A special court here today discharged former Telecom Minister Dayanidhi Maran, his brother Kalanithi Maran, and others in the Aircel-Maxis deal cases lodged by the CBI and Enforcement Directorate (ED).

However, today’s order will not have any effect on Ralph Marshall and T Ananda Krishnan — the two accused Malaysian nationals — as the court has already segregated the trial against them from that of the Maran brothers and others.

The order was passed by Special Judge OP Saini, who is exclusively dealing with the 2G spectrum allocation scam cases and cases arising out of the related investigation. The CBI had filed a chargesheet against the Maran brothers, Ralph Marshall, T Ananda Krishnan, Sun Direct TV (P) Ltd, Astro All Asia Networks Plc, UK, Maxis Communications Berhad, Malaysia, South Asia Entertainment Holdings Ltd, Malaysia and then Additional Secretary (Telecom) JS Sarma, who died during the course of the probe. They were chargesheeted for alleged offences punishable under section 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of IPC and under relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Money laundering case In the money laundering case, ED has chargesheeted 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).

Besides the Maran brothers, the court discharged two companies — Sun Direct TV (P) Ltd (SDTPL) and South Asia Entertainment Holdings Ltd.

During arguments on framing of charges, Special Public Prosecutor Anand Grover had claimed that Dayanidhi 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 charge was strongly refuted by Dayanidhi. All the accused had denied the allegations made against them by the investigating agencies and had moved bail pleas. The court had summoned the six accused after taking cognisance of the ED’s chargesheet, saying there was “enough incriminating material” to proceed against them.

While arguing on the issue of framing of charges against him, Dayanidhi had claimed that during the period in which the CBI alleged the crime was committed, Sivasankaran was in talks with several companies to sell his stake in Aircel.

It was only in October 2005 that the business transaction between Aircel and Maxis was finalised, his counsel had said.

His brother Kalanithi had also argued that the CBI’s claim was false, that the complainant was himself eager for the business and that he was being falsely implicated in the case.

Related Topics
comment COMMENT NOW