The Hindu : National : Setback to Taslimuddin as court stays proceedings

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Tuesday, Sep 07, 2004

National

National

Setback to Taslimuddin as court stays proceedings

By Our Legal Correspondent

NEW DELHI, SEPT. 6. The Rashtriya Janata Dal leader and Union Minister, Mohammed Taslimuddin, suffered a setback today with the Supreme Court staying all further proceedings relating to the withdrawal of a case against him.

An application was filed by the Public Prosecutor before the Judicial Magistrate of Araria in Bihar seeking the withdrawal of a case of attempt to murder pending against him. (It was in this case that the trial court had issued a non-bailable warrant and later its execution was stayed).

A Bench comprising Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Justice S. B. Sinha while staying the proceedings on a public interest litigation petition filed by the Delhi Study Group also issued notice to the Centre, the Bihar Government and Mr. Taslimuddin. The petitioner challenged the decision of the Bihar Government to withdraw the case and the application moved by the Public Prosecutor pursuant to such decision.

`Mortal hurry'

The Bench took a serious view of the "mortal hurry" exhibited by the Bihar Government and the Public Prosecutor in seeking to withdraw the criminal case registered in 1996.

Senior Counsel, Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that since the case registered against Mr. Taslimuddin related to Central enactments, viz. the Arms Act and the Explosive Substances Act coupled with murder, the State Government could not withdraw the case without the Centre's consent. The application for the withdrawal was moved on August 14 late in the day, the file transferred to a Magistrate and the arrest warrant stayed — all in the same day.

`Transfer case'

Mr. Rohatgi requested the Court to transfer the case to a neighbouring State applying the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in the Gujarat riot cases where the witnesses were threatened.

The Bench observed, "Does it not show extraordinary interest on the part of the Government? What is the mortal hurry in the hearing of the application seeking withdrawal of the case? A case which was kept pending since the year 2000, why did the Government choose to move so fast? Does this happen to every accused in the country?"

Senior Counsel, L. Nageswara Rao, appearing for Mr. Taslimuddin, opposed the interim stay granted by the court. He drew the court's attention to the fact that the trial court had fixed September 8 for hearing the application seeking the withdrawal of the case and pleaded that the Supreme Court should await the outcome of the case.

The Bench told Counsel that there would be difficulty if the trial court allowed the application of the State to withdraw the case on that day.

The Bench observed, "the Court has nothing to do with the comments passed by political parties against each other. If the order had been in your favour, you would have done the same thing." But regarding the locus standi of the petitioner, the Bench made it clear that if the allegations were true, then it would appoint an amicus curiae to assist the court.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National