The court had summoned the six accused after taking cognisance of the ED’s charge sheet.
New Delhi: A special court has reserved its order on the issue of framing charges against former telecom minister Dayanidhi Maran, his brother Kalanithi Maran and others in the Aircel-Maxis deal case lodged by CBI and Enforcement Directorate (ED).
Special judge O.P. Saini would pronounce the orders on November 30 on the framing of charges as well as on bail applications of the Maran brothers and other accused persons.
“Arguments on point of charge and bail for both parties are complete. Both parties prayed that they wish to file written submissions also. They are at liberty to file the same within seven days. Put up the matter for order on charge and bail on November 30,” the court said. All the accused have denied the allegations against them by the investigating agencies and all of them have moved bail pleas in the case. During the arguments on framing of charges, special public prosecutor Anand Grover said that Dayanidhi Maran had “pressurised” Chennai-based telecom promoter C. Sivasankaran to sell his stakes in Aircel and two subsidiary firms to Malaysian firm Maxis Group in 2006. The charges were refuted by Mr Maran.
The CBI had filed charge sheet against the Maran brothers, Ralph Marshall, T. Ananda Krishnan, M/s Sun Direct TV (P) Ltd, M/s Astro All Asia Networks Plc, UK, M/s Maxis Communications Berhad, Malaysia, and M/s South Asia Entertainment Holdings Ltd, Malaysia and then Additional Secretary (Telecom) late J.S. Sarma.
They were chargesheeted for alleged offences punishable under section 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC and under relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
In the money laundering case, ED has chargesheeted as accused the Maran brothers, Kalanithi’s wife Kavery, Managing Director of South Asia FM Ltd (SAFL) K Shanmugam, SAFL and Sun Direct TV Pvt Ltd (SDTPL) under provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The court had summoned the six accused after taking cognisance of the ED’s charge sheet, saying there was “enough incriminating material” to proceed against them.