Tag: Court

‘They come to me’: Jane Roberts’ legal recruiting work involved officials whose agencies had cases before the Supreme Court

[ad_1]

Jane Roberts’ placements included at least one firm with a prominent Supreme Court practice, according to the complaint, which also includes sworn testimony from Roberts herself, in which she notes the powerful officials — whose agencies have had frequent cases before her husband — for whom she has worked.
“A significant portion of my practice on the partner side is with senior government lawyers, ranging from U.S. attorneys, cabinet officials, former senators, chairmen of federal commissions, general counsel of federal commissions, and then senior political appointees within the ranks of various agencies, and I — they come to me looking to transition to the private sector,” Roberts said, according to a transcript of a 2015 arbitration hearing related to her former colleague’s termination.
In her testimony, Roberts also noted the benefit of working with senior government officials: “Successful people have successful friends.”
Jane Roberts and her firm, Macrae, did not immediately respond to requests for comment by email.
A spokesperson for the Supreme Court declined to respond to questions Tuesday about the complaint and whether the court is pursuing the issues raised in it.
In response to earlier questions about the justices’ financial disclosures, the court pointed to a 2009 ethics opinion from the Judicial Conference that judges generally don’t need to recuse themselves in cases simply because their spouse works as a consultant or service provider to a firm involved in litigation before the court.
“As a general proposition, the fact that the spouse or the spouse’s business has a business relationship with an entity that appears in an unrelated proceeding before the judge usually does not require the judge’s recusal,” the opinion says.
The high court also noted that the federal government’s rules for financial disclosures generally do not require public disclosure of the clients of officials’ spouses.

