A special Indian 2G court on Saturday (Sept 24) issued open warrants of arrest against Malaysian nationals T Ananda Krishnan and Augustus Ralph Marshall, who are accused in Aircel-Maxis deal case along with former Telecom Minister Dayanidhi Maran and his brother Kalanithi.
Special Judge O P Saini also ordered that the trial against Maran brothers and two accused companies be segregated from that of those based in Malaysia — Krishnan, Marshall, and two firms, Astro All Asia Network PLC and Maxis Communication Berhad — saying their appearance may take long time leading to a delay in proceedings.
‘It is ordered that the trial of the appearing accused, that is, Dayanidhi Maran, Kalanithi Maran, M/s Sun Direct TV Pvt Ltd and M/s South Asia Entertainment Holdings Ltd be segregated from the trial of accused Ralph Marshall, T Ananda Krishnan, M/s Astro All Asia Network Plc and M/s Maxis Communications Berhad.’
‘Miscellaneous to be opened relating these four accused, who are yet to be served. It is further ordered that an open and perpetual warrant of arrest be issued against Marshall and Krishnan,’ the court said.
The court's order came on CBI's plea which had on August one sought issuance of arrest warrants against both the foreign nationals, stating that the summons issued to them could not be served.
The CBI had filed the charge sheet against the eight accused for offences punishable under section 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC and under relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
In the 27-page order, the court noted that the allegations against the accused were "serious" and the only way left was to approach the Interpol for which issuance of warrant was necessary.
‘They (Marshall and Krishnan) could not be served with the summons through the normal course by resorting to Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty between the two countries.
‘Malaysian authorities have categorically declined to effect the service. In such a situation, the only way left is to approach the Interpol and for that issue of warrant is necessary.‘
‘In such a situation when further issuance of summons would be a futile exercise, it is rightful for the prosecution to ask for warrant of arrest against the accused,’ the court said while allowing the agency's plea.
