Applications of Delhi riots case accused seeking probe status not maintainable, says prosecution

New Delhi: The prosecution concluded its arguments on Friday against the applications filed by some of the people accused of hatching the conspiracy behind the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, seeking to know the status of the probe in the case, saying those were not maintainable.

Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat posted the matter on October 3 for rebuttal by the counsel for the accused applicants.

During the proceedings, Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad cited a judgment and said, “A different and not less well-recognised rule, namely, where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden.”

He said this doctrine of law is settled and has been followed by the Supreme Court and all other courts consistently.

“So when the right is not given to the accused in the garb of this application, they cannot design a new procedure. Therefore, the maintainability of the application goes through the roof,” Prasad said.

He said the applications are not maintainable as those failed to disclose any provision in law that allows their prayers. On the judgments cited by the accused in their applications, Prasad said none of the verdicts gave the court the power to entertain their prayers in the manner sought by them nor did it allow their plea to go beyond the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

“Unless and until they (counsel for the accused) are able to demonstrate that the application itself is maintainable, they cannot go beyond that. So I would not go beyond arguing for maintainability,” he added.

Regarding whether the case is fit for further trial, Prasad said the prosecution would demonstrate the same before the court once the arguments on charges start. The judge asked, “If the court was to put a question about whether the case is fit for arguments on the point of charge, you are going to answer while you address the arguments on charge?”

Replying in the affirmative, Prasad said he would “demonstrate from the chargesheet the way things have opened up and why multiple chargesheets have come and how these chargesheets are not overlapping (each other)”. “It is not that I have kept something in my back pocket. All these things I have to demonstrate to the court and I will demonstrate when I argue on charge. Today, to block the arguments on charge by way of these applications is not permissible,” he said.