicencesinthe

year 2008 was kept by Department of

Telecommunications (DOT) as Rs.1658 Crore, at which

price the Cellular Mobile Telephone Service (CMTS)

licenceswereawardedbyDOTafterauctionintheyear

2001.TheseUASlicences,issuedin2008wereissuedon

firstcome firstserved basis without any competitive

bidding.

(b) ApressreleasewasissuedbyDOTon24.9.2007,which

appeared in the newspapers on 25.9.2007, mentioning

that the newapplications for UAS licences will not be

acceptedbytheDoTafter1.10.2007till furtherorders.

However applications received up to 25.09.2007 only

were considered, which was also against the

recommendations of Telecom Regulatory Authority of

India(TRAI)thatnocapshouldbeplacedonthenumber

ofAccessServiceProvidersinanyservicearea.

(c) EvenFirstComeFirstServedpolicywasimplementedby

theDOTinamannerwhichresultedintowrongfulgainto

certaincompanies.Further,thereareallegationsthatthe

CBIVs.A.Rajaandothers Page4of1552

suspect officials of DoT had selectively leaked the

informationtosomeoftheapplicantsregardingthedate

ofissuanceofletterofintenton10.01.2008.Intheletter

of intent, an arbitrary condition was incorporated that

whosoeverdepositsthefees(asperconditionsinLetters

ofIntent,i.e.LOIs)first,wouldbethefirsttogetlicense.

Since some of the applicants, who had this prior

information,werereadywiththeamountandtheywere

abletodepositthefeeearlierthanothers.Thus,favour

wasallegedlyshowntosomeapplicantsbywayofleaking

the information about the date of issuance of letter of

intent.

(d) Although,theFDIlimitwasincreasedfrom49to74%in

December, 2005, but there was no lockin period or

restriction imposed on sale of equity or issuance of

additionalequity.AsaresultofthisM/s.SwanTelecom

Pvt.Ltd.(A6),whichpaidtoDOTRs.1537CroreforUAS

Licences of 13circles, offloaded its 45%equity to M/s

EtisalatofUAEforRs.4200Crore.Similarly,M/s.Unitech

Wireless(Groupof08companies),whichpaidtoDOT

Rs.1658CroreforUASLicencesofall22circles,offloaded

its 60%equity to M/s Telenor of Norwayfor Rs. 6100

Crore.Thesestakesweresoldbythesaidcompanieseven

beforetherolloutofservicesbythem.Theestimatedloss

to Government by grant of licences to these two

companiesalonecomestoRs.7105Crore.Onprorata

basis,theestimatedlossforall122UASLicencesissuedin

CBIVs.A.Rajaandothers Page5of1552

2008wasmorethanRs.22000Crore.

ChargeSheet:Brieffactsthereof

2. On completion of investigation, CBI filed charge

sheet in the Court on 02.04.2011 against twelve accused

persons,thatis,A1toA12andasupplementarychargesheet

wasfiledon25.04.2011againstfiveadditionalaccused,thatis,

A13 to A17. Vide order dated 24.05.2011, supplementary

chargesheetwasorderedtobetaggedwiththemaincharge

sheetasitwastheresultoffurtherinvestigationinthecaseand,

assuch,nowthereispracticallyonechargesheet/casebefore

theCourt.

Backgroundofthecase

3. Consequent to liberalizationpolicyof 1991of the

GovernmentofIndiapromotingparticipationofprivatesector

intotheservicesector,NationalTelecomPolicy(NTP),1994was

announcedbytheCentralGovernmentin1994. TwoLicences

forCellularMobileTelephoneService(CMTS)eachinthefour

MetroCitiesweregrantedtoprivateoperatorsin1994itself.A

licenseisrequiredtobeobtainedbyacompanyorlegalperson

under Section 4 of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 for the

commission of telephone services in India. Department of

Telecommunications (DOT) has classified whole territory of

India into various telecomcircles / service area (as of now

numbering22)andhasbeenissuingseparatetelecomlicences

foreachservicearea.

CBIVs.A.Rajaandothers Page6of1552

4. Subsequently, in 1995 Department of

Telecommunications (DOT) invited tenders for inducting 2

CMTS Operators each in all Telecom Circles of the country,

otherthanfourMetros. In1996,twolicences ineachofthe

TelecomCirclesweregrantedtoprivateoperatorsin18telecom

circles.Thelicensefeewastobepaidoveraperiodof10years,

as per the terms of licences. In addition, right of the

Government was reserved to operate the services as third

operator.TenderswerealsoinvitedinJanuary1995,foraward

ofBasicServiceLicencesforTelecomCirclesandthelicences

werefinallygrantedonlytosixcompaniesinsixtelecomcircles.

5. TheTelecomRegulatoryAuthorityof India(TRAI)

Act,1997wasenactedbyGovernmentofIndia.Aspersection

11(1)oftheAct(amendedin2000),thefunctionsofTRAIare:

Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian TelegraphAct,1885,thefunctionsoftheAuthorityshallbe to(a) make recommendations, either suo motu or on a

request fromthe licensor, on the followingmatters, namely:(i) needandtimingforintroductionofnewservice

provider;(ii) Terms and conditions of license to a service

provider.ProvidedfurtherthattheCentralGovernmentshallseekthe recommendations of the Authority in respect of matters specifiedinsubclauses(i)and(ii)ofclause(a)ofthissubsection inrespect of newlicense tobe issued toaservice provider and the Authority shall forward its recommendations within a period of sixty days from the

CBIVs.A.Rajaandothers Page7of1552

date on which that Government sought the recommendations:

6. Subsequently, a Group on Telecom (GoT) was

constitutedbytheGovernmentofIndia,whichrecommended

changesinTelecompolicy.TheUnionCabinetconsideredand

approved NewTelecomPolicy, 1999 (NTP99) effective from

1.4.1999.NTP99hasbeenthebedrockregardingissuanceof

licencesandallocationofspectrumforach