As the most senior officials in the judicial branch, the justices are not bound to follow such guidance or policies. However, they look to those practices for guidance, a spokesperson said.
The complaint included a list of Jane Roberts’ placements between 2007 and 2014 and her alleged commissions, some of which are hundreds of thousands of dollars. It is unclear whether the figures represent her earnings or the firm’s billings for her work.
In an analysis filed along with the complaint, Pace University law professor Bennett Gershman writes that “it is plausible that the Chief Justice’s spouse may have leveraged the ‘prestige of judicial office’ to meaningfully raise their household income.”
“That concern, together with the failure of the Chief Justice to recuse himself in cases where his spouse received compensation from law firms arguing cases before the Court, or at least advise the parties of his spouse’s financial arrangements with law firms arguing before the Court, threaten the public’s trust in the federal judiciary, and the Supreme Court itself,” Gershman wrote.
A sworn affidavit backing the complaint was submitted by Kendal B. Price, a Massachusetts attorney and former colleague of Jane Roberts at the legal recruiting firm Major, Lindsey & Africa, where Price was a managing director in the partner practice group.
Price, who was eventually fired from the firm, recalled in his affidavit being told that Roberts was the company’s highest-earning recruiter and that her early significant commissions, going to someone with so little recruiting experience, represented a “stark anomaly” compared to the rest of the field. When he raised the issue, colleagues did not seem to wish to discuss it, he said.
In a statement to POLITICO, Price said he decided to file a complaint with government authorities in order to expose potential ethical issues regarding the Supreme Court.
“The national controversy and debate regarding the integrity of the Supreme Court demanded that I no longer keep silent about the information I possessed, regardless of the impact such disclosures might have upon me professionally and personally,” Price said. “Not sharing it with the appropriate authorities for purposes of enabling them to investigate weighed on me increasingly, and I felt obligated to make this contribution to this important national conversation.”
A New York attorney who submitted the complaint on Price’s behalf, Joshua Dratel, said his client acted in part out of frustration that there is no official mechanism for raising ethics issues at the Supreme Court and due to previous reporting in POLITICO and elsewhere about ethics concerns at the high court. In September, POLITICO reported that gaps in ethical disclosures enabled justices, including Roberts, to shield their spouses’ clients who may have business before the court.
“The importance of this issue and the unavailability of any viable means of addressing this is what led to us sending it to the places that we sent it to,” Dratel said Tuesday. “This is a gap in transparency that’s only become more critical in the past year in terms of the impact that it has on the integrity of our institutions.”
In 2014, Price sued Major Lindsey over his termination, alleging that the firm had not paid his commissions and that another colleague there had stolen his clients, according to Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly. Jane Roberts was named as a defendant in the case. Price explained in his affidavit sent to Congress that he had been afraid of potential negative consequences of coming forward with allegations against Jane Roberts.
Price’s suit against Major Lindsey was moved from a Massachusetts state court to an arbitrator, who eventually ruled against Price. In his affidavit, he noted that he only directly interacted with Jane Roberts once during his time as an employee of Major Lindsey.
In a statement, John Cashman, president of Major Lindsey, maintained that Roberts, who worked at the firm for more than a decade, was among “several very successful recruiters at [the firm].”
“As a firm, MLA makes placements at hundreds of law firms each year – and like many of our highly-skilled recruiting consultants, Mrs. Roberts had a strong track record of excellent work,” Cashman said in the statement. “The success of our recruiters – and of our organization – stems from the fact that we hold our work and each of our consultants to the highest standards: Candidate confidentiality, client trust, and professionalism are the cornerstones of our 40 years of successful business.”
Dratel, Price’s attorney, rejected the notion that Price leveled the complaint against the Robertses out of lingering spite over his firing or the failure of his legal action against the firm.
“We’re well down the road from that,” Dratel said. “This is about the nation and the integrity of the court and knowing something that contributes to that. … He didn’t publish this. He sent it to Congress.”
Among the officials represented by Roberts at Major Lindsey was former Interior Secretary Kenneth Salazar, who joined the prominent Washington-based law firm WilmerHale in 2013, according to Price. For arranging Salazar’s hiring, Price calculated that Roberts must have received about $350,000, he alleges. And as part of that deal brokered by Roberts, WilmerHale also agreed to open an office in Denver.
In the 2015 testimony in Price’s suit, Jane Roberts said lawmakers she has placed at law firms have started at annual salaries ranging up to $3 million.
WilmerHale did not immediately respond to a message asking for comment.
Salazar is currently U.S. ambassador to Mexico. Efforts to reach him were unsuccessful.
Five years after Roberts received the commission from WilmerHale, the firm’s lawyers appeared before the Supreme Court representing a marine construction company, the Dutra Group, in a case regarding a sailor injured on one of the company’s vessels. Chief Justice Roberts ultimately sided with WilmerHale’s client, that the sailor was not owed punitive damages, Gershman noted.
Beyond the Dutra case, WilmerHale maintains a significant practice before the Supreme Court, and between 2013 and 2017, argued more cases before the court than any other law firm, according to data from SCOTUSBlog cited in the complaint.
Gershman argued that, given his wife’s relationship with the firm, the judicial recusal statute would require the chief justice to recuse himself from WilmerHale’s 27 cases between 2013 and 2017. Alternatively, Roberts could have sought disclosure and waiver. Gershman argued that the chief justice must recuse himself from all cases with counsel that have “made substantial payments to his household or ‘fully disclose’ such payments to counsel and seek a waiver by the litigants.”
Gershman also noted that Roberts’ financial disclosures list his wife’s income as salary, as opposed to commission. The allegations that Jane Roberts may have used her husband’s position for financial benefit, combined with the deficiencies in Roberts’ financial disclosures, is “far from trivial, technical, or harmless,” Gershman writes.
“It directly threatens the public’s trust and confidence in the federal judiciary at the highest level,” he noted.
It’s unclear what action, if any, lawmakers have taken on Price’s complaint, but Senate Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said Tuesday that the situation underscores the need for formal ethics rules for the Supreme Court, along with an enforcement mechanism.
“This complaint raises troubling issues that once again demonstrate the need for a mandatory code of conduct for Supreme Court justices,” Durbin said in a statement. “We must work on a bipartisan basis to pass Sen. [Chris] Murphy’s bill, the Supreme Court Ethics Act, which would simply require Supreme Court justices to adhere to the same standard of ethics as other federally appointed judges. Passing this requirement is a common sense step that would help begin the process of restoring faith in the Supreme Court.”
[ad_2]
#Jane #Roberts #legal #recruiting #work #involved #officials #agencies #cases #Supreme #Court
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

