Sajjan Kumar moves HC against court order
13 Jun 2012 12:58 AM GMT
Senior Congress leader Sajjan Kumar on Tuesday moved the Delhi High Court challenging the trial court’s order dismissing his plea to use the statement of a victim given before a judicial commission to defend himself in a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case.
Kumar’s plea was dismissed on 2 June by the trial court which had said that the witness Jagdish Kaur’s statements to judicial commissions cannot be used for any purpose, including that for discrediting her or to impeach her.
Kumar’s petition is listed for hearing before Justice S P Garg tomorrow. However, senior counsel H S Phoolka, representing the victims, has written a letter to the Registrar General of the high court saying that listing of the case is against the guidelines for listing of urgent matters during vacations.
‘The listing of this matter is clearly against the guidelines of ‘listing of urgent matters’. During vacations, only those matters are to be listed ‘which cannot brook delay’, till the normal sitting of the court,’ the senior lawyer said.
He also said the trial court has listed the matter for hearing on 12 July and there is no urgency to hear the matter.
‘No urgency or happening of any event before 2 July 2012 has been alleged in the stay application or in the revision petition,’ the letter said.
Stating that the matter be listed after reopening of courts, the lawyer said, ‘The petitioner has got this matter listed by suppression of facts and wants to get the matter listed only during the vacations because both the Special Public Prosecutors appointed by this very court are out of the country and hence are not be available during the vacations.’
Kumar’s plea was dismissed on 2 June by the trial court which had said that the witness Jagdish Kaur’s statements to judicial commissions cannot be used for any purpose, including that for discrediting her or to impeach her.
Kumar’s petition is listed for hearing before Justice S P Garg tomorrow. However, senior counsel H S Phoolka, representing the victims, has written a letter to the Registrar General of the high court saying that listing of the case is against the guidelines for listing of urgent matters during vacations.
‘The listing of this matter is clearly against the guidelines of ‘listing of urgent matters’. During vacations, only those matters are to be listed ‘which cannot brook delay’, till the normal sitting of the court,’ the senior lawyer said.
He also said the trial court has listed the matter for hearing on 12 July and there is no urgency to hear the matter.
‘No urgency or happening of any event before 2 July 2012 has been alleged in the stay application or in the revision petition,’ the letter said.
Stating that the matter be listed after reopening of courts, the lawyer said, ‘The petitioner has got this matter listed by suppression of facts and wants to get the matter listed only during the vacations because both the Special Public Prosecutors appointed by this very court are out of the country and hence are not be available during the vacations.’
Next Story
