‘Defence misleading court by raising irrelevant issues’https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/pune/defence-misleading-court-by-raising-irrelevant-issues/

‘Defence misleading court by raising irrelevant issues’

Aloor contested the merit of the application on several legal issues and claimed the prosecution failed to file any formal application before the court to examine Chaudhari.

Special public prosecutor Harshad Nimbalkar on Friday alleged that advocate B A Aloor,who is defending accused Yogesh Raut and Mahesh Thakur in the Nayana Pujari gangrape and murder case,was deliberately delaying the trial by raising frivolous issues. He alleged that Aloor was misleading the presiding judge on various orders passed by her predecessors in the case,which not only amounts to contempt of court but also professional misconduct.

Nimbalkar filed an application before the special court on Friday seeking in-camera hearing of approver Rajesh Chaudhari under Section 327 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code,drawing strong objection from the defence lawyer.

Aloor contested the merit of the application on several legal issues and claimed the prosecution failed to file any formal application before the court to examine Chaudhari. “It’s mandatory for the prosecution to obtain permission from the court before producing a witness under Section 33 of the Evidence Act. This was not done by the prosecution and hence it cannot examine Chaudhari even in an open court let alone in-camera hearing. The procedure set by the law has to be honoured and followed,” said Aloor.

This enraged Nimbalkar who alleged the defence was raising non-existent issues that were rejected by earlier judge who was hearing the case before it was handed over to special judge Sadhana Shinde.

Advertising

“The defence counsel is trying to mislead the court by repeatedly raising issues which have been decided by the earlier judge. This is not only the contempt of the court but also a professional misconduct,” said Nimbalkar.

He said the defence lawyer was playing to the gallery and his only aim seemed to delay the trial by raising frivolous issues. He also brought to the notice of Shinde the earlier applications made by Aloor,which were rejected by her predecessors.

Aloor retaliated by arguing that he was in favour of a speedy trial but was helpless as the case was “hijacked” by the prosecution and that it was his client who needed to be compensated for the delay.

Judge Shinde had to intervene as the two lawyers entered into a heated argument. “Please talk on the legal points rather than making allegations and counter-allegations,” she said.