February 1, 2023
SC Collegium recommends elevation of Allahabad, Gujarat HC chief justices to apex court

[ad_1]
New Delhi: The Supreme Court Collegium Tuesday recommended to the Centre the names of Allahabad High Court Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Gujarat High Court Chief Justice Aravind Kumar for elevation as apex court judges.
While all six members of the Collegium, led by CJI DY Chandrachud, were unanimous in recommending the name of Justice Bindal, Justice K M Joseph had reservation on the name of Justice Kumar, according to a resolution uploaded on the apex court website.
The apex court, which has a sanctioned strength of 34 judges including the CJI, is functioning with 27 Judges presently.
“The resolution of the Collegium in regard to the appointment of Mr Justice Rajesh Bindal, Chief Justice of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, is unanimous. However, in regard to the appointment of Mr Justice Aravind Kumar, Chief Justice of the High Court of Gujarat, Justice K M Joseph has expressed his reservations on the ground that his name can be considered at a later stage,” the resolution said.
Besides the CJI and Justice Joseph, the Collegium also comprises Justices S K Kaul, M R Shah, Ajay Rastogi and Sanjiv Khanna.
The Collegium had on December 13 recommended five judges — Justice Pankaj Mithal, Chief Justice, Rajasthan High Court; Justice Sanjay Karol, Chief Justice, Patna High Court; Justice P V Sanjay Kumar, Chief Justice, Manipur High Court; Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Judge, Patna High Court; and 5. Justice Manoj Misra, Judge, Allahabad High Court — for elevation to the apex court.
The Centre is yet to accept and notify these names, and the Collegium clarified on Tuesday these judges “shall have precedence over these two names recommended presently for appointment to the Supreme Court”.
“Therefore, the appointments of five judges recommended on December 13, 2022 should be notified separately and earlier in point of time before the two judges recommended by this resolution,” the Collegium said on Tuesday.

In its meeting held on Tuesday, the Collegium said, it deliberated on the names of chief justices and senior puisne judges of high courts eligible for appointment to the Supreme Court.
“Judgments authored by those falling in the zone of consideration for elevation to the Supreme Court were circulated among the members of the Collegium for a meaningful discussion on and assessment of their judicial acumen,” it said.
The four-page resolution said the Collegium carefully evaluated the merit, integrity and competence of “eligible Chief Justices and senior puisne Judges of the High Courts”.
The Collegium also took note of the facts regarding “accommodating a plurality of considerations” while deciding the names of Justice Bindal and Justice Aravind Kumar for judgeship in the apex court.
Justice Bindal was appointed as a Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court on March 22, 2006 and became the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court on October 11, 2021.
“Mr Justice Bindal stands at Serial No. 02 in the combined All-India-seniority of High Court Judges. He is the senior most Judge hailing from the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
“While recommending his name, the Collegium has taken into consideration the fact that the Punjab and Haryana High Court which is one of the largest High Courts with a sanctioned strength of eighty-five judges is not adequately represented on the Bench of the Supreme Court. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana is a common High Court for two States,” the resolution said.
Justice Aravind Kumar was appointed as an Additional Judge of the Karnataka High Court on June 26, 2009 and was made a permanent Judge on December 7, 2012.
“He was elevated as Chief Justice of the High Court of Gujarat on 13 October 2021. Mr Justice Aravind Kumar stands at Sl. No.26 in the combined All-India-seniority of High Court Judges,” the resolution said.
While recommending his name, the Collegium is “conscious of the fact that in the seniority of Judges hailing from the Karnataka High Court, Mr Justice Aravind Kumar stands at Sl. No.02”, it said, adding that at present, the apex court is represented by two Judges from the Karnataka High Court.
The resolution said while recommending the two names, the Collegium has taken into consideration the seniority of Chief Justices and senior puisne Judges in their respective parent High Courts as well as overall seniority of the High Court Judges.
The resolution said there was a need to ensure diversity and inclusion in the Supreme Court by ensuring “the representation of High Courts which are not represented or are inadequately represented” in the top court.
It said the Collegium, besides gender diversity and representation of minorities, also considered that “persons from marginalized and backward segments of society” are recommended for judgeship.
[ad_2]
#Collegium #recommends #elevation #Allahabad #Gujarat #chief #justices #apex #court
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

