Mumbai: The State Government on Thursday against the petition submitted by Elgar Parishad in the 2018 case accuses Sudha Bharadwaj for the default guarantee to quote an assessment to argue that special trial judges under the National Investigation Agency (NIA) will only arise when the agency starts investigating a case.
In this case, Nia stepped in January and took over investigations from Pune Poly and Pune’s session court had realized Chargesheet against Bharadwaj in 2018.
The state of Advocate General Ashutosh Kumbhakoni in its submission would also say that all violations scheduled would only leave before the Nia Court Specifically will make a court as defined in the anti-terror law, the activity that violates the law (prevention) acts nugging.
He said no need for a special court to be formed for the case at that time.
“My submission is this, the applicant’s case (bharadwaj) is wrong,” Kumbhakoni said before the bench S Shinde and J Jamadar.
He cited the provisions of the Nia Act and UPA including the definition of the words ‘courts’ under the Special Act for this case the court session under the Code of Criminal Procedure Code Enough, and said the only question now is whether the pre-trial process can go Before the Special Court, and quoted part 167 of the criminal procedure code related to the investigation stage, said at this point no one could predict if this problem would be tried.
He said section 11 and 22 were relied upon and quoted by Bharadwaj on establishing a special court below Nia, both of them mentioned the word “trial ”.
He also noted that under Part 2 (d) ‘Court’ UPA ‘” includes a special court …
” On July 8, HC said the state could produce additional documents if they wanted to observe that the note was compatible with A RTI replied by his lawyer Yug Chaudhry that the Pune session of the KD Vadane Judge Court, who gave a time extension to the police to file a sheet of his accusation and who took Know it, it is not a special judge under the law.
Bharadwaj, an activist and lawyer, accused of accusing the Maois link, has submitted a petition to HC to seek the default guarantee on the grounds that the judge did not set a special judge below the NIA as needed because the special anti-terror law was called.
He and accused together, at the relevant time.
Chaudhry has proposed that in cases of violations scheduled like those under UPA, a session judge does not have the power to take awareness, only a ‘special’ court that will have jurisdiction and it must be established by the state or center.
HC will continue to hear the problem next Friday.