A Delhi court on Wednesday   reserved its order on framing of charges against 17 high-profile accused including former Telecom Minister A Raja in the 2G spectrum allocation scam after CBI wrapped up arguments saying it had sufficient "prima facie" evidence to proceed with their trial.

"The matter is now fixed on September 15 for orders (on framing of charges)," special CBI judge O P Saini said.  Winding up his arguments on framing of charges, Special public prosecutor U U Lalit opposed the pleas of Raja and DMK MP Kanimozhi that their prosecution was illegal due to lack of proper sanctions from authorities concerned.

"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.

"One has to see if you are actually performing a public function or it is merely a cloak. And since he (Raja) demitted office, no sanction is required under the Prevention of Corruption Act," Lalit said.

The same applies to Kanimozhi. She may be holding office as an MP but that has not been alleged to be misused, he said. The prosecutor sought framing of charges against all the accused including three telecom firms under various provisions of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act.

He, however, said CBI could not find evidence against Unitech Wireless (Tamil Nadu) Private Ltd to show any money trail as "quid pro quo" in lieu of grant of licenses. All the accused have denied allegations of their involvement in the scam.

"We are conscious of the fact that so far as Unitech is concerned, we have found nothing to show any money trail against them. There is no quid pro quo as far as money exchanging hands is concerned in relation to Unitech," Lalit said.

The prosecutor said Swan Telecom and Unitech, alleged beneficiaries, got the licences despite being ineligible and later off-loaded their shares and earned huge profit of around Rs 7,300 crore.

Discussing roles of Reliance Telecom Ltd (RTL) and three Reliance ADAG officials, the prosecutor said "so far as the three officials are concerned, there object was to set up an ineligible company (Swan Telecom).

CBI has alleged that the RDAG 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 GSM sector. However, the policy was later changed.

The control of Swan Telecom was later transferred to DB Group promoted by co-accused Shahid Usman Balwa, CBI said. The agency, in its charge sheet, has not alleged any "quid pro quo" against RTL and that the benefits it (RTL) got from the alleged scam.

The prosecutor opposed the plea of Unitech Wireless (Tamil Nadu) Private Ltd that it cannot be prosecuted for the alleged offences of erstwhile eight group companies, which got the licenses.  Eight companies were later amalgamated into one.

"Merely because eight companies have merged into a ninth entity, makes no distinction. The person in charge of these eight entities are the in charge of the ninth entity so formed. Theoretically, it makes no difference," Lalit argued.