A sessions court on Thursday reserved order till 24 September on actor Salman Khan’s plea for a direction to the media to report true and fair proceedings of the 2002 hit-and-run-case involving him.
Judge S D Deshpande, after hearing arguments, also reserved order till 24 September on two applications filed by activist Santosh Daundkar.
One application pleaded that Daundkar be allowed to intervene in the case to help the prosecution. The other prayed for transfer of his complaint from magistrate court to sessions court about action against Salman and police for perjury (giving false evidence) by producing wrong witnesses in this case, as a result of which the trial was delayed.
Salman’s lawyer Shrikant Shivade argued that the media was biased against the actor and was not reporting correctly the court proceedings.
This had tarnished the image of Salman in the eyes of public, he alleged and said that media be directed to report true and fair proceedings of the case.
Daundkar’s lawyers Aditya Pratap and Abha Singh argued that their client wanted to intervene in this case in public interest, to help the prosecution. They said section 301(1) of CrPc allowed Daundkar to intervene in the matter to help the prosecution. The lawyers cited three Supreme Court judgements to support their arguments.
Judge S D Deshpande, after hearing arguments, also reserved order till 24 September on two applications filed by activist Santosh Daundkar.
One application pleaded that Daundkar be allowed to intervene in the case to help the prosecution. The other prayed for transfer of his complaint from magistrate court to sessions court about action against Salman and police for perjury (giving false evidence) by producing wrong witnesses in this case, as a result of which the trial was delayed.
Salman’s lawyer Shrikant Shivade argued that the media was biased against the actor and was not reporting correctly the court proceedings.
This had tarnished the image of Salman in the eyes of public, he alleged and said that media be directed to report true and fair proceedings of the case.
Daundkar’s lawyers Aditya Pratap and Abha Singh argued that their client wanted to intervene in this case in public interest, to help the prosecution. They said section 301(1) of CrPc allowed Daundkar to intervene in the matter to help the prosecution. The lawyers cited three Supreme Court judgements to support their arguments.