Quashing criminal proceedings against Abigail Rosa (30),a legal assistant with International Merchandising Corporation (co-promoter of Lakme Fashion Week in 2009) who was booked for obscenity along with actor Akshay Kumar and his wife Twinkle Khanna after Kumars unbuttoning act the Bombay High Court Monday asked why police did not act against directors or other senior staff of the company.
Justice A M Thipsay asked police to justify why it booked Rosa for abetting the alleged offence. They can prosecute others,even organisers, Justice Thipsay said. The court had earlier warned police that it would ask them to pay compensation to Rosa if they could not prove the charges against her. However,it did not grant any compensation. Additional public prosecutor Rajeshree Gadhvi told the court that Rosa had signed all applications submitted to police seeking no-objection certificate (NOC) for the event. The conditions laid down at the time of granting NOC were not complied with,Gadhvi said.
The court,however,said the only factor against Rosa was that she had applied for permissions. It said police had put forth a novel proposition by prosecuting a legal assistant but that cannot be done in criminal law.
Gadhvi added that the event held at a hotel in Santa Cruz (East) on March 30,2009 was titled Unbutton,which shows that Rosa was not unaware of what the show was going to be about. The prosecution said it was Rosas moral responsibility. The court,however,asked whether it was not the moral responsibility of the director of the company as well.
As per Rosas petition,she was arrested on August 25,2009,and released on bail. Police filed a chargesheet and a magistrate ordered issuance of further proceedings on February 22,2010. Rosa had sought the quashing of the magistrates order in the High Court. However,she withdrew her petition on April 21,2010. Subsequently,she filed a revision application and another application for condonation of delay in the filing the revision application.
A sessions court rejected the application for condonation of delay on January 30,2012.
Rosa moved the High Court contending that the sessions court had erred in not condoning the delay in filing the revision application.