Bombay HC Judge Kotwal is contravening the Law of the Land in Multi-Billion Air India Fraud Case
- Vineet Malik
- Dec 11, 2023
- 2 min read
By Vineet Malik | December 11, 2023 | London, England
The drama of granting interim-relief to the accused by Justice Sarang V. Kotwal in the most nefariously designed corruption matter followed by repeated adjournments does not seem to cease in the Indian Constitutional Court.
Some very interesting developments have come to the fore ever since the accused filed the quashing petition in the Bombay High Court (HC).
A written submission along with an affidavit filed by the complainant KVJ Rao in the Bombay HC last week runs into more than 75 pages. It is a piece of a documentation that needs to be logically argued in the Court of Law.
Rao says “The accused filed a case in the HC for quashing the criminal case by playing fraud on the Court.
The interim relief granted by the HC for mere asking without the application of mind to the self-aggrandisement, the documented blatant looting of the money from the exchequer and in contravention of the Supreme Court (SC) judgment in Dalip Singh vs. State of U.P & others that states “neither interim or final relief should be granted to accused in such corruption cases.
There was apparently no prayer made before the HC for any condonation of delay. The HC did not have the powers to condone the delay or grant any relief that was not sought for by the accused. The HC granted the interim relief by arrogating a non-existing power. The SC has stated in catena of judgments that “What cannot be done directly cannot obliquely be permitted to be done indirectly."
The Supreme Court in the Asian Resurfacing of Road vs. Central Bureau of Investigation stated “The matter must be decided on day-to-day basis so that Stay does not operate for an unduly long period. Though no mandatory time limit may be fixed. The decision may not exceed two-three “months normally. Whenever Stay is granted, a speaking order must be passed showing that the cause was of exceptional nature and delay on account of Stay will not prejudice the interest of speedy trial in a corruption case.
Once, Stay is granted, proceedings should not be adjourned and concluded within two-three months.
The wisdom of legislature and the object of final and expeditious disposal of a criminal proceedings cannot be ignored."
The Constitution Bench of the SC in the SC Bar Association vs. Union of India & Another stated “Even the Apex Court under its plenary powers under Article 142 did not have the powers to violate statutory provisions of the law.”
This matter has been prolonging in the Bombay HC in contravention of the law and statue, defeating the very core purpose of dispensation of justice, logical reasoning and observations made by the top Court of India.
Comments