Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram
The Gujarat High Court has suspended two judges who have been caught on camera while allegedly “settling money” over phone. The HC decision came after an inquiry into the allegation earlier this month. The court’s vigilance cell lodged an FIR against the two judges and ten other persons, including a clerk and a stenographer.
The vigilance cell lodged the FIR against Judicial Magistrate First Class A D Acharya, posted at Shihor, Bhavnagar district and PD Inamdar, posted at Jamkhambaliya, Jamnagar district, clerk B G Prajapati, stenographer B D Srimali and eight others.
[related-post]
They have been booked under various sections of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under sections 466 (forgery of record of courts), 471 (using forged documents as genuine), 196 (use of false evidence) among others of Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Confirming the move B N Karia, High Court registrar, said that order for suspension was passed on Thursday and earlier an FIR was lodged by the vigilance cell following a complaint.
The 25-page FIR (CR1/2015) has alleged that the two judges when posted at Vapi JMFC court, Valsad district were captured in a spy camera fitted in their chairs and below their tables. The recordings, both in audio and video format, revealed that the accused judges were found “negotiating” over phone in order to favour the lawyers.
The complainant a Vapibased lawyer Jagat Patel had fitted a spy camera and an audio recorder in the chairs and tables of the accused judges between February 2014 and April 2014 on daily basis.
Patel compiled the recordings into four files which has seven folders. These recordings reveal the two judges talking to different lawyers on phone “regarding money transaction.”
One of the accused bench clerk Prajapati has filed anticipatory bail application before Valsad sessions court. The hearing has been scheduled to be held on September 1. His lawyer Ayaz Shaikh said that Prajapati is alleged to have destroyed the old record of evidence and forged a new one by the order of one of the accused judges.
“Prajapati was appointed as a clerk only 15 days before the alleged offence took place. Our argument is that he may have acted under the direction of his superior officer, which he is supposed to do. Given his inexperience in the court proceedings he may not have known about the alleged offence since he was only performing his duty directed by the judge,” Shaikh said.
Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram