India - Required Sanction To Prosecute Mrs. Sonia Gandhi Under Prevention Of Corruption Act | Sikh Philosophy Network
  • Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
    Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
    Sign up Log in

India Required Sanction To Prosecute Mrs. Sonia Gandhi Under Prevention Of Corruption Act

Jan 1, 2010
517
488
56
http://janataparty. org/pressdetail. asp?rowid= 60

April 15,2011

PRESS RELEASE

Dr.Subramanian Swamy, Janata Party President and former Union Cabinet
Minister for Law &Justice, today submitted a Petition of 206 pages, seeking
from the Prime Minister Dr.Manmohan Singh the required Sanction to prosecute
Ms. Sonia Gandhi under Sections 11 & 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Sanction is required under Section 19 of the Act because she is Chairperson
of the National Advisory Council with Cabinet rank.

In his Petition to the PM, Dr.Swamy has made out a prima facie case on
documentary circumstantial evidence that Ms.Gandhi abetted Italian
businessman and close family friend Ottavio Quattrocchi to obtain an illegal
commission in the Bofors Gun Purchase deal, and then influenced the
government of Prime Minister Narasimha Rao to enable Mr. Quattrocchi to
escape from the country in July 1993. Thereafter she directed the Union Law
Minister in 2005 to enable Mr. Quattrocchi to get his London accounts
de-frozen and decamp scot free with over $ 200 million [about Rs 1000
crores].

Dr.Swamy has also made out a prima facie case that Mr. Gandhi has illegally
held in Swiss bank accounts illegal monies of about Rs. 10,000 crores
received as a legatee in 1991 following Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination.

He also produced an admission on record of the spokesperson of the Russian
government that KGB had provided funds to Ms. Gandhi and her family, as also
evidence that she had received commissions on Indo-Soviet trade, which were
illegal under Indian law.

In his Petition, Dr.Swamy has also catalogued a list of offences prima facie
committed by Ms.Sonia Gandhi since 1974 which shows that she is an habitual
offender who deserves to be prosecuted and punished.

For Janata Party

(Pran Nath Mago)

PA to Dr.Swamy
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

15, April 2011

Dr.Manmohan Singh
Prime Minister as Sanctioning Authority
u/s 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (1988) [PCA]
South Block, New Delhi.

Re: Sanction to prosecute Ms.Sonia Gandhi, Chairperson (in Cabinet Rank),
NAC, under Prevention of Corruption Act (1988).

Dear Sir:

1. Ms.Sonia Gandhi MP, wife of the deceased Rajiv Gandhi, was first
appointed as Chairperson National Advisory Council [NAC] in May 2004. She
resigned in 2006 but was re-appointed by an Order of the Cabinet Secretariat
dated March 29, 2010, read with Order dated October 8, 2010 [Annexure 1].

2. As per Order of May 31, 2004 [Annexure 2] the Prime Minister’s Office
will provide Central Government funds to meet the expenditure of the NAC,
and service the NAC for its secretarial needs. Hence she is a public servant
as defined in Section 2 ( c ) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (1988).

3. You, in your capacity as deemed appointing authority are therefore the
Designated Authority under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act
for granting Sanction to prosecute the said Ms. Sonia Gandhi. As you know,
there are no laches or statute of limitations for prosecuting offences of
corruption.

4. Your Sanction is required by me for prosecuting Ms. Sonia Gandhi on a
private complaint proposed to be filed by me in the criminal court under
Prevention of Corruption Act (1988), based on the materials available to me
(and enclosed with this letter/application) with reference to two issues:

FIRST ISSUE:

5. Ms.Sonia Gandhi holds office which enables her to give direction to
Government departments and Ministries and also call for confidential reports
from CBI, and according to the then Union Law Minister, she can even call
for files [Annexure 3]. She has been as Chairperson of NAC giving directions
to several ministries and departments.

6. It is charged that she obtained for, and colluded with family friend,
Mr. Ottavio Quattrocchi—an Interpol Red-Corner Noticee & a proclaimed
offender under Indian criminal law, to obtain for him the pecuniary
advantage from defreezing of his CBI-frozen account, thus committing offence
u/s 13 (1)(d) of the PCA, and also conspired with Quattrocchi to enable him
to escape prosecution in Bofors Gun Purchase scam.

7. Bofors scam that occurred in 1986 represents corruption in very high
places and the key figure in the scam is Mr. Ottavio Quattrocchi, the
Italian family friend and fixer. The then Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi was
manipulated by Ms.Sonia Gandhi, his Italian born wife, to abet the crime in
Bofors gun purchase committed by Quattrocchi against the nation.

8. Ms.Sonia Gandhi stationed Mr.Walter Vinci, her brother-in-law, in Sweden
to influence her husband and then Prime Minister, when on a visit to Sweden
to finalize the Bofors Deal. Also present in the same hotel was the Italian
fixer, small arms supplier, and Snam Progetti agent, Mr. Ottavio
Quattrocchi, [who was hailed as the catalyst in the deal by the CBI in their
Letters Rogatory documents], and who had in return for a hefty commission
prevailed on the Prime Minister to sign the deal before March 31, 1986.

9. Thereafter when the arm of the law began reaching near him, he escaped
from India in 1993, then from Malaysia in 2002 via a rigged court judgment
obtained by collusion with as yet unnamed parties and from Argentina— by the
CBI fudging the records – all achieved under the influence exerted by Ms.
Sonia Gandhi under three different and consenting Prime Ministers.

10. This is further confirmed in the interview conducted by Ranjit Bhushan
of Outlook magazine [Annexure 4 ] in 1998 with Mr.Sten Lindstorm, the Chief
of the Investigation Division of Swedish National Bureau of Investigation
and Special Prosecutor of the Swedish Government into the Bofors payoffs.
The Swedish National Audit Bureau which he assisted concluded after an
independent probe that bribes had indeed been paid in the Bofors deal.

11. Lindstorm states in the interview, which has not been contradicted by
anyone including Ms. Sonia Gandhi, that: “The Bofors Papers all point to the
[Sonia] Gandhi family” and further that Ms.Sonia Gandhi should “explain how
Quattrocchi- owned companies got such fat sums as payoffs from the Bofors
deal.”

12. This report is corroborated by another interview given by Lindstorm to
Chitra Subramanian [Indian Express, March 22, 1998] wherein he stated; “All
information we had at that time pointed to the Gandhi link—Sonia Gandhi
should place her cards on the table. The bribes have been traced to her
friend and this is not something out of the blue. This is no coincidence.”

13. Headlines Today is in possession of the written statement of then
Intelligence Bureau officer Naresh Chandra Gosain made before CBI Inspector
Ghanshyam Rai on March 29 1997. Between 1984 and 1987, Gosain was posted in
the Special Protection Group[SPG] of the then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi.
He was part of the escort team. Between 1987 and 1989, Gosain served as the
Personal Security Officer or the PSO of Sonia Gandhi.

14. During the tenure of Prime Minister Deve Gowda in 1997, Gosain deposed
before the CBI. This deposition has so far never been made public. Headlines
Today dug out this deposition, in which Gosain talks at length about the
close family ties between the Gandhis and the Quattrocchis.

15. In his testimony Gosain says, "Mr.Ottavio Quattrocchi and his wife Ms
Maria Quattrocchi were very close to Mr Rajiv Gandhi and Mrs Sonia Gandhi.
When Shri Rajiv Gandhi became Prime Minister, Mr. Quattrocchi and his family
members used to visit PM house and the family members of Shri Rajiv Gandhi
also used to visit the house of Mr.Quattrocchi. "

16. He adds: “In the initial period of Prime Ministership of Shri Rajiv
Gandhi, the children of Shri Rajiv Gandhi used to stay at Mr.Quattrocchi' s
house during the foreign visits/domestic visits of the Prime Minister. We
used to perform our shift duties at the residence of Mr.Quattrocchi on such
occasions. Sometimes, Mrs Sonia Gandhi has also stayed in the house of
Mr.Quattrocchi and at that time we used to perform our duties there."

