'Modi-Thieves' Remark| Live Updates From Gujarat HC In Rahul Gandhi's Plea Seeking Stay On Conviction In Defamation Case

Sr. Adv. Singhvi: There is no need for the complainant to file any reply in the case.

Justice Hemant: Let them file a reply. We will conclude the hearing on Tuesday itself. File a reply by Tuesday.

Hearing ends

Sr. Adv. Singhvi: The order of the court below is final as my plea for a stay to conviction has been finally decided and that order is not an interim order. The order of the Sessions Judge is not an interlocutory order.

Sr. Adv. Singhvi: The order that has been challenged in our revision plea is the final order of the court, finally rejecting my plea seeking a stay of conviction.  

Sr. Adv. Singhvi urges the bench, before it rises, to hear his short rejoinder on the challenge to his revision plea.

Justice Hemant allows his request.

Justice Hemant: ...file a reply/affidavit. I have to complete the proceedings since sufficient time has already been invested in this matter.

Sr. Adv. Nirupam Nanavati (for complainant Purnesh Modi): The petition isn't maintainable. They should clarify under what provision have they approached. They should clarify this point and then I will file a reply.

Justice Hemant: I can give you time till Tuesday so that you file your affidavit.

Sr. Adv. Nirupam Nanavati (for complainant Purnesh Modi) argues against the filing of a criminal revision plea by Rahul Gandhi.

PP Amin: The conviction should not be stayed by the HC.

PP Amin: The legislature allows a maximum sentence of two years and the Magistrate has found it to be a fit case for imposing the maximum punishment. At this stage, no challenge can be made against it. Only seriousness has to be seen here.

Public Prosecutor Mitesh Amin: Offence may be non-cognizable, bailable but these arguments pale into insignificance once the conviction is ordered. This ground has no value in plea-seeking stay on conviction.