news details |
|
|
| JKHM in soup over slap gate row | | Court directs SSP Jammu to inquire into the matter | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Dec 17- The issue of slapping a party worker in Congress headquarters at Jammu during birthday celebrations of Congress President is now more than a storm in the tea-cup. After demanding an impartial probe and appeal for justice from Sonia Gandhi through press/print media, Pawan Raina, former vice-president of Youth Congress has drawn fresh battle-lines in the Court. He has alleged before the Court that on December, 9, 2009, Sham Lal Sharma, Health Minister publicly slapped and abused him during birthday celebrations of Sonia Gandhi at PCC headquarters after he did not congruent with the point of the Congress worker.
The criminal defamation case filed by Raina against the minister was listed today before Special Mobile Magistrate (Passenger Tax & Shops Act), Y.P.Kotwal, who after recoding statements of complainant and another witness on oath, exercised his powers under section 202 of Cr. PC and forwarded the matter to SSP Jammu for conducting an inquiry into the matter and submitting a detailed fact-finding report to the Court.
The complaint preferred by Pawan Raina has sought action under sections 323, 351, 500, 504 & 506 of RPC against the minister. He has accused the minister for attacking him with slaps and using filthy and abusive language against him and hurting his public reputation by openly saying, you are a slur on the name of Congress worker, ‘tum jaise log 5-10 rupai main bikta hain’.
The minister-under-scanner is younger brother of MP from Jammu. The minister had hired a battery of lawyers to project his case in the Court. But Asheesh Kotwal, complaint’s counsel, objected to it on the very ground that as per the settled law on the point unless and until process is issued, an accused, either personally or through a counsel, has no right of address before a criminal Court. Upon a specific query made by the Court with regard to protection of sanction available to public servants, the complainant’s counsel argued that protection of sanction is available to public servants acting bonafidely in official capacity. The ambit and scope of section 197 of Criminal Procedure Code does not protect the acts and omissions of public servants done in private capacity. The slapping-cum-abusing a party worker in a party function does not come within the purview of the term ‘purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties’ as contained in section 197 of Cr. PC. After hearing detailed arguments of the complainant’s counsel on about three hearings, the Court has instituted an inquiry with a view to ascertaining the truth and falsehood of the contentions in the complaint and other material before the Court. Whereas, SSP Jammu has been asked to furnish a detailed report on or before the next date of hearing, the matter has been posted for 2nd January, 2009 for further proceedings.
Advocate Aditya Gupta appearing for the health minister submitted that no prosecution can be launched against minister without the prior permission of the Governor and referred a judgment of the State High Court to support his arguments.
Whatsoever may be the result of the case, at least, one thing is settled that Health Minster’s bag is brimming with worries. In case the charges against the minister are proved in the Court of law he could be punished with a maximum imprisonment of seven years along with fine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
