New Delhi: DMK MP Kanimozhi on Tuesday sought to drag Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in the 2G spectrum case threatening to make him a witness.

"If the trial goes on (against her), I would summon the Prime Minister as a witness," she submitted through her lawyer and senior advocate Sushil Kumar before Special CBI Judge O P Saini.

READ MORE: ED will soon attach properties

The 43-year-old Rajya Sabha member and daughter of DMK chief M Karunanidhi said the Prime Minister has made a statement on the floor of the Parliament that no loss was incurred to the exchequer in the grant of licences for the 2G.

Her counsel contended that CBI's case is that a huge loss has been caused to the exchequer due to the omission and commission of the acts of the accused, including former Telecom Minister A Raja.

"The moment, the loss factor goes out, the charge of cheating also goes out," Kumar said, adding, "The Prime Minister, the then Finance Minister (P Chidambaram) and the present Telecom Minister (Kapil Sibal) have told the House i.e. the people of India that no loss has been caused as 2G licences were not to be auctioned."

DMK MP rejects CAG report

The DMK MP rejected the CAG report of loss of Rs 1.76 lakh crore to the exchequer in grant of 2G spectrum licenses, saying it lacked evidentiary value as Parliament is yet to adopt the findings.

"The CAG report was laid before the House on November 16, 2010. It had not been adopted by the House. It is still in a limbo as the House is yet to adopt the report," senior lawyer Sushil Kumar told Special CBI Judge O P Saini.

"It is lying in a limbo. That is why it is not a piece of evidence and is not being relied upon by CBI," he said adding the loss mentioned in the charge sheet was "notional".

He sought to dispute the computation of loss by CBI and CAG, saying "which figure is correct."

"The loss of Rs 22,000 crore in the FIR and a loss of Rs 30,000 crore in charge sheet filed in 2011 is made into a loss of Rs 1.76 lakh crore by CAG in his report dated November 8, 2010," Kumar said. Since CAG report has not been adopted by Parliament, it, therefore, cannot be used as a piece of evidence.

"The figure of Rs 1.76 lakh crore loss is all in the air," the counsel said.

Trial "malicious": Kanimozhi

Terming her prosecution as "frivolous and malicious" in a Delhi court on Tuesday, Kanimozhi Accused CBI of suppressing the fact that she was a lawmaker and sanction of the Rajya Sabha Chairman was required to try her in 2G telecom spectrum allocation scam.

"Her (Kanimozhi) name figures in the charge sheet as a private person. She, during her interrogation, had already told CBI that she was an MP of Rajya Sabha. Still, they had the courage to say that she was a private person.”

"This is the most frivolous and malicious prosecution. I cannot condone the act of CBI for describing her as a private person only because of the fact that the (five-judge bench) judgement of the Supreme Court came before them (CBI). The judgement requires the sanction for prosecution of an MP," senior advocate Sushil Kumar, appearing for the 43-year-old DMK leader, told special CBI Judge O P Saini.

If CBI had disclosed the obvious that Kanimozhi was an MP, the court would have "certainly" asked for the sanction but this was not done, the defence counsel said, adding "no MP can be prosecuted without prior approval either from Lok Sabha Speaker or Rajya Sabha Chairman."

This suppression of fact is "sufficient to infer that it is a frivolous and malicious prosecution...even today, you (judge) can release her unconditionally and cognizance of the offence can be taken after the proper sanction. The cognizance of the offence is void-ab-initio", he said, adding "this applies to A Raja".

"I appeal to you, please take a decision which is legally sustainable. Whole charge is quashed only on the ground that there was no sanction. On merits, they (CBI) have no case and even on legality, they have no case," he said.

CBI filed the supplementary charge sheet on April 25, 2011 and deliberately referred Kanimozhi, an MP, as a private person, the defence lawyer said.

"But in a lighter vein, I would like to make a comment, the word CBI came into being on April 1, 1963. That is Fools Day. Which is why they (CBI) do such wonders. CBI interrogates a sitting MP. She tells them she is an MP yet CBI has the courage to say that she is a private person," he said.

I’m "common" shareholder in KTV: Kanimozhi

Kanimozhi told the Delhi court that she was a common shareholder in Kalaignar TV and ignorant about the channel's decision to take a "loan" of Rs 200 crore from Cineyug Films.

"She did not even know that her company was taking Rs 200 crore loan at 10 per cent interest rate. See her as a common shareholder who attends just an Annual General Meeting once in a year.

Kanimozhi and co-accused Sharad Kumar, Managing Director and CEO of the DMK-run channel, hold 20 per cent stakes each in Kalaignar TV and rest 60 per cent stakes are being held by Dayalu Ammal, wife of party supremo M Karunanidhi, CBI said in its charge sheet.

Seeking discharge from the case, the Rajya Sabha member said she had nothing to do with the "day-to-day" affairs of the channel and had served as a director for only two weeks.

"She had attended just three meetings as a director of the board of KTV--that is on June 6, 12, 20 in 2007. She was director for just 14 days.

"The Chairman of the board informed that Kanimozhi, being pre-occupied, does not wish to continue in office and attended only three board meetings as a director," the defence lawyer said. For these three attendance, Kanimozhi has already spent three months in jail, the defence counsel said.

"She is a shareholder of 20 per cent and was a director for two weeks. Thereafter, there is no material to show any connection between her and the company and its business. She is a shareholder. A shareholder can share profit or loss to the company but for fastening criminal liability on them (shareholder), something more is required.”

"Can the prosecution show what is her gain from this transaction? Ultimately, she will gain or lose in dividend like any other shareholder. But there is nothing more than that," he said.

Kanimozhi did not attend the board meeting in which the proposal of loan of Rs 200 crore came up, he said.

On the allegation of Cineyug giving money to KTV at an "unusual low interest rate", he said, "a loan of Rs 200 crore on a low interest rate to a company with a valuation of Rs 846 crore was no risk at all.

"In 2009, KTV was raising loans from the market. Had we known we would be receiving Rs 200 crore as bribe, why would we worry about raising loans from elsewhere?" he said.