Gosain goes on to add that Mr.Quattrocchi and his wife Maria enjoyed free
access to the Prime Minister's house. “At No. 5 & 7 Race Course Road,
private cars were not allowed to enter inside the bungalow. Only the ferry
cars of SPG, after severe security checks, used to carry such visitors from
reception to porch and back. Mr. Quattrocchi and Mrs Maria Quattrocchi were
very close to Shri Rajiv Gandhi's family and they got free access to the
PM's House.”

He further added: "All visitors to No 5 & 7 Race Course Road were issued
passes at the reception near the alighting point. Every time, a card was
kept ready for Mr. Quattrocchi and his family members as and when they
visited the PM's house. Everybody in SPG posted at PM house knew Mr
Quattrocchi and his family members. Hence, there was no question of
identifying them."

17. Ottavio Quattrocchi' s proximity to the Gandhis is well known. What is
also known is this proximity continued even after Quattrocchi began to be
linked to the Bofors scandal. What documents show is that despite the cloud
of suspicion surrounding Quattrocchi' s involvment in the Bofors paybacks, he
continued to have unfettered access to 10 Janpath, the residence officially
assigned to Ms.Sonia Gandhi, which in itself makes her a public servant
under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

18. It is important to recollect that by January 25, 1990, a team of CBI
officials was already in Switzerland with a list of suspected recipients of
the Bofors payback. According to a Frontline magazine story of the time,
Ottavio Quattrocchi was the first name on that list. Between 1988 and 1990,
the media too carried many stories about the involvement of Quattrocchi as a
middleman in the Bofors deal.

19. It is clear from records that Mr.Quattrocchi was the direct beneficiary
of bribe payments in the Bofors scam. It is now confirmed by the ITAT Report
of the Hon’ble Tolani & Sharma Bench [Annexure 5 ].

The testimony of Mr. Sasi Dharan is crucial in further unravelling the
proximity of Quattrocchi to Ms. Sonia Gandhi.. Sasi Dharan worked as a
driver in Snam Progetti. Snam Progetti was an Italian public sector giant
that was represented in India by Ottavio Quattrocchi. Sasi was Quattrocchi' s
personal driver. He drove Mercedes No.DIA 6253. In his testimony before the
CBI, Sasi details the frequent meetings between the Gandhis with the
Quattrocchis.

20. In his testimony Sasi says: "Shri Quattrocchi and Mrs Maria Quattrocchi
were very close to Shri Rajiv Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi and his family. I do not
know what type of relation they had but Quattrocchi and his wife Maria used
to frequently visit the house of Rajiv Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi. I knew it
since 1985 when I joined service. At that time they used to visit the house
of Rajiv Gandhi twice or thrice in a day. Whenever Sonia Gandhi's mother or
father visited India, I used to drive them to the house of Quattrocchi. They
used to remain there for the whole day and Mrs Maria Quattrocchi would take
them for shopping. They used to come to India four or five times in the
year."

21. What is clinching is the car log maintained by driver Sasi Dharan. In
this log, Sasi details the exact dates when Ottavio Quattrocchi came to meet
Rajiv and Sonia Gandhi at 5 and 7 Race Course Road or 10 Janpath. These logs
are for the period 1989 to 1993. In this log book, Sasi Dharan has mentioned
41 occasions when Quattrocchi came to meet the Gandhis.

22. It is important to note that the meetings between Ottavio Quattrochi
and Sonia Gandhi continued even after the death of Rajiv Gandhi in 1991 even
as Ms.Sonia Gandhi remained as a public servant under the Prevention of
Corruption Act.

