Court throws out case against Thackeray

Earlier, Thackeray accompanied by his son Uddhav and nephew Raj and top Shiv Sena leaders arrived at the court amid unprecedented security. From his Matroshree residence, he reached the Mayor8217;s bungalow, where he was technically arrested. 8220;There was no message to me, but since there rumours and tension all over the State, I decided to approach the police. Accordingly, I spoke to Police Commissioner M N Singh and communicated my decision to get arrested,8221; Thackeray said.

A beaming Thackeray said the landmark order of the court was a slap on the face of the Congress-led Democratic Front Government, particularly against Deputy Chief Minister Chhagan Bhujbal.

8220;In view of the order of the court, we are demanding the dismissal of the Deputy Chief Minister. In fact, the process of downfall of the Government has already begun. You wait and watch,8221; he said.

Meanwhile, the State Government termed the order 8220;unprecedented8221; and announced its intention to challenge it.

ACCM Kamble also orally passed strictures against the prosecution for its failure to complete the investigation within the prescribed period, saying, Thackeray was not even liable for the charge. The ACCM came down heavily on the motive of the prosecution in delaying the case and described it as a futile exercise8217; the government attempt, which had created a law and order situation for the State.

Further, the ACCM observed that he was not satisfied with the reasons given by the prosecution, which wanted that Thackeray should be arrested. 8220;Insufficient material has been placed before me even to take cognisance of the case,8221; he pointed out.

Senior counsel for the government P R Vakil submitted that there was no delay in filing the case. 8220;While the case was registered against Thackeray, Sanjay Raut and Subhash Desai in 1993, permission to prosecute them was sought from the government on April 24, 1994, while the permission was granted on July 20, 2000. Thus the time taken for obtaining sanction had to be excluded while considering the period of limitation. As such, we have still more time,8221; Vakil added.

Secondly, Vakil submitted that he was not arguing the case on the question of limitation, but on the arrest of Thackeray and others. 8220;We will move the application for delay when we file the chargesheet. Thackeray has been arrested and as per provisions of law, he is required to be produced before the court,8221; Vakil added.

Vakil submitted that the investigation was complete, chargesheet will be filed shortly and accused persons are not required for further investigation. In the cirsumtances, suitable orders should be passed as per provisions of law.

Senior advocate Adhik Shirodkar, representing Thackeray, strongly objected to the application moved by Vakil, saying it should not be entertained, since it was barred by limitation. Shirodkar, a Rajya Sabha member of the Shiv Sena, said the case was barred by limitation. Once an offence under Section 153 A is registered against a person, the chargesheet has to be filed within a period of three years. 8220;In the present case, the Government has failed to take cognisance of the case for seven long years. Under such circumstances, the application should be rejected,8221; Shirodkar said.

Shirodkar also brought to the notice of the court the order passed by the Bombay High Court on a public interest litigation filed by former chief secretary J B D8217;Souza. 8220;In that case, the High Court has specifically observed that the articles written by Thackeray in Saamna edited by him, do not attract the provisions of 153 A,8221; Shirodkar informed the court.

Following the submissions made by Shirodkar and Vakil, the court observed, the offences registered against Thackeray, Raut and Desai stand terminated and closed.