February 1, 2023
MD of firm that operated Morbi suspension bridge surrenders before Gujarat court

[ad_1]
Morbi: Managing Director of Oreva Group Jaysukh Patel, an accused in the last year’s Morbi suspension bridge collapse case who is facing culpable homicide not amounting to murder charges, on Tuesday surrendered before a court here in Gujarat and was subsequently sent to jail.
As many as 135 people were killed and scores others injured when a suspension bridge collapsed in Gujarat’s Morbi town on October 30 last year.
Patel, whose company was responsible for the operation and maintenance of the carriageway, surrendered before the Morbi-based court of chief judicial magistrate which had issued an arrest warrant against him. The court accepted his application for surrender and sent him to jail under judicial custody.
The businessman was named as the tenth accused in the case in a chargesheet filed by the police on January 27.
Ajanta Manufacturing Ltd (Oreva Group) was responsible for the operation and maintenance of the British-era suspension bridge on the Machchhu river that collapsed, days after its repairs. Nearly 250 persons were on the more than a century-old hanging bridge, a popular tourist site, when it caved in.
“Jaysukh Patel surrendered before the court of chief judicial magistrate MJ Khan which had issued an arrest warrant against him under section 70 of the CrPC. The court accepted his application and sent him to judicial custody. The police will approach the court and seek his custody,” said Dilip Agechaniya, a lawyer representing families of the victims.
The CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure) section 70 deals with warrant of arrest.
As the Oreva Group Managing Director arrived in the court for surrender, angry kin of the victims who had gathered outside the court shouted slogans against him.

After his surrender, Patel was taken for a medical check-up.
“Jaysukh Patel surrendered in the court today. He was sent to judicial custody. We will soon initiate the process of seeking his custody from the court,” said Morbi Superintendent of Police Rahul Tripathi.
In the chargesheet running in more than 1,200 pages and filed in the court of chief judicial magistrate MJ Khan by Deputy Superintendent of Police P S Zala, Patel was shown as the tenth accused.
Earlier, fearing arrest in the case, Patel had moved an anticipatory bail plea in the court and it was due to come up for hearing on February 1.
On October 31, a day after the tragedy, the Morbi police had arrested nine persons in connection with the case, including two managers of the Oreva Group, two ticket booking clerks, two sub-contractors who repaired the bridge and three security guards deployed on the cable-stayed structure to guide and control the crowd.
Two weeks ago, the same court issued an arrest warrant against Patel.
All the ten accused, including Patel, have been charged under Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), 308 (attempt to commit culpable homicide), 336 (act which endangers human life), 337 (causing hurt to any person by doing any rash or negligent act) and under 338 (causing grievous hurt by doing rash or negligent act).
During a suo motu (on its own motion) hearing on the tragedy in the Gujarat High Court recently, the Oreva Group offered to pay compensation to the victims. However, the court made it clear the compensation would “not absolve it of any liability”.
A special investigation team (SIT) formed by the state government to probe the collapse had cited several lapses on the part of the firm.
The lapses included no restriction on the number of persons accessing the bridge and no curb on sale of tickets, which led to unrestricted movement on the bridge, as well as carrying out repairs without consulting experts.
The probe had revealed the new metal flooring done by the firm had increased the weight of the structure, while the rusted cables on which the entire bridge was hanging were not changed by the Oreva Group.
Moreover, both contractors hired by Patel’s firm were not qualified to carry out such repair and renovation work, according to the SIT.
The probe report also revealed the Ahmedabad-based Oreva Group did not hire any expert agency to assess the load-bearing capacity of the carriageway before throwing it open to the public after repair and renovation work.
The group had sold 3,165 tickets on October 30 (the day of the collapse) alone and there was no coordination between ticket booking offices on both sides of the bridge, the lower court was informed in the past by the prosecution.
[ad_2]
#firm #operated #Morbi #suspension #bridge #surrenders #Gujarat #court
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