23. According to Sasi Dharan, Quattrocchi came to 10 Janpath 21 times after
May 1991. Considering the long financial dealings of Mr.Quattrocchi since
1976 with LTTE (the assassins of Rajiv Gandhi), this fact is a subject of a
future application for sanction as well.

24. Sasi concludes by saying: "Shri Quattrocchi left India on the night of
July 29, 1993 and on this day also I had driven him to the airport. At that
time he did not have any luggage except one briefcase and he told me he was
going for an urgent meeting. Usually, whenever Mr. Quattrocchi wanted the
car, he would tell me in advance, but the day he left, he did not tell me
(in advance)". Obviously he had notice of his impending arrest by CBI in
advance.

25. As a consequence of the misuse of her office and position, Ms. Sonia
Gandhi helped Ottavio Quattrocchi not only escape from the country, and in
2005 even to withdraw $ 29 million from his de-frozen accounts and thus let
off scot free.

26. Hence, it is prima facie obvious that Ms.Sonia Gandhi had misused her
office [ she was Life President in the Government funded Indira Gandhi
National Centre for Arts Trust(IGNCA Trust) during 1991-2002] and thus a
public servant with considerable influence in government to enable Mr.
Quattrocchi to escape from India in 1993 and later in 2005 to benefit
Mr.Quattrocchi to illegally gain monetarily at the expense of the
Consolidated Fund of India, by defreezing his London accounts.

SECOND ISSUE:,

27. This complaint against Sonia Gandhi also includes the corrupt monies
held under her control in the tax haven of Switzerland as a legatee of the
corrupt money which was banked in the name of her late husband or deposited
by her of funds obtained from the erstwhile KGB, the Soviet Union’s
Intelligence Agency, or by sale of illegally exported antiques in the
country. I retain the right to submit details of other illegal accounts in
other havens such as Macao at a later stage in another application to you or
before the court.

28. It is well-reported that Sonia Gandhi is the beneficiary of Rajiv
Gandhi's estate which includes the corrupt monies continued even now to be
held in a tax havens. Why this money is held abroad (even if held as a trust
to benefit family members) instead of its being held in India within the
Indian financial system to benefit the nation is a question which Ms.Sonia
Gandhi must answer.

29. Violations of FEMA have occurred as also under Prevention of Money
Laundering Act. In case any transaction on this account which is not
reported in the Income Tax Returns, and FCRA is also a violation. There may
also be an issue of obtaining RBI prior permission for holding such large
sums abroad if it is claimed to be a legitimate account.

30. It is clear that this wealth was not reported in Election Affidavits
of Sonia Gandhi & Rahul Gandhi as a beneficiary of the monies so held
[Annexure 6]. The total wealth of both Gandhis, as per their election
returns, is just Rs 363 lakh, Sonia owns no car. "

31. When Schweizer Illustrierte a prestigious German language Swiss
magazine alleged that Rajiv Gandhi held an illegal account in Swiss banks of
about US $ 2 billion, neither she nor her son, protested, or sued the
magazine, then or later [Annexure 7].

32. When major papers, The Hindu and The Times of India included, had
carried in the year 1992 the official confirmation of KGB payments to the
Rajiv Gandhi family, adding that the Russian government owned the payments
in the disclosures, neither of the two Gandhis challenged or sued them
[Annexure 8].

33. Nor did they sue Dr. Yevgenia Albats, a member of the official
Commission on KGB Operations set up by President Yeltsin, when she wrote
about KGB payments to Rajiv Gandhi and family in her book: The State within
State [Annexure 9]

34. More than $ 2 billion in 1991 was being held by Ms. Sonia Gandhi as a
legatee, or otherwise obtained by receiving stolen movable and immovable
properties, monies and securities, kept illegally in tax haven banks of
Switzerland and elsewhere, and which is disproportionate to her known
sources of income. She thus has also committed offence u/s 13(1)(e) of PCA.
It also attracts the IPC Sections for receiving stolen property.

