2G:3 Reliance ADAG executives asked to give written sample

Three top executives of Reliance ADA Group, facing trial in 2G spectrum allocation case, were today directed by a Delhi court to give specimen handwriting and signature to CBI for comparing it with the documents already placed on record before it.

Also read: No assessment made by govt on presumptive loss in 2G case

Special CBI Judge O P Saini allowed three separate pleas filed by CBI, including a plea for handwriting and signature specimens of Reliance ADAG executives -- Gautam Doshi, Surendra Pipara and Hari Nair.

The court said CBI's plea for the specimens of these three accused was "justified" to reach a conclusion. "Accordingly, I find merit in the application that the prosecution has not been in a position to get the signatures of the three accused proved and so their prayer for getting handwriting and signature of three accused compared by the handwriting expert is justified to get the same proved by an alternative mode of proof.

"In view of the above observations, prayer is allowed and accused Hari Nair, Gautam Doshi and Surendra Pipara are directed to give their specimen handwriting and signature for comparison with the documents already on record and relied upon by the prosecution," the judge said.

The court said the handwriting samples should be given between January 2 and January 4, at a date, time and place mutually convenient to them as well as the agency and also directed CBI to send them to a handwriting expert for comparison.

CBI, in its plea, had said that during 2006 to 2008 these three accused had signed certain documents which were filed along with the charge sheet and some of the witnesses examined so far had also proved their signatures but Doshi, Pipara and Nair have "not been in a position" to identify them.

Besides allowing CBI's plea for specimen handwriting and signature, the court also allowed its plea seeking its permission to place before it some additional documents which were seized by it but were "inadvertently" not placed on record, saying that the "truth cannot be stopped" from coming out.

"As many as 91 witnesses have already been recorded and the trial is going on for more than a year and in such a situation, repeated filing of documents cannot be countenanced endlessly, but at the same time truth cannot be stopped from coming out and the documents, if found necessary, are required to be allowed to be placed on record.

"Accordingly, prosecution (CBI) is permitted to place the documents, mentioned in the seizure memos attached with the application, on record," the court said.

It also allowed the plea seeking permission for summoning some additional documents, pertaining to Reliance Telecom Ltd (RTL) and Swan Telecom Pvt Ltd, both facing trial in the case, saying that they are "relevant and desirable" for completing the entire chain of events in the case. "It is the case of the prosecution that they are necessary for giving completion to a chain of particular facts, which are already existing on record. Accordingly, I find that they are relevant and desirable for giving completion to a fact, which is already on record," it said.

The court directed the Registrar of Companies of Mumbai to produce some documents mentioned in CBI's plea. Besides this, the court also asked some banks to produce the relevant documents relating to the case before it. It said these documents shall be produced by them in the court within 15 days of the service of the order and if they wishes to take any objection on it, then the same shall also be done within the period.

It, however, clarified that accused RTL and Swan Telecom Pvt Ltd cannot be directed to produce any document, as prayed by CBI.  The agency had earlier told the court that these documents include books of accounts of Swan Consultants Services Pvt Ltd, Tiger Trustees Pvt Ltd and other firms and some documents relating to RTL.

According to CBI charge sheet, Swan Consultants Services Pvt Ltd and Tiger Trustees Pvt Ltd were the alleged associate firms of Reliance ADA Group. The defence counsel, on the other hand, had vehemently opposed CBI's plea saying that their application was "vague, misconceived and contrary to law."

They have also argued that the agency was intended to fill up the lacunae in their case.