Swan Telecom promoter Shahid Usman Balwa, facing trial in the 2G spectrum allocation scam case, today faced the ire of a Delhi court which said he "deserved" to be taken into custody for his misconduct which caused "embarrassment" (to the judge) during the trial.
"Let me pour my heart out. During the recording of evidence, many times I felt that Mr Balwa should be taken into custody. He deserved to be taken into custody," Special CBI Judge O P Saini said.
"I have told everybody that I have no faith in you (Balwa). The court has been virtually cheated," an angry special judge said, adding "my patience with you is over now."
Saini said Balwa has "embarrassed" him a lot due to his conduct and if he has not understood the question, then why he has given answers to around 500 questions which were asked by the court during recording of his statement.
"It is an exercise to trap the court," the judge said, adding "be ready to go to jail."
"He is such a big businessman and he is saying he is not understanding the questions," the judge said.
The observations were made by the judge after special public prosecutor U U Lait told the court that Balwa's contention that he did not understand the questions asked by the court under the provisions of the CrPC was only to take advantage in future.
"I see a sinister design behind it so that they can take advantage in future," Lalit said and pointed out around 130 answers were given by Balwa on the court's query.
Lalit told the court that once the accused as well as the judge has signed on the answers, there was no provision in law to undo it as it was a part of judicial record.
However, Balwa repeatedly apologized to the judge saying he had not done anything intentionally and it was done only due to inadvertence.
Balwa's counsel Vijay Aggarwal told the court it was an error on their part that they did not point out to the court that they have not understood the questions.
The judge, however, said he will decide the issue on May 12.
During the hearing, Lalit told the court that answers given by the accused are part of the judicial record and one cannot go back on it.
"This cannot happen and it should not be allowed to happen. It