About Me

My photo
Lawyer Practising at Supreme Court of India. Court Experience: Criminal, Civil & PIL (related to Property, Tax, Custom & Duties, MVAC, insurance, I.P.R., Copyrights & Trademarks, Partnerships, Labour Disputes, etc.) Socio-Legal: Child Rights, Mid Day Meal Programme, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyaan, Women Rights, Against Female Foeticide, P.R.Is, Bonded Labour, Child labour, Child marriage, Domestic violence, Legal Literacy, HIV/AIDS, etc. Worked for Legal Aid/Advise/Awareness/Training/Empowerment/Interventions/Training & Sensitisation.

Contact Me

+91 9971049936, +91 9312079439
Email: adv.kamal.kr.pandey@gmail.com

Sunday, March 30, 2008

HC issues notices to state, Centre and the accused in Godhra train carnage

Ahmedabad, March 25 The Gujarat High Court on Tuesday issued notices to the state government, the Centre and the accused in the Godhra train carnage, while hearing a writ petition challenging the recommendation that POTA charges levelled against all the 131 accused by the Central POTA Review Committee (CPRC) in May 2005, should be dropped.
The division bench of Justice M R Shah and J R Vora also ordered that legal proceedings in any other court should continue on the basis of the recommendations of the CPRC, if any interim order or direction arises out of the present writ petition, or till the matter gets decided. The notice has been made returnable by April 22.
The three-member CPRC headed by Justice (retd) S C Jain had recommended the withdrawal of terrorism charges against the accused on the ground that the Godhra train burning incident that left 59 dead, was not an 'act of terror' under Section 3(1) of the now-repealed POTA. However, the Gujarat Government had rejected the recommendations of the CPRC on June 10, 2005.
The CPRC's recommendations were challenged by Sardarji Maganji Vaghela, the father of one of the victims, first in the Supreme Court, which advised the petitioner to first approach the Gujarat High Court, as it was competent to hear the case.
The Committee's recommendations are being challenged on the ground that its findings on the subject are contrary to those of the investigating agency, and that it has failed to appreciate the material evidence in the case suggesting otherwise.
Advocate Vijay Patel, appearing for the petitioner said, "Other objections by us include the fact that the Committee has done the task of evaluation of the evidence, whereas its brief does not exceed beyond a prima facie examination of the evidence. Also the Committee has discarded certain material evidence in the case, which has been accepted by the trial court, the High Court and even the Supreme Court in cases related to the Godhra incident."
Express news servicePosted online: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 at 11:16:52Updated: Tuesday , March 25, 2008 at 11:39:37

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comment