New Delhi:Nearly a decade after asking the CBI to register an FIR against former UP CM Mayawati in the Taj heritage corridor scam, the SC on Monday sounded fresh warning bells by deciding to examine whether trial against her and others were closed in a legally correct manner.
A bench, comprising Justices H L Dattu and Ranjan Gogoi, decided to entertain four petitions challenging an Allahabad HC judgment. That judgment had upheld the trial court’s decision to close prosecution of Mayawati, her erstwhile cabinet colleague Naseemuddin Siddiqui and government officials, R K Sharma and Rajendra Prasad, on grounds that the governor had refused to grant sanction for their prosecution.
When the bench said, “We will examine the issue” and issued notices to respondents, Mayawati’s counsel K K Venugopal argued that these petitions were not maintainable as the SC had earlier rejected pleas challenging the governor’s 2007 decision refusing to accord sanction.
Issuing notices to Mayawati, Siddiqui, the CBI, the Centre and the UP government to file their responses to the petitions, Justices Dattu and Gogoi said, “We want to have a second look at the case.” The four petitions were filed by Kamlesh Verma, Anupma Singh, Kashi Prasad Yadav and Mamta Singh.
Appearing for Verma, senior advocate Shanti Bhushan argued that the offences under Sec 420 (cheating), 467, 468 and 471 (all related to forgery) of the IPC and corrupt acts could never be said to have been done by these officials in their official capacity. Hence sanction was not needed for their trial.
He said the HC did not adjudicate the law point “whether sanction at all was needed for proceeding with the trial”. Instead, it “carved out a new case that sanction having been refused by the competent authority, the court did not have any jurisdiction to proceed with the matter, whereas, the order refusing sanction by the competent authority was not an issue at all.”
Probe cos owned by Maya bro: BJP
New Delhi:The BJP on Monday demanded a thorough probe into alleged dubious financial transactions by companies allegedly owned by BSP chief Mayawati’s brother and questioned government’s intentions on the issue in view of the support extended to it by her party. “BJP demands that action be taken against companies owned by Mayawati’s brother,” BJP spokesperson Nirmala Sitharaman said in the wake of allegations against firms allegedly owned by Mayawati’s brother Anand Kumar. AGENCIES
Courtesy:
Dhananjay Mahapatra TNN
http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=Archive&Source=Page&Skin=TOINEW&BaseHref=TOIM/2013/01/29&PageLabel=11&EntityId=Ar01101&ViewMode=HTML
A bench, comprising Justices H L Dattu and Ranjan Gogoi, decided to entertain four petitions challenging an Allahabad HC judgment. That judgment had upheld the trial court’s decision to close prosecution of Mayawati, her erstwhile cabinet colleague Naseemuddin Siddiqui and government officials, R K Sharma and Rajendra Prasad, on grounds that the governor had refused to grant sanction for their prosecution.
When the bench said, “We will examine the issue” and issued notices to respondents, Mayawati’s counsel K K Venugopal argued that these petitions were not maintainable as the SC had earlier rejected pleas challenging the governor’s 2007 decision refusing to accord sanction.
Issuing notices to Mayawati, Siddiqui, the CBI, the Centre and the UP government to file their responses to the petitions, Justices Dattu and Gogoi said, “We want to have a second look at the case.” The four petitions were filed by Kamlesh Verma, Anupma Singh, Kashi Prasad Yadav and Mamta Singh.
Appearing for Verma, senior advocate Shanti Bhushan argued that the offences under Sec 420 (cheating), 467, 468 and 471 (all related to forgery) of the IPC and corrupt acts could never be said to have been done by these officials in their official capacity. Hence sanction was not needed for their trial.
He said the HC did not adjudicate the law point “whether sanction at all was needed for proceeding with the trial”. Instead, it “carved out a new case that sanction having been refused by the competent authority, the court did not have any jurisdiction to proceed with the matter, whereas, the order refusing sanction by the competent authority was not an issue at all.”
Probe cos owned by Maya bro: BJP
New Delhi:The BJP on Monday demanded a thorough probe into alleged dubious financial transactions by companies allegedly owned by BSP chief Mayawati’s brother and questioned government’s intentions on the issue in view of the support extended to it by her party. “BJP demands that action be taken against companies owned by Mayawati’s brother,” BJP spokesperson Nirmala Sitharaman said in the wake of allegations against firms allegedly owned by Mayawati’s brother Anand Kumar. AGENCIES
Courtesy:
Dhananjay Mahapatra TNN
http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=Archive&Source=Page&Skin=TOINEW&BaseHref=TOIM/2013/01/29&PageLabel=11&EntityId=Ar01101&ViewMode=HTML
No comments:
Post a Comment