January 31, 2023
2020 Delhi riots: Court acquits nine accused

[ad_1]
New Delhi: A Delhi court on Monday acquitted nine persons accused of rioting, arson and other offences during the 2020 Delhi riots, granting the benefit of doubt, which includes delay by the police in recording vital information related to the accused’s involvement.
They are accused of setting a shop and house on fire during the riots and police charge-sheeted them for committing offences punishable under Sections 147-149, 188, 427 and 436 of the Indian Penal Code.
Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Court, Pulastya Pramachala, said: “I hold that sole testimony of Head Constable Vipin cannot be sufficient to assume the presence of accused persons in the mob, which set ablaze property of the complainant in Chaman Vihar. In such a situation, accused persons are given benefit of the doubt.”
The acquitted persons are Mohd. Shahnawaz alias Shanu, Shahrukh, Mohd. Shoaib alias Chhutwa, Azad, Md. Faisal, Rashid alias Raja, Ashraf Ali, Parvej and Rashid alias Monu.
Pramachala added that even though Vipin attended the briefing at the police station everyday with Investigation officers (IOs), he did not formally record it anywhere.
The Additional Sessions Judge said: “In his cross-examination, Vipin conceded that there had been a briefing at the police station everyday, which was attended by him as well as IOs. Still, the knowledge about the involvement of the accused persons was not formally recorded anywhere, till April 7, 2020.”
The court, however, noted that Vipin had stated that he had orally informed his senior officers about information with him, after about a week or 15 days of riots.
“No explanation has been offered for such delay in passing on such crucial information to senior officers by this witness,” the court noted.

The court said: “If actually such information was given to the senior officers, then why didn’t senior officers get such information recorded in a formal manner.”
Pramachala added: “Keeping in view such delay in disclosure of vital information being recorded, I find it desirable to apply the test of consistent testimony of more than one witness, in the present case also.”
Giving relief to the accused persons by granting them benefit of doubt, Additional Sessions Judge said: “Applying that test, I hold that sole testimony of PW9 cannot be sufficient to assume the presence of accused persons herein in the mob, which set ablaze property of the complainant in Chaman Vihar. In such a situation, accused persons are given the benefit of the doubt.”
[ad_2]
#Delhi #riots #Court #acquits #accused
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

January 31, 2023
Sedition case: HC asks police to inform whether Sharjeel Imam’s bail plea be sent back to trial court

[ad_1]
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court Monday sought to know the stand of the city police as to whether a plea by JNU student Sharjeel Imam seeking bail in connection with a 2020 riots case involving allegations of sedition be remanded back to the trial court for adjudication.
The high court said there was no ground mentioned in the trial court’s order rejecting Imam’s bail plea.
A bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Talwant Singh granted two-week time to the Delhi Police counsel to take instructions whether the trial court’s order rejecting the bail plea be remanded back. It listed the matter for further hearing on February 20.
The high court was hearing Imam’s plea challenging the trial court’s January 24, 2022 order, dismissing his bail application in the case.
Meanwhile, his counsel withdrew Imam’s interim bail plea as the court was taking up his appeal challenging the trial court’s order denying him regular bail in the case.
The bench said since section 124A (sedition) of the Indian Penal Code has been kept in abeyance following the directions of the Supreme Court, it will have to examine the trial court’s bail rejection order while keeping in mind the other sections framed against Imam.
Last year, the trial court had ordered the framing of charges against Imam under Sections 124A (sedition), 153A (promoting enmity), l53B (Imputations prejudicial to national integration), 505 (Statements conducing to public mischief) of IPC and Section 13 (Punishment for Unlawful Activities) of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.
“The other thing you (prosecution) will have to answer is what is the ground on which bail has been rejected?” the bench said.

As Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad said the ground is that charges have been framed against the accused.
“So what? That is not a ground. Where is the ground? You have to decide we are hearing appeal or fresh bail plea. There is no ground on the bail in the whole bail order. You seek instructions,” the bench said.
During the hearing, the bench said that Section 2(1)(o) of the UAPA which defines ‘unlawful activity’ is completely different from Section 124A IPC which defines sedition.
The high court perused the definitions and said that unlawful activity would be an activity which is committed against India, whereas sedition is committed against the “Government established by law in India”.
“This is the principle difference. Sedition is against the government established by law in India and it has nothing to do with unlawful activity,” the bench said.
While advancing arguments on the bail plea, Imam’s counsel said charges have already been framed against the accused and it was a case for grant of regular bail.
He said it is an admitted position that there was no overt act on behalf of Imam and the speech delivered by him rather than calling for violence, calls for non-violence as he says they will not burn down property.
He stressed the point that Imam has been in custody for three years now.
Imam had earlier sought interim release until the top court decides the constitutional validity of offence of sedition. The court was also informed that Imam’s plea challenging the framing of charges in the matter is also pending before it.
As per the prosecution, Imam had allegedly made speeches at Jamia Millia Islamia on December 13, 2019 and at the Aligarh Muslim University on December 16, 2019 where he threatened to cut off Assam and the rest of the Northeast from India.
In his petition before the high court, Imam has said the trial court “failed to recognise” that pursuant to the directions of the top court, the basis for dismissal of his earlier bail plea, the charge of sedition, no longer existed and therefore relief must be granted to him.
On May 11, 2022, the Supreme Court had stayed till further orders the registration of FIRs, probes, and coercive measures for the offence of sedition across the country by the Centre and the states until an appropriate forum of the government re-examines the colonial-era penal law.
[ad_2]
#Sedition #case #asks #police #inform #Sharjeel #Imams #bail #plea #trial #court
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

January 31, 2023
‘MLAs resignation were not voluntary’: Rajasthan High Court

[ad_1]
Jaipur: A resignations of 81 MLAs of Rajasthan’s ruling Congress, submitted on September 25 last year, were not voluntary, and hence, they were not approved, the Assembly Secretary told the High Court on Monday.
The response of the Assembly Secretary, in an affidavit, came as a bench of Chief Justice Pankaj Mitthal was hearing the petition of Deputy Leader of Opposition and senior BJP leader Rajendra Rathore.
Senior Supreme Court advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing on behalf of the Assembly Secretary Mahavir Prasad Sharma, argued through video conferencing. The state Advocate General also appeared.
The next hearing is scheduled on February 13.
The Assembly Secretary’s affidavit sought to present the complete details of the episode, citing the entire file notings, right from the resignations submitted to the Speaker to the withdrawal of the resignations.
In his reasons for not accepting the resignations, the Speaker said: “All MLAs have presented applications for voluntary withdrawal of their resignations by appearing before me separately. It is clearly mentioned in the applications that the resignations given earlier by them were not voluntary. All the MLAs have voluntarily withdrawn their resignations as per Rule 173(4) of the Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly. This is not a matter of the 10th Schedule, but of the resignations of ministers and MLAs. That’s why the order of the Supreme Court to take a decision in four weeks does not apply.”
On September 25, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Shanti Dhariwal, Government Chief Whip Mahesh Joshi, Deputy Chief Whip Mahendra Chaudhary, Revenue Minister Ramlal Jat, Congress MLA Rafiq Khan and Independent MLA and CM’s advisor Sanyam Lodha took the resignations of 81 MLAs in front of the Speaker on September 25.
Five MLAs had given photocopied resignations. These include Chetan Doody, Danish Abrar and Independent Suresh Tak who were earlier from Pilot camp and Gehlot supporters Amit Chachan (Nohar, Hanumangarh) and Gopal Meena (Jamua Ramgarh, Jaipur) who also submitted photocopied resignations.