35. The recent deposition of Hasan Ali, alleged to have siphoned money of
the nation to Switzerland secret accounts admits to his close association
not only with her but with Mr.Ahmed Patel MP and political adviser to
Ms.Sonia Gandhi [Annexure 10 ].

36. Ms. Sonia Gandhi is also obviously culpable under Indian criminal law
such as FCRA for the pay offs in the Iraqi Oil-for-Food scam of 2002. The
United Nations had set up an independent inquiry committee under Dr. F.
Volcker which found that the “Congress Party” headed by Ms. Sonia Gandhi as
a beneficiary of a free oil quota from the now deposed and deceased dictator
Saddam Hussein, which the beneficiary sold at market price through Marc
Rich, the notorious swindler who had been convicted by a US Court for 350
years and several million dollars as fine. He was pardoned by US President
Clinton in 2000 on Israeli Prime Minister’s intervention. He lives in
Switzerland.

37. No one in Congress Party but Ms. Sonia Gandhi as party President could
have been this beneficiary. The other beneficiary listed in Volcker’s Report
was by name: Natwar Singh, who got much less [Annexure 11].

38. I reserve the right to further petition you to enlarge the scope of
this sanction at a future date to include other violations and offences
committed by Ms.Sonia Gandhi under Prevention of Corruption Act (1988), for
which I will file with you a separate application if necessary..

39. But, in this application alone there is substantive prima facie
evidence for an appropriate court to take cognizance of the offence
committed by Ms.Sonia Gandhi under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and
thus I seek your sanction to initiate the criminal law to prosecute her
under the Act

40. Ms. Sonia Gandhi is habitually committing acts of corruption since
1972. On November 19, 1974, I brought it to the attention of the Rajya Sabha
that Ms. Sonia Gandhi, then an Italian citizen had functioned as a benami
insurance agent of public sector insurance companies, and giving her address
as 1, Safdarjung Road, New Delhi which was then the official residence of
the Prime Minister of India. She thus committed an offence under FERA. The
then Prime Minister Mrs.Indira Gandhi subsequently informed the Rajya Sabha
that following my disclosure, Ms. Sonia Gandhi had resigned from this agency
earning commissions.

41. Between January 25, 1973 and January 21, 1975 she held a post of
Managing Director of Maruti Technical Services on a salary despite it being
an offence under FERA. But then she had become Managing Director of Maruti
Heavy Vehicles Pvt Ltd with an even bigger remuneration. For neither post
she had the necessary qualifications having never passed even High School.The
Justice A.C. Gupta Commission appointed in 1977 by the Janata Party
Government found her guilty of multiple offences under FERA and IPC.

42. In 1980 and January 1983 Ms. Sonia Gandhi then still an Italian
citizen enrolled herself as a voter in the New Delhi constituency despite
having been struck off the list in 1982 upon the ERO receiving a complaint
from a citizen. She thus committed an offence under Section 31 of the
Representation of the People’s Act read with Form 4 of the Registration of
Electors Rules(1960).

43. Ms.Sonia Gandhi’s Indian citizenship acquired in record speed in April
1983 is vitiated by her incomplete answers to mandatory questions in the
citizenship forms. She did not submit documents from the Italian government
of relinquishing her Italian citizenship required for Indian citizenship,
stating in the Form that it was ‘not applicable” [Annexure 12]. Italian
Embassy in New Delhi simply affirmed what she told them and hence that
cannot be taken as a valid document of relinquishment for the purposes of
citizenship. She also retrieved her Italian passport in 1992 after
citizenship laws in Italy were amended which under Section 10 of the
Citizenship Act (1955) means cancellation of her Indian citizenship.

44. All these facts stated above were put together and published in USA in
a full page advertisement in the New York Times in 2008 by NRIs N. Kataria
and others. The Congress Party unit in USA thereafter engaged the most
expensive law firm and filed a $200 million defamation suit. However
Ms.Sonia Gandhi refused to appear in the witness box and be cross
examination. Therefore, Justice Emily Goodman of the New York State Supreme
Court dismissed the suit since defamation suits in law have to be filed by
the person claiming to be defamed, and therefore cannot be assigned to
others [Annexure 13]. Ms. Sonia Gandhi had a case to rebut these facts, then
why she failed to turn up in court?

(SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY)
=======================================================
Rajneesh Madhok
 

spnadmin

1947-2014 (Archived)
SPNer
Jun 17, 2004
14,500
19,181
Because I do not reside in India, the ramifications of posting this article are not clear to me. Also not clear are the motivations of the author/s of the original article.

This article was taken from a web site of a BJP supporter. It is election time in India. The WikiLeaks are covered daily with great energy in the mainstream press. And, Anna Hazare has recently called off his hunger strike and is calling all the shots as the gearing up to an anti-corruption bill takes life.

Just because someone states he/she has a prima facie case does not make it so. Therefore I am left wondering if the characterization "prima facie" case, referred to several times, would see the light of day in a court of law as prima facie.

Serous charges are made in the article. How much of the content is motivated by the highly charged political atmosphere in India? I don't see a way for the accused to offer a rebuttal. Even if 99.9 percent of our members residing in India support BJP, SPN has to represent balance if possible when charges are this serious, have not been proved, and the political fulcrum swings so far in the direction of one political party.

I have worried on and off all day about the thread.
 
Jan 1, 2010
517
488
56
Hon'ble SPNAdminji,
Regards,
I am not linked with any political party, the matter is the Press release of Janta Party, the link has been provided in the matter as the matter is critical and as the matter has been duly released as Press note, so it has been uploaded for the members. I don't want to stress the ramifications of the note, but the matter should be in the knowledge of the members. This article has been taken not from the BJP's website but it is Janta Party. BJP and Janta Party are different parties. Janta Party would not be having more than 2-3 seats all over India. So, we can't say that the article is uploaded to provide benefit to BJP. The issue is related to the allegations made in the Press Note. The points are on the Prime Minister's table to decide.
The matter is not concerned with BJP but the allegations are quite considerable. Still the elections are not going to be held in India. I stress that the matter of the article is in the shape of Press note and nothing has been deleted and added in the letter written to the PM for getting approval to pursue the case under the matter of corruption.
The matter has been uploaded as per the writer of the letter to the PM with allegations which are prima facie, one can't conclude the outcome of the allegations. The matter is in primary stage but the approval is necessary to pursue. Such type of the matters are in news every now and then but this matter is the Press Release.
The serious charges levied on the article may be part of the political vendetta. We can't say at this moment the outcome of the allegations. SPNji I am ready to offer a rebuttal but the point is that the matter is a Press Release and I have nothing to do in the matter, I have uploaded as is where is basis. I don't support any political party. The point is that whether the allegations are politically motivated or there are something in the matter to discuss. We are just to make balance in the discussion and we are not here to mar someone's reputation. As the charges are serious in nature and before the investigation we can say that it will not be proved. The points can be discussed by the members not on the political platform but on the points of serious allegations. If it is loot then we should not turn blind eye to the pillage. As by doing so the country's position will go to worse from bad. I don't say that the political discourse and the public space has been getting such an atsmosphere that everybody looks opportunistic and so devoid all values. I can't say at this moment that we should not forget the slogans written on the trucks responding Rajiv Gandhi's slogan Mera Desh Mahan "100 mein se 99 be-imaan phir bhi "Mera Desh Mahan" Protest against corruption should be made. Why the Lok Pal bill is lingering from years. Lok Pal has no teeth, can't take action against the corrupt.
In the above mentioned article now the question arise. The allegations have been made. When there is no provision of pursual the matter without approval in democratic country then how can we expect action. The grievances of the public is due to mal-administration. Prevention of corruption act of 1988 has become toothless. It exists but how can we prove the cases of corruption with so many approvals. The time is to stress on the demand of effective Lok Pal Bill.
Anyhow the matter is on the table of the members now.
 

spnadmin

1947-2014 (Archived)
SPNer
Jun 17, 2004
14,500
19,181
Thanks for clarifying that the above was a press release rajneesh madhok ji. That does not resolve my reservations. But again, thank you.
 
