On June 27, shockwaves rocked the country as all the 21 accused in the Best Bakery case were acquitted. Days later, the worst fears were confirmed when two of the star witnesses who turned hostile — Zaheera Sheikh, daughter of the bakery-owner, and her mother, Sehrunissa — told newspersons that a BJP MLA and a Congress councillor were among those who threatened them to change their testimony. Unfortunately, the public outcry that followed the acquittal and the subsequent allegations by the mother-daughter duo have either missed the point, or by confounding the issue, further complicated it. Predictably, both the BJP MLA, Madhu Shrivastava, and his cousin, Vadodara Congress councillor, Chandrakant Shrivastava, have denied the charges. Meanwhile, a non-governmental organisation, Citizens for Justice and Peace, has provided shelter to Zaheera, who is demanding a retrial outside Gujarat. Other than the praiseworthy effort by the NGO, nothing much seems to be happening. Commenting on the issue on a national news channel, legal luminary Fali Nariman called it a systematic failure, advocating a change to the continental system of jurisprudence. Whether intentionally or otherwise, he played down the gravity of the acquittal, stating that such things often happen. Now, whether or not we should change our judicial system is a highly debatable point. But the success of any system depends on the quality of the men who work it. In this case, it depended on those responsible for governance and those directly responsible for investigation and prosecution. Consider the facts: during the Gujarat riots last year, 14 persons were burnt alive in the Vadodara bakery on March 1; 29 persons were prosecuted as accused — all were acquitted; key witnesses are now telling the world that they lied in court for fear of their lives. Zaheera claims she did not know who her lawyer was, for the lawyers she contacted asked for exorbitant fees. In a criminal case, the two opposing parties are identified as the State and the accused. The victims are a third party. So, the public prosecutor should be representing the State in court. Why then the difficulty in finding a lawyer? The judge passed strictures against the police investigating team for delay in lodging the FIR and the alleged lack of police protection for the witnesses. But investigation and prosecution of criminal cases come under the purview of governance. The police and public order are State subjects. The responsibility for these alleged failures must therefore lie squarely on those who are at the helm of governance in the State and the police officers directly responsible for the investigation of the case. It is clearly a failure on their part, not that of the system. How else would one explain the fact that the same system, under a proper leadership, produces excellent results. What about the role of our National Human Rights Commission? The observation of its chairman, Justice A.S. Anand, that the Best Bakery verdict was a ‘‘miscarriage of justice’’ was just stating the obvious. That some sections took exception to this simple observation speaks volumes about the degeneration in our public life. While some, including the president of the Ahmedabad Bar Council reacted adversely to the visit by an NHRC team to Gujarat, others went so far as to call the panel toothless. The commission is completely within its rights in sending a team, although the outcome of such a scrutiny is debatable. The Gujarat Government has indicated the likelihood of an appeal being filed within three months time. This does not seem to indicate much urgency, regardless of Zaheera’s revelations. At least, the NGO has relocated the mother-daughter duo to Mumbai, where they said they feel relatively secure. The organisation, supported by eminent persons like Javed Akhtar and Mihir Desai, has declared its intention to provide legal and other support also. However, it is doubtful if an appeal can yield the desired results. Recourse should be taken in other legal provisions. For instance, under the Criminal Procedure Code, the law gives vast discretion to the appelate court which can, under Section 386, direct further enquiry or even retrial of the accused. In case of appeal from acquittal, the High Court may, under Section 390, issue arrest warrants for the accused and order their commitment to prison, pending disposal of the appeal. Above all, the laws give the appelate court sufficient powers to take further evidence into consideration if it considers necessary. In this regard, let me cite the widely-reported case of an Emergency era film, Kissa Kursi Ka. Amrit Nahta, producer of the film, after winning the 1977 elections from Rajasthan on a Janata Party ticket, raised a furore in the Lok Sabha. His demand: all the prints of the film, a severe satire on the late Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and her son, Sanjay Gandhi, should be returned to him. The prints had been arbitrarily seized during the Emergency and even the Supreme Court’s orders for their release had been defied repeatedly. At a Cabinet meeting presided over by then Prime Minister Morarji Desai, with L.K. Advani as the Information and Broadcasting Minister, it was decided that the case would be handed over to the CBI. Accordingly, Sanjay Gandhi and V.C. Shukla, who was the Congress I&B Minister during the Emergency, were convicted by a Sessions Court. They were fined and sentenced to imprisonment. However, by the time the appeals came up for hearing in the Supreme Court, the Janata Government had been toppled and Chaudhary Charan Singh, with Congress support, had assumed office. Nahta then did a 180 degree turnaround, accusing me, as the CBI official, of framing Shukla and Sanjay Gandhi in the case. He claimed that the then Home Minister, Chaudhary Charan Singh, had, in his presence, directed me to press the false charges. Nahta went to the extent of claiming that he had provided some remnants of the film prints to be planted in the premises of the Maruti factory, from where they were recovered. By that time, the Lok Sabha elections had been announced and it was clear which way the poll winds were blowing. Both Charan Singh and I filed affidavits in the Supreme Court, offering ourselves for examination. What happened thereafter is another story, but the basic point is that an appelate court can examine and re-examine if further evidence in the case comes to light. There are thus clear legal remedies for re-examination of the key witnesses in the Best Bakery case. Moreover, the Supreme Court, under Section 406 of the CrPC can also direct an appeal to be transferred from one High Court to another if it feels necessary. This is especially relevant since Zaheera and her mother have both undertaken to tell the truth if there is a retrial, preferably outside Gujarat. (The writer is former Joint Director, CBI and Ex-DG, Bureau of Police Research & Development)
