Tuesday, Dec 03, 2002
Tuesday, Dec 03, 2002 |
| Front Page | ||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | Front Page
By J. Venkatesan
(Only in July, a three-Judge Bench, headed by the then Chief Justice, B.N. Kirpal, while staying the Delhi High Court order, quashing the chargesheet against the Hinduja brothers, ordered the continuance of the proceedings. Accordingly, the special court framed the charges in November and posted the case for trial on December 4). By staying the trial, the three-Judge Bench, comprising the Chief Justice, G. B. Pattanaik, Justice K. G. Balakrishnan and Justice S. B. Sinha, granted a major relief to the Hinduja brothers — Srichand, Gopichand and Prakash — observing that it would be a "travesty of justice'' to allow the trial to go on when the CBI's appeal against the High Court order was pending disposal. The Bench, which modified the apex court's earlier order of July 12, said "let there be stay of the trial until the CBI files response to the application filed by the Hindujas (seeking stay of the proceedings) which may be put up for hearing after four weeks.'' When the Solicitor-General, Kirit Raval, opposed the application, the Bench asked him "will it be proper to allow the trial to go on when the matter is still pending here?'' Mr. Raval said it was a usual practice with the courts to allow the trial proceedings to go on when such appeals were admitted. When the Bench indicated that it was going to stay the trial, Mr. Raval asked the Bench to give at least a week for the CBI to file its reply to the Hindujas' application before taking any decision. Here was a case in which `mention' was made on Friday and an application seeking a stay of the trial was filed on Saturday.
`Special provisions for Hindujas?'
"Are there any special provisions for the Hindujas,'' he asked and argued with vehemence that such a procedure was unheard of. "I will be failing in my duty as Solicitor-General of India, if I don't point out this to the court.'' Ram Jethmalani, senior counsel appearing for the Hindujas, was quick to point out that such argument amounted to "contempt of court." He also charged the Government with trying to influence the court by getting articles against the Hindujas published in newspapers "every time the case came up for hearing.'' Even as there was a heated exchange of words, the Chief Justice pacified Mr. Jethmalani and asked "do you think that we would be influenced by such newspaper articles?'' Mr. Raval also drew the court's attention to a solemn assurance given on behalf of the Hindujas last month (when permission was sought to allow all of them to be away from the country to celebrate Diwali with their families) before another Bench that the trial could go on and that they would cooperate and would not seek a stay of the proceedings. There was no change of circumstances since then and the Bench should not grant a stay, he said. The Bench then asked Mr. Raval "what will happen if during the pendency of the appeal, the trial court proceeded to convict them and later we dismiss the CBI's appeal? It would lead to an anomalous situation where the apex court would hold that the High Court was right in quashing the chargesheet on technical ground but the accused would be convicted by the trial court. It would be a travesty of justice.''
Four weeks for CBI
The Bench, therefore, modified the July 29 order by staying the trial and granted four weeks time to the CBI to file its response to the Hindujas' application. And it made it clear that the stay of the proceedings would remain in force till further orders. The Bench also directed the listing of the main appeal filed by the CBI on March 11, 2003, before a Bench headed by Justice V. N. Khare. Talking to presspersons after the court stayed the trial, Gopichand Hinduja, who was present in the court, said "we welcome the interim order. I have complete faith in the Indian judiciary and it will be proved that we are innocent.'' When the High Court, by its June 10 judgment, quashed the chargesheet against the Hindujas on the technical ground that the CBI had not obtained the prior consent of the Central Vigilance Commission, it was considered a major setback to the CBI pursuing the case for over a decade. But by today's order, the CBI has again suffered a setback in pursuing the case to its logical end.
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | Home |
Copyright © 2002, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|
