Gujarat Riots- Zakia Jafri's Plea Against Clean Chit To Narendra Modi And State Functionaries- LIVE UPDATES

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

7 Dec 2021 11:52 AM IST

Live Updates

7 Dec 2021 12:22 PM IST
Sibal: That is the reason I had placed undisputed documents on the basis of which no magistrate could have come to the conclusion that there was no strong suspicion that the offence was committed.
7 Dec 2021 12:21 PM IST
Sibal:[limit of Mag.]On this material there is a strong suspicion that there was commissions of offence. The Mag. cannot give opinion on 161 statements.
7 Dec 2021 12:21 PM IST
Sibal: I only said that where there is a contradiction, that can only be seen in a trial after further investigation. 161 statement cannot be preferred over another 161 statement. The remit of the Magistrate is limited.
7 Dec 2021 12:20 PM IST
Sibal: None of the material can be used in any trial. I am really surprised, before this Court, SIT had been using statements as if these are findings of facts. There is one broad feature, I will first make some preliminary submission.
7 Dec 2021 12:10 PM IST
Mr. Sibal refers to Vol 14.
7 Dec 2021 12:09 PM IST
Sibal: I don’t know why we are going into these. These are all 161 statements. SIT was referring to 161 statements. Why? So that your lordships look into what is wrong and what is right. My Ld. friends did not refer to Supreme Court order of 07.02.2013 at any stage.
7 Dec 2021 12:09 PM IST
Sibal: He (Mag.) accepts closure report and closes the case. He can take cognisance and issue process, take cognisance and issue further investigation or just issue further investigation.
7 Dec 2021 12:08 PM IST
Sibal: Your jurisdiction is not that, your jurisdiction is that of a Magistrate. When he looks at closure report, he cannot go into findings of fact.
7 Dec 2021 12:08 PM IST
Sibal: I said that will rely on undisputed documents, whether in form of Tehelka tapes, undisputed material by SIT. I did that because I did not want to enter into arenas where your lordships will look into statements and enter into an enquiry of who is right or who is wrong.
7 Dec 2021 12:05 PM IST
SG: It was nobody’s case that the guilty has gone scot-free. In the name of Petitioner No.1 , petitioner No. 2 wants to keep the pot boiling, which would be a travesty of justice. Your lordships may not allow this petition.

Next Updates Previous Updates

Gujarat Riots- Zakia Jafri's Plea Against Clean Chit To Narendra Modi And State Functionaries- LIVE UPDATES

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Live Updates

Sibal: That is the reason I had placed undisputed documents on the basis of which no magistrate could have come to the conclusion that there was no strong suspicion that the offence was committed.

Sibal:[limit of Mag.]On this material there is a strong suspicion that there was commissions of offence. The Mag. cannot give opinion on 161 statements.

Sibal: I only said that where there is a contradiction, that can only be seen in a trial after further investigation. 161 statement cannot be preferred over another 161 statement. The remit of the Magistrate is limited.

Sibal: None of the material can be used in any trial. I am really surprised, before this Court, SIT had been using statements as if these are findings of facts. There is one broad feature, I will first make some preliminary submission.

Mr. Sibal refers to Vol 14.

Sibal: I don’t know why we are going into these. These are all 161 statements. SIT was referring to 161 statements. Why? So that your lordships look into what is wrong and what is right. My Ld. friends did not refer to Supreme Court order of 07.02.2013 at any stage.

Sibal: He (Mag.) accepts closure report and closes the case. He can take cognisance and issue process, take cognisance and issue further investigation or just issue further investigation.

Sibal: Your jurisdiction is not that, your jurisdiction is that of a Magistrate. When he looks at closure report, he cannot go into findings of fact.

Sibal: I said that will rely on undisputed documents, whether in form of Tehelka tapes, undisputed material by SIT. I did that because I did not want to enter into arenas where your lordships will look into statements and enter into an enquiry of who is right or who is wrong.

SG: It was nobody’s case that the guilty has gone scot-free. In the name of Petitioner No.1 , petitioner No. 2 wants to keep the pot boiling, which would be a travesty of justice. Your lordships may not allow this petition.

Tags