The CBI application says that at no stage had Sinha said no case is made out and his opinion that there was some weakness in the prosecutable evidence was based on the views expressed by the subordinate officers."
New Delhi, Sep 5 - The CBI Friday moved the Supreme Court seeking direction for the registration of an FIR against lawyer Kamini Jaiswal for making deliberate and false statements to seek recusal of CBI director Ranjit Sinha from 2G case investigation and trial.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) application seeking action against the lawyer Jaiswal was mentioned before the bench of Justice H.L.Dattu, Justice S.A.Bobde and Justice Abhar Manohar Sapre seeking court's nod to file the application.
The application has contested Jaiswal's contention that Sinha had over-ruled all his officers including the director of prosecution in order stop the iagency from proceeding against former communications minister Dayanidhi Maran in the Maxis-Aircel deal.
It has also contested the Jaiswal point that Deputy Inspector General of Police Santosh Rastogi - the lead investigation officer - was transferred out of 2G investigation and relieved, and describing Jaiswal's contention on both the counts as mischievous and based upon untrue facts in which misstatements have been deliberately made so as to obtain favourable orders from the court.
Contesting Jaiswal's claim on Rastogi, the CBI said he was only a supervisory officer who joined as the head of the Anti Corruption Branch, Delhi on Oct 30, 2012, much after the filing of the charge-sheet when the trial in 2G case had begun.
It said Rastogi was transferred July 16 from ACB's Delhi branch to Special Crime-II branch in CBI Delhi in chain of DIG level transfers and it is noteworthy that he had never been relieved from ACB Delhi till date.
On alleged differences within the CBI on proceeding against Maran in Maxis-Aircel deal, the CBI application said there were difference of opinion between Rastogi and the director of prosecution.
The CBI director noticing the difference of opinion between Rastogi and the director of prosecution had, vide his note dated Oct 18, 2013, sought the views of the attorney general on the prosecutability of evidences against the accused people and the sustainability of the case in the trial court.
However, the then attorney general was of the view that evidence against Maran in Aircel-Maxis deal was not sustainable for want of documentary evidence, it said.
The CBI application says that at no stage had Sinha said no case is made out and his opinion that there was some weakness in the prosecutable evidence was based on the views expressed by the subordinate officers.
After Attorney General Mukul Rohtagi gave the opinion on Aug 4, 2012, favouring prosecution, the same day, Sinha issued an order for filing charge sheet against Maran, it added.