Charge sheet will be filed against former telecom minister A Raja and two companies by March 31 for their alleged involvement in the 2G spectrum allocation case, the CBI told the supreme court on Tuesday, which asked the agency to appoint a suitable senior advocate as special public prosecutor in the trial.

In its latest status report filed in a sealed envelope before a bench of justices G S Singhvi and A K Ganguly, the CBI submitted that many new facts have come out during the probe into the scam.

"The main charge sheet will be filed against A Raja and two companies by March 31. This is only the beginning and many people and companies would also be chargesheeted later on," senior advocate K K Venugopal, appearing for the investigating agency, said.

Venugopal told the court that many people, including the CEO of a telecom company, have been examined by the agency and Letters Rogatory have been sent to some countries for probing the money trail. He said some progress had been made in case of Mauritius.

He submitted that the agency is also probing a land deal in Chennai involving Tatas and the DMK party.

The court, while going through the status report, referred to a company and asked, "Is it the same company which has association with Vodafone and (it) was also mentioned in the ED report?"

To that, Venugopal replied, "Yes".

The court, in its order, directed the investigating agency to place before it transcripts of corporate lobbyist Niira Radia's telephonic conversation tapped by the IT department on the next date of hearing on March 29.

It also asked the CBI and the ED to place the probe reports before it on that day.

Meanwhile, the centre informed the bench that it has got the letter from chief justice of Delhi high court who has agreed to set up an exclusive court for holding trial in the 2G case.

Attorney general Ghulam E Vahanvati said that appropriate notification would be issued by the centre on or before March 29 so that charge sheet filed by CBI could be taken cognisance of by the court

Venugopal, while also appearing for the ED, had informed the bench that Letters Rogatory have been sent to Singapore, Cyprus, Jersey and Virgin Islands in connection with the scam and that similar requests were being sent to two more countries.

He had said 31 companies have so far been summoned and statements of 26 firms have been recorded.

He had told the court that some hawala operators were involved in the scam. Their premises were raided and they were questioned by the ED, he said said.

The counsel, however, had not revealed the names of individuals and companies mentioned in the report.The ED, in its report, had mentioned that after granting of licence, a person sold his equity in the company and made huge monetary gains which have been traced to Mauritius. It had said that one person had paid Rs 100 crore for liasioning.

The apex court, after going through the report, had said that prima facie there seems to be violation of the law.

"Networks are vast. Their connections are in many countries and prima facie there is a violation of law of land," the court had said.

It had asked the ED about how many people are involved in investigating the scam, to which the agency had replied that four teams were working to crack the case.

The court was hearing a petition filed by an NGO, Centre for Public Interest Litigation on whose plea it had ordered the CBI probe.

The court is also monitoring the investigation in the 2G case which allegedly caused a huge loss to public exchequer.

The ED had yesterday informed the apex court that multi-crore foreign transactions relating to the 2G spectrum scam have been traced to at least six countries.

While submitting its latest status report on the probe into the scam, the agency had mentioned that it is seeking the help of authorities in foreign countries in tracking the sources of money.

Related reports:

The probe into the 2G scam led CBI to the doors of country's top law officer attorney general G E Vahanvati and RBI governor D Subbarao whose statements were recorded by the agency in connection with the multi-crore spectrum allocation.

During the examination Vahanvati was asked about his legal opinion given to the telecom ministry when the spectrum process begun, agency sources said.

However, Vahanvati told reporters that CBI approached him only for some clarifications and he was not questioned.

He said that DoT had earlier sent him a press release and had sought his opinion on it. He had sent back the release to the DoT after making some notings on it, the AG said.

But the notings on the release had been tinkered with and the CBI wanted to know about it from me, he said.

Vahanvati's statement to CBI was taken on the legal opinion relating to a press release issued by the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) on the allocation of 2G spectrum on a first come-first-serve basis.

In the statement, the attorney general is understood to have told the CBI that two paragraphs of the press release had been deleted to suit the needs of some people following which the CBI carried out forensic examination of the handwriting in the original press release by experts.

The sources said the experts had claimed to have found that the document was forged and some words had been included separately.

Janata Party leader Subramanian Swamy had written to prime minister Manmohan Singh urging him to withdraw Vahanvati from spectrum hearings as he had become a party to the decision taken by Raja by giving his opinion.

The statement of the attorney general is seen as crucial by the agency as it would help it in strengthening the case against Raja who was mainly relying on the fact that he had taken a policy decision and that it could not help in establishing alleged forgery and malafide intentions of former telecom minister and others involved in the case.

The CBI also quizzed Subbarao, who was the then finance secretary, and recorded his statement. He had raised questions over the entry fee for mobile operators ahead of the spectrum allocations.

Subbarao is understood to have told the CBI that he had suggested staying the implementation of the decision on spectrum and also sought previous communications granting permission and the dates on which the decision was taken.

The letter was sent by the then finance secretary by end of November 2007 and the DoT is alleged to have ignored it and headed for allocation of 2G licenses in January 2008.

The government, in an affidavit filed in the supreme court on the 2G spectrum issue, had also stated the then finance secretary had raised certain queries on November 27, 2007, regarding the entry fee. A reply to this was given by the Telecom Secretary on November 29, 2007. However, there was no further communication on the issue.

Subbarao had earlier this month appeared before the public accounts committee of the Parliament after which PAC chairman Murli Manohar Joshi had said Subbarao shared "accurate information" with the members on the controversial issue.

A communication sent to RBI seeking Subbarao's reaction has not been answered yet.

CBI never quizzed me on 2G: AG Vahanvati

Attorney general G E Vahanvati on Tuesday denied in the supreme court that he was questioned by the CBI about his purported legal opinion to the department of telecom on the issue of grant of 2G spectrum.

However, later he told reporters that the agency had approached him for some clarification.

Mentioning a news report about CBI questioning him, before a bench of justices G S Singhvi and A K Ganguly, the AG termed it as "baseless".

"I do not know what wrong did I commit in my last life that media is after me and such reports are being published that CBI grilled me," Vahanvati said during the hearing of a petition by Centre for Public Interest Litigation, on whose plea a CBI probe had been ordered by the apex court into the 2G spectrum allocation scam.

The news report had claimed Vahanvati was questioned about the legal opinion that he had given to the department of telecommunications (DoT) earlier during his stint as Solicitor General of India on the issue of grant of the 2G spectrum allocation.

Early this month too, Vahanvati, during the hearing of the issue related to the 2G spectrum allocation scam by the supreme court had denied that he had given any legal opinion to the DoT on the matter.

Later, he told reporters that CBI approached him only for some clarification and he was not questioned as reported.

He said that DoT had earlier sent him a press release and had sought his opinion on it. He had sent back the release to the DoT after making some notings on it, the AG said.

But the notings on the release had been tinkered with and the CBI wanted to know about it from me, he said.