Jan 1, 2010
517
488
56
Hon'ble SPNAdminji,
Regards,
Thank you for taking a stand. It is really an excellent initiative and am happy that you clarified the matter before taking action like deleting the post. Today after reading your post I am delighted, humbled and relieved to announce that you have not pressed me to offer rebuttal due to post to tarnish anybody's image. Thank you for clarifying before taking drastic step. I am grateful to you for serving SPN with great responsibility.
Thank you very much.
With regards,
Rajneesh Madhok
 

spnadmin

1947-2014 (Archived)
SPNer
Jun 17, 2004
14,500
19,181
rajneesh ji

So then what are the rebuttals that can can be offered in law? As I said earlier, simply stating there is a prima facie case does not make it so. Calling something "Evidence" does not make it evidence without it being tested for truth.

I hate to sound as if I am taking sides. What I am trying to do is find the balance in the discussion. Without that we have accusations without advocacy.
 
Jan 1, 2010
517
488
56
Hon'ble SPNji,
Regards,
A very good point has been raised by you regarding Rebuttal in law. The person who is seeking approval has himself put allegations and sought approval from the Prime Minister. He has provided the evidences as per the complaint. The author has submitted his opinions and complaint with whatever evidences he would he having.
SPNji, I know you are not taking side, one should also consider the other side of the coin as well. I regard your discussion. The balance could be made if we discuss the matter concerned with the Respondent as well. We are the third party and can discuss the matter with our own angle. As we have not having deep knowledge of advocacy and we can't differentiate between Accusations and Evidences.
Anyhow I try my best to prolong the discussion. Here we should discuss the case of Sanjay Dutt Vs State (ii) on 9 September, 1995 before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
In this case large number of persons have been accused of offences punishable under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the TADA Act) In this case the petitioner Mr. Sanjay Dutt has been accused regarding Bomb blasts which took place in Bombay on 12-3-1994 killing a large number of persons and causing huge destruction of property. On the basis of prima facie evidences the allegations had been proved and he had been prosecuted.
In this case according to law, the evidences would have been presented to contradict or nullify other evidences by adverse party. In law, special rules apply to rebuttal. Rebuttal evidence or rebuttal witnesses must be confined solely to the subject matter of the evidence rebutted. When either a plaintiff or defendent brings direct evidence or testimony which was not anticipated, the other side may be granted a specific opportunity to rubut it. In rebuttal, the rebutting party may generally bring witnesses and evidence which were never declared before so long as they serve to rebut the prior evidence.
I regard your sentiments and the other side of the coin certainly be discussed.
Regards,
Rajneesh Madhok
 

Ambarsaria

ੴ / Ik▫oaʼnkār
Writer
SPNer
Dec 21, 2010
3,380
5,678
Rajneesh Madhok ji thanks for the article.

In crude ways it is called "peeing in the wind". It becomes not good.

Gandhis are a dynasty in India with ability to manage their affairs through the Judges and others they appointed over decades. This will not go anywhere in specific retribution of the Gandhis. Whether it is this matter, Sikh genocide, etc., one is trying to fight an embedded system of conspiracy and corruption solidified over decades.

I feel for the injustice and wish it was not so. I have negative hopes for the outcome. I explain it as,


  • the possible culpable will be vindicated and glorified, and
  • the complainers will be maligned
    • ..... seen so often and nothing has changed
    • Very sad of course
Sat Sri Akal.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Shabad Vichaar by SPN'ers

lostsad.jpgThis shabad is from sri Raag, and was composed by Guru Amardas ji, on Ang 34. The translation is by Dr. Sant Singh Khalsa.

There is a curious...

SPN on Facebook

...
Top