Info-tech

2G verdict: How the ‘directionless’ prosecution lost the case

Our Bureau Mumbai | Updated on January 09, 2018 Published on December 21, 2017

The special court has observed that prosecution team representing the investigating agencies may have lost the case as it became “directionless and diffident”.

“In the beginning, the prosecution started with the case with great enthusiasm and ardour. However, as the case progressed, it became highly cautious and guarded in its attitude making it difficult to find out as to what prosecution wanted to prove. However, by the end, the quality of prosecution totally deteriorated and it became directionless and diffident,” the court said.

Highlighting a few instances to indicate the behaviour of the prosecution the court said that several applications and replies were filed in the Court on behalf of the prosecution. “However, in the latter and also in the final phase of the trial, no senior officer or prosecutor was willing to sign these applications or replies and the same used to be signed by a junior most officer Inspector Manoj Kumar posted in the Court. When questioned, the reply of the regular Sr. PP would be that the learned Spl. PP would sign it and when the learned Spl. PP was questioned, he would say that CBI people would sign it. Ultimately, the petition/ reply would be filed under the signature of Inspector. This shows that neither any investigator nor any prosecutor was willing to take any responsibility for what was being filed or said in the Court,” the court said

“ Also, when final arguments started, learned Spl. PP submitted that he would file written submissions. But instead of filing written submissions, he started arguing the matter orally and argued it for several months. On conclusion of final arguments for the prosecution, he did not file written arguments, but instead submitted that he would file it only when the defence would file its written arguments. That was highly unfair,” it added.

The painful part

The court said that most painful part is that learned Spl. PP was not ready to sign the written submissions filed by him. “What is the use of a document in a Court of law, which is not signed by anyone? When questioned as to why the learned Spl. PP was filing unsigned written submissions, his reply would be that some defence advocates had also not signed the written submissions. Great efforts had to be made to persuade the learned Spl. PP to sign the written submissions, but all in vain.”

Published on December 21, 2017
null
This article is closed for comments.
Please Email the Editor