AHMEDABAD: After three days the Nanavati-Mehta commission probing the Godhra riots, stalled Gujarat IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt's cross-examination when objections were raised on the fact that whatever he had said as a witness, was not on oath and hence it was invalid as evidence.
Bhatt was in the middle of questioning by the state government in connection with his affidavit filed before the Supreme Court which said that he heard the chief minister asking top officials to allow Hindus to vent their anger in a meeting on February 27, 2002.
Senior counsel appearing for Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind, KG Vakharia demanded immediate stalling of Bhatt's cross-examination on the ground that the commission did not take an oath from him before his deposition. The lawyer argued that the probe panel can summon a witness or an informer under Sections 4 and 5 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, and if the person is a witness, he has to take oath as per the law.
The Jamiat contended that since Bhatt did not take oath, he ceases to be a witness and whatever is recorded during his cross-examination should be removed from the commission's record. Bhatt has not even filed an affidavit before the commission, which is a statement on oath. His affidavit before the SC cannot be considered as testimony on oath before the commission and hence he cannot be questioned on it.
The Jamiat requested the commission not to permit any further cross-examination of Bhatt. This application irked the commission and one of the judges told lawyers present in courtroom that after all the parties had taken benefit of the proceedings, at the fag end this organization was moving this objection.
Bhatt also moved another application requesting the commission not to permit anybody to cross-examine him citing pendency of his affidavit before the SC. Bhatt has also argued that he was neither being examined by the commission under Section 4(a) of the Act, nor is the commission receiving evidence in the form of affidavit from him under Section 4(c) of the Act.
Bhatt was in the middle of questioning by the state government in connection with his affidavit filed before the Supreme Court which said that he heard the chief minister asking top officials to allow Hindus to vent their anger in a meeting on February 27, 2002.
Senior counsel appearing for Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind, KG Vakharia demanded immediate stalling of Bhatt's cross-examination on the ground that the commission did not take an oath from him before his deposition. The lawyer argued that the probe panel can summon a witness or an informer under Sections 4 and 5 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, and if the person is a witness, he has to take oath as per the law.
The Jamiat contended that since Bhatt did not take oath, he ceases to be a witness and whatever is recorded during his cross-examination should be removed from the commission's record. Bhatt has not even filed an affidavit before the commission, which is a statement on oath. His affidavit before the SC cannot be considered as testimony on oath before the commission and hence he cannot be questioned on it.
The Jamiat requested the commission not to permit any further cross-examination of Bhatt. This application irked the commission and one of the judges told lawyers present in courtroom that after all the parties had taken benefit of the proceedings, at the fag end this organization was moving this objection.
Bhatt also moved another application requesting the commission not to permit anybody to cross-examine him citing pendency of his affidavit before the SC. Bhatt has also argued that he was neither being examined by the commission under Section 4(a) of the Act, nor is the commission receiving evidence in the form of affidavit from him under Section 4(c) of the Act.
No comments:
Post a Comment