Rohinton Fali Nariman JUDGMENT
Rohinton Fali Nariman, J.
1. Leave granted in SLP (Crl.) No. 2978 of 2014.
2. These matters arise as a sequel to the judgment delivered by this Court on 1.7.2013 by which three writ petitions filed by Essar Teleholdings Limited, Loop Telecom Limited and Vikash Saraf were dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court.
3. The brief facts necessary to appreciate how the controversy arose before this Court are as follows.
4. CBI registered an FIR RC No. DAI 2009 A 0045 dated 21.10.2009 alleging offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and criminal conspiracy in respect of the grant of 122 UAS licenses in the year 2008 against various unknown Government officials, persons and companies. The gist of the offence was set out in the penultimate paragraph of the said FIR, which is set out as follows:
Thus, the concerned officials of Department of Telecommunications in criminal conspiracy with private persons/companies by abusing their official position granted Unified Access Service Licenses to a few selected companies at nominal rate by rejecting the applications of others without any valid reason thereby causing wrongful loss to the Government of India and a corresponding wrongful loss to private persons/companies estimated to be more than Rs. 22,000 Crores.
The aforesaid facts disclose commission of offence Under Sections 120-B Indian Penal Code, r/w Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 against certain unknown officials of Department of Telecommunications, Government of India, unknown private persons/companies and others.
5. On 16.12.2010, this Court passed an order reported in Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India 
MANU/SC/1074/2010 : (2011) 1 SCC 560, directing the CBI to investigate the said FIR. On 10.2.2011, while monitoring the CBI investigation, this Court passed an order directing that no other Court shall pass any order which may in any manner impede the investigation being carried out by the CBI and Directorate of Enforcement. On 2.4.2011, and 25.4.2011, CBI filed a chargesheet and a first supplementary chargesheet against 12 accused persons for offences committed both under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is common ground that none of the Petitioners before us were named or mentioned in these two chargesheets.
6. The present case arises out of a second supplementary chargesheet dated 12.12.2011 naming 8 persons as accused, alleging offences Under Section 120B read with Section 4........