In the reply presented by the Assembly Secretary, it has been said that according to Rule 173 (3) of the procedure and conduct of business of the members of the Legislative Assembly, the resignations will not be accepted until the resolution is given that they are voluntary and genuine. Even after not taking a decision on resignations for a long time, the Speaker held that not every MLA had given separate resignations, and the resignations were presented en masse.
On December 20, 2022, 24 MLAs withdrew their resignations, 38 did on December 31, and 15 more MLAs on January 1, 2023 by appearing before the Speaker. On January 2, two more MLAs withdrew their resignations, followed by Lodha on January 3, and on January 10, – the last one – Congress member Wajib Ali – followed suit.
[ad_2]
#MLAs #resignation #voluntary #Rajasthan #High #Court
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

January 31, 2023
2020 Delhi riots: Man accused of selling pistol to Shahrukh Pathan discharged by court

[ad_1]
New Delhi: A court here on Monday discharged a man accused of selling a pistol to Shahrukh Pathan who had absconded after allegedly pointing the weapon at a policeman during the northeast Delhi riots in 2020.
The court said the case against the accused, Babu Wasim, is “essentially based on surmises and conjectures rather than actual material or evidence” and the “disclosure” statement of Pathan was not admissible under law.
Pathan had allegedly aimed a pistol at Delhi Police Head Constable Deepak Dahiya with the intention to kill him on February 24, 2020, according to the police.
After the photographs of this incident went viral on social media, Pathan absconded and was nabbed from a bus stand in Shamli district in Uttar Pradesh on March 3, 2020.
Pathan disclosed that he had purchased a pistol and 20 rounds from Babu Wasim by paying Rs 35,000 in December 2019, the prosecution had said.
“The case against accused Babu Wasim is essentially based on surmises and conjectures rather than actual material or evidence and there is no ground to presume that the accused committed an offence under Section 25 Arms Act. He is accordingly discharged for the said offence,” Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat said on Monday.
The court noted that the prosecution’s case against Wasim was that he provided a pistol and the rounds to Pathan on December 6, 2019, and the weapon was then used for firing and also for the attempt on the life of head constable Deepak Dahiya by accused Pathan on February 24, 2020.
Thus, for possessing the weapons and transferring or selling them to Pathan, Section 25 of the Arms Act was invoked against Wasim, the court noted.

The court said the first incriminating material was the disclosure statements of both accused Pathan and Wasim, but disclosure statements, by themselves, were not admissible in law.
Also, there were no witnesses on record to show that accused Babu Wasim provided the said pistol to accused Shahrukh Pathan on December 6, 2019, at the Brahampuri area of Shahdara here or that he possessed the said firearm before December 6, the court said.
“The contention that accused Shahrukh Pathan made four successive calls to accused Babu Wasim on December 6 at night with location chart of mobile phones of both accused persons showing that they were at the same place, at best, shows that they were at the same spot at the same time or met with each other,” the court said.
The prosecution, instead, had to prove that Wasim possessed the said pistol before December 6 and delivered the weapon to Pathan on a particular day at a particular time, and the pistol was then used in riots.
There was no material to substantiate this allegation and even the sanction order under the relevant section of the Arms Act from the deputy commissioner of police concerned was without proper appreciation of material on record or evidence collected by the investigating officer, the court said.
The court, however, charged Wasim under Section 174 A (non-appearance in response to a proclamation) of the Indian Penal Code as he had absconded and was declared a proclaimed offender.
“As far as Section 174 A of the IPC is concerned, it is a standalone offence and all the necessary legal requirements for proceedings were completed and no infirmity has been found or even shown in the order dated July 18, 2020… declaring the accused Babu Wasim a proclaimed offender,” the court said.
The Jafrabad police station had filed a charge sheet against Wasim under the relevant sections of the IPC and the Arms Act.
[ad_2]
#Delhi #riots #Man #accused #selling #pistol #Shahrukh #Pathan #discharged #court
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

January 30, 2023
Air India urination case: Delhi court reserves order on accused Shankar Mishra’s bail plea

[ad_1]
New Delhi: A Delhi court on Monday reserved for January 31 its order on the bail application of Shankar Mishra, accused of urinating on a woman on board an Air India flight from New York to New Delhi.
Police have opposed the bail application, saying India has been defamed internationally because of the incident.
“It may be disgusting but that is another matter, let’s not get into that. Let’s go into how the law deals with it,” the judge said.
The judge also observed that the witnesses named by the prosecution “are not deposing in your (police) favor”.
Police have also alleged that the accused threatened the complainant.
Mishra had sought bail, saying initially, the bail had been declined by a magisterial court because the investigation was pending.
“Now that’s done and they have examined other crew members and witnesses. Also, they asked for reimbursement of the ticket and sought no action against me,” the counsel said.

