1 week Ago By Asseem Shaikh
Pune: The court of special judicial magistrate Amol Shinde on Monday ordered that senior Congress politician and leader of opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi will face a summons trial instead of a summary trial in a criminal defamation case filed against him by Satyaki Savarkar. Satyaki is the grandnephew of Hindutva ideologue Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. The case pertains to alleged objectionable remarks made by Rahul in his March 2022 speech in London.
In his six-page order, Shinde said, "Section 260 of the CrPC permits the magistrate to try certain classes of cases as set out in the provision, in a summary way ‘if he thinks fit'. It means that while passing an order for a summary trial, it is necessary to disclose reasons for adopting such a course. The offences alleged in the complaint under section 500 of the IPC are punishable with simple imprisonment up to two years or with a fine or with both.
Therefore, the case prima facie falls in the category of a summons case in view of the classification based on section 2 (x) (w) of the CrPC." The court observed, "In the present case, the accused (Gandhi) is claiming and has raised questions of facts as well as law which are complex in nature. The accused also raised certain issues which will be determined on historical facts.
Therefore, in my view, it is undesirable to try this case as a summary. In a summary trial, detailed evidence and cross-examination are not taken. In this case, the accused has to lead detailed evidence and has to cross-examine the witnesses of the complainant thoroughly.
" The court order read, "As per section 260 (2) of the CrPC, it provides and facilitates the court that, even during the course of trial, if it appears that it is undesirable to try summarily, then the magistrate can re-hear the case. Hence, it shall be incumbent in the interest of justice that the matter should be tried as a summons case. No prejudice would be caused to any party if the present case is tried as a summons case.
" The court allowed the defamation case to be conducted as a summons trial and deferred the hearing to April 25 to record Rahul's plea. At a previous hearing, Rahul's lawyer Milind Pawar made a specific plea that his client wanted a detailed recording of evidence in the case. "The defamation case by Satyaki was registered by the court as a summary case.
We seek comprehensive recording of evidence, including witness testimonies, which does not happen during summary proceedings. We have moved an application under Section 258 of the Criminal Procedure Code requesting that the ongoing summary trial be converted into a summons trial. The defence and the prosecution will then be in a position to produce detailed evidence," Pawar said.
The accused has a fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. The purpose of the criminal trial is to discover the crime committed, he added. Satyaki's lawyer Sangram Kolhatkar argued that the accused filed the plea to convert the case from a summary trial to a summons trial to prolong the matter.
The court has to decide if this case is to be conducted as a summary trial or a summons trial. Satyaki has filed sufficient evidence to show that the accused made a defamatory statement without any basis. Pune: The court of special judicial magistrate Amol Shinde on Monday ordered that senior Congress politician and leader of opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi will face a summons trial instead of a summary trial in a criminal defamation case filed against him by Satyaki Savarkar.
Satyaki is the grandnephew of Hindutva ideologue Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. The case pertains to alleged objectionable remarks made by Rahul in his March 2022 speech in London. In his six-page order, Shinde said, "Section 260 of the CrPC permits the magistrate to try certain classes of cases as set out in the provision, in a summary way ‘if he thinks fit'.
It means that while passing an order for a summary trial, it is necessary to disclose reasons for adopting such a course. The offences alleged in the complaint under section 500 of the IPC are punishable with simple imprisonment up to two years or with a fine or with both. Therefore, the case prima facie falls in the category of a summons case in view of the classification based on section 2 (x) (w) of the CrPC.
" The court observed, "In the present case, the accused (Gandhi) is claiming and has raised questions of facts as well as law which are complex in nature. The accused also raised certain issues which will be determined on historical facts. Therefore, in my view, it is undesirable to try this case as a summary.
In a summary trial, detailed evidence and cross-examination are not taken. In this case, the accused has to lead detailed evidence and has to cross-examine the witnesses of the complainant thoroughly." The court order read, "As per section 260 (2) of the CrPC, it provides and facilitates the court that, even during the course of trial, if it appears that it is undesirable to try summarily, then the magistrate can re-hear the case.
Hence, it shall be incumbent in the interest of justice that the matter should be tried as a summons case. No prejudice would be caused to any party if the present case is tried as a summons case." The court allowed the defamation case to be conducted as a summons trial and deferred the hearing to April 25 to record Rahul's plea.
At a previous hearing, Rahul's lawyer Milind Pawar made a specific plea that his client wanted a detailed recording of evidence in the case. "The defamation case by Satyaki was registered by the court as a summary case. We seek comprehensive recording of evidence, including witness testimonies, which does not happen during summary proceedings.
We have moved an application under Section 258 of the Criminal Procedure Code requesting that the ongoing summary trial be converted into a summons trial. The defence and the prosecution will then be in a position to produce detailed evidence," Pawar said. The accused has a fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.
The purpose of the criminal trial is to discover the crime committed, he added. Satyaki's lawyer Sangram Kolhatkar argued that the accused filed the plea to convert the case from a summary trial to a summons trial to prolong the matter. The court has to decide if this case is to be conducted as a summary trial or a summons trial.
Satyaki has filed sufficient evidence to show that the accused made a defamatory statement without any basis..
