NEW DELHI: The time has come to sift facts and evidence from rhetoric in the 2G case, as the special CBI court will do on September 15.

A couple of things, though, are clear. One, the CBI has not been able to establish a money trail between Unitech Wireless and jailed ex-telecom minister A Raja to establish a quid pro quo. Two, it hasn't established a quid pro quo against Reliance Telecom either, nor has its chargesheet alleged any benefit to it. The CBI concluded its arguments on Monday before special CBI judge OP Saini, saying there was sufficient "prima facie" evidence against the 17 accused to prosecute them under various provisions of the IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act.

While rebutting the arguments forwarded by Unitech Wireless (Tamil Nadu) earlier about the absence of a money trail, special public prosecutor UU Lalit conceded that the CBI had not found evidence against Unitech to show any money trail as "quid pro quo" to another party in lieu of grant of licences.

"We are conscious that so far as Unitech is concerned, we have found nothing to show any money trail against them," Lalit said, adding that the charges against Swan Telecom and Unitech, two alleged beneficiaries, were that they got the licences despite being ineligible and later off-loaded their shares to earn around Rs 7,300 crore.

Discussing the roles of Reliance Telecom and three Reliance ADAG officials, the CBI said, "So far as the three officials are concerned, their object was to set up an ineligible company (Swan Telecom)." It alleged that the officials "structured" Swan Telecom as a front firm to circumvent the then dual technology policy of the department of telecom (DoT) which barred an existing CDMA player from venturing into the GSM sector.

However, the policy was later changed. The control of Swan Telecom was later transferred to DB Group promoted by Shahid Usman Balwa, one of the accused, and the role of the three directors was limited to that, the CBI said. The agency, in its chargesheet, has not alleged any "quid pro quo" against RTL and the benefits it (RTL) got from the alleged scam.

While opposing the pleas of Raja and DMK MP Kanimozhi that their prosecution was illegal due to lack of proper sanctions from the authorities concerned, Lalit said that they have been charged as private persons. "The office he (Raja) is presently holding as an MP has not come into the picture at all. Here it is nobody’s case that he misused his office as an MP. Sanction for prosecution is not important for those who cease to be a public servant. Sanction is required when, for example, a public servant accepts a bribe in discharge of a public function which is his official duty but the underlying current is to garner that advantage i.e the discharge of public duty is merely a facade or a cloak," Lalit contended. He added that the same principle applied to Kanimozhi as she may have been holding office as an MP, but that has not been alleged to be misused. The prosecutor sought framing of charges against all the accused, including three telecom firms.

During the hearing, Vijay Aggarwal, counsel for Shahid Balwa, asked the CBI if it had received the Trai report which talked about the loss incurred to the state exchequer. He also contended that the court could not proceed further without the report as the CAG and the CBI had come up with differing figures about the loss, and the agency had said in its chargesheet that it was waiting for the Trai expert committee’s report.

The CBI replied that it had not received the report. On this, Shahid Balwa intervened and accused the agency of lying. Referring to a media report, he said the Trai report was out. The CBI then asked the court to give it some time to inform it about the report.