Subscribe us on
[ad_2]
#Air #India #urination #case #Delhi #court #reserves #order #accused #Shankar #Mishras #bail #plea
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

January 30, 2023
Day After Court Directions, NIA Attaches Hurriyat Office In Srinagar

[ad_1]
SRINAGAR: A day after Delhi Court ordered the attachment of All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) office at Rajbagh, the slueths of National Investigation Agency (NIA), Sunday attached the Hurriyat office.
“The NIA team arrived at Rajbag and attached the Hurriyat office,” news agency KNO quoted officials as having said.
Earlier, on Sturday in an, order, Shaliender Malik, additional sessions judge, New Delhi district, had said the immoveable property i.e. building office of All Parties Hurriyat Conference is ordered to be attached.
The Court had said that the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act-1967 does not in any manner hinder powers of court to attach any such property of which accused is facing trial under the UAPA of which he may be partly owner.
The court, however, had added that the attachment in itself does not mean that there is any pre-trial conclusion regarding that property.
The Court further said that among the different allegations and evidence, it was also the case that office of APHC was the place where meetings held to strategize different protests, funding activities of stone pelting on security forces, recruiting of unemployed youths to carry out unlawful activities as well as terrorist activities to create an unrest in the erstwhile state of Jammu & Kashmir to wage war against the Government of India.
“In such situation taking into consideration the serious nature of the allegations as against A-5 itself, the fact that he is part owner of the property in question, cannot be a reason for not attaching the property when it is not even made clear as to who others were co-owners of that property,” the court had said.
The NIA had moved an application seeking passing of an order for attachment of building office of All Parties Hurriyat Conference situated at Raj Bagh, Srinagar.

[ad_2]
#Day #Court #Directions #NIA #Attaches #Hurriyat #Office #Srinagar
( With inputs from : kashmirlife.net )

January 29, 2023
MP: Woman with alleged PFI links held for recording court proceedings

[ad_1]
Indore: Police have arrested a 30-year-old woman having alleged links with the banned outfit Popular Front of India (PFI) for filming the proceedings of a court during a hearing in Madhya Pradesh’s Indore district, an official said on Sunday.
The woman, identified as Sonu Mansuri, later told the police that an advocate had asked her to make the video to be sent to the Islamic outfit PFI and she was given Rs three lakh for the work, Additional Commissioner of Police Rajesh Raghuvanshi told PTI.
During the hearing of a case related to Bajrang Dal leader Tanu Sharma on Saturday, his advocates Amit Pandey and Sunil Vishwakarma noticed the woman shooting the video in court room no. 42 of Indore district court, he said.
“The advocates got suspicious and with the help of women lawyers caught the woman. They then alerted the MG Road police who detained her on Saturday evening and formally arrested her at night,” he said.
Mansuri, a resident of Indore, claimed before the police that senior advocate Noorjahan Khan had given her the task of making the video to be sent across to the PFI, the official said.
The woman also told the police that she was given Rs three lakh for this work, the official said, adding the money has been recovered.
“Further investigation is on and Sonu is being interrogated to extract more information about her link with the PFI. She will be produced in a court on Sunday afternoon,” Raghuvanshi said.
Action will also be taken against advocate Noorjahan Khan if there is substantial evidence, he added.

The Centre had in September 2022 banned the PFI and several of its associates for five years under a stringent anti-terror law, accusing them of having “links” with global terror groups like ISIS and trying to spread communal hatred in the country.
Before the ban, the National Investigating Agency (NIA), the Enforcement Directorate(ED) and various state police forces had carried out raids in a massive pan-India crackdown on the PFI and arrested several of its leaders and activists from various states for allegedly supporting terror activities in the country.
[ad_2]
#Woman #alleged #PFI #links #held #recording #court #proceedings
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

January 29, 2023