Take the pledge to vote

For a better tommorow#AajSawaroApnaKal
  • I agree to receive emails from News18

  • I promise to vote in this year's elections no matter what the odds are.
  • Please check above checkbox.

    SUBMIT

Thank you for
taking the pledge

Vote responsibly as each vote counts
and makes a diffrence

Disclaimer:

Issued in public interest by HDFC Life. HDFC Life Insurance Company Limited (Formerly HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited) (“HDFC Life”). CIN: L65110MH2000PLC128245, IRDAI Reg. No. 101 . The name/letters "HDFC" in the name/logo of the company belongs to Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited ("HDFC Limited") and is used by HDFC Life under an agreement entered into with HDFC Limited. ARN EU/04/19/13618
LIVE TV DownloadNews18 App
»
1-min read

Bombay HC Refuses to Stay Framing of Charges Against Purohit in Malegaon Blast Case

Advocate Shrikant Shivade, who was appearing for Colonel Purohit, informed the court that the prosecution sanction granted by government for Purohit was not under law.

Radhika Ramaswamy | CNN-News18

Updated:September 4, 2018, 8:56 PM IST
facebookTwitterskypewhatsapp
Bombay HC Refuses to Stay Framing of Charges Against Purohit in Malegaon Blast Case
File photo: Lt Col Shrikant Prasad Purohit at the Sessions Court during a 2017 hearing. (PTI Photo)
Loading...

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Tuesday refused to defer framing of charges against Lt Colonel Prasad Purohit in the 2008 Malegaon blast case. The court, however, asked the trial court to decide on the issue of validity of sanction under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) before framing of charges.

A Division bench of justices SS Shinde and Mridula Bhatkar were hearing the application filed by Colonel Purohit seeking deferment in the framing of charges by the trial court until the main appeal about the validity of prosecution sanction is decided. The framing of charges is scheduled for Wednesday before a special NIA court.

Advocate Shrikant Shivade, who was appearing for Colonel Purohit, informed the court that the prosecution sanction granted by government for Purohit was not under law. He argued that sanction obtained under UAPA was defective.

"As per an amendment in the UAPA in 2008, an appropriate authority should conduct an independent review before sending it for sanction to the state government and that this step was bypassed by the NIA while obtaining sanction. The sanctioning procedure was bypassed by the Maharashtra ATS while invoking UAPA charges," he told the court.

The NIA counsel argued that the sanctioning is a procedural issue and can be decided during trial and not before that as the case been pending in court for a long time.

Purohit had approached the Bombay High Court last year challenging the prosecution sanction. He approached the Supreme Court after the high court refused to quash the prosecution sanction.

The Supreme Court directed that the issue be decided by trial court during framing of charges, following which he approached the high court and filed a fresh plea to stay the framing of charges until the issue of prosecution sanction is decided.

Purohit was arrested in November 2008 for allegedly procuring RDX to carry out the blast and hatching the conspiracy. Six people were killed and 101 injured after an explosive strapped on a motorcycle went off in Malegaon.

Get the best of News18 delivered to your inbox - subscribe to News18 Daybreak. Follow News18.com on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, TikTok and on YouTube, and stay in the know with what's happening in the world around you – in real time.

Subscribe to Moneycontrol Pro and gain access to curated markets data, trading recommendations, equity analysis, investment ideas, insights from market gurus and much more. Get Moneycontrol PRO for 1 year at price of 3 months. Use code FREEDOM.

| Edited by: Huma Tabassum
Read full article
Loading...
Next Story
Next Story

Also Watch

facebookTwitterskypewhatsapp

Live TV

Loading...
Countdown To Elections Results
To Assembly Elections 2018 Results