Double Standards of Justice - Bombay Blasts and Bombay Riots?
Dear fellow Yahoo users:
A heated debate is going on about the quantum of Sanjay Dutts sentence. The Hindustan Times followed by the rest of the media contrasted the double standards of justice meted out in the blasts trials with the absence of any justice whatsoever in the riots cases. Please read the Express link below about the Memons as well as the DNA link about the political twist to Sanjay's case. Today's news has former Commissioner of Police MN Singh openly admitting that politicians prevented prosecution of Satpotdar & co. Another channel had Soli Sorabjee's considered legal opinion that Sanjay ought to have been given relief u/Probation of Offenders Act.
In the interests of justice, perhaps several of the blasts convicts should be given parity with Satpotdar & co. - and set free immediately. Please read the links and think about it. Thank you.
http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?...
http://www.indianexpress.com/sunday/stor...
Answers:
Its all political game gsham ji nothing else. As you yourself stated in your question here that former Commissioner of Police MN Singh openly admitting that politicians prevented prosecution of Satpotdar & co. Whom you will blame it for the Corrupt Politicians not the judiciary. The Supreme Court through its constitutional bench comprising of 5 judges had in Sunjay Dutt Vs State II in 1994 had clearly held In the prosecution for an offence punishable under Section 5 of the TADA Act, the prosecution is required to prove that the accused was in conscious 'possession' 'unauthorisedly', in "a notified area" of any arms and ammunition specified in Columns 2 and 3 of Category I or Category III(a) of Schedule to the Arms Rules, 1962 or bombs, dynamite or other explosive substances. No further nexus with any terrorist or disruptive activity is required to be proved by the prosecution in view of the statutory
Presumption indicated earlier. The accused in
his defence is entitled to prove the non-
existence of a fact constituting any of these
ingredients. As a part of his defence, he can
prove by adducing evidence, thenonexistence
of facts constituting the third ingredient as
indicated earlier to rebut the statutory
presumption. The accused is entitled to prove
by adducing evidence that the purpose of his
unauthorised possession of any such arms and
ammunition etc. was wholly unrelated to any
terrorist or disruptive activity. If the accused succeeds in proving the absence of the said third ingredient, then his mere unauthorised possession of any such arms and ammunition etc. is punishable only under the general law by virtue of Section 12 of the TADA Act and not under Section 5 of the TADA Act.
If the law enforcement bodies failed to over look this directives of the Highest court of India regarding the mere possession of deadly weapons in the notified areas will be presumed amounts to the person covered under the provisions of TADA & only on the political pressure they ignore to go in for prosecution then the actual blame lies on "WE THE PEOPLE OF INDIA" who elect these rascal politicians to our Legislature & make them our ultimate bosses to rule on us. Our courts can only decide the matter brought before to them for prosecution, they cannot go after running every police officer to bring the culprits to the record books, its the executives ruling this country & who happen to be these corrupt politicians who spoil the whole game of law & order. I wish I had the powers to punish these corrupt politicians & would have ordered them to be publicly hanged till death.
the scale of justice is always manipulated by the unethical heavy weights.
Condidered opinions on guilt and conviction by judiciary is to be respected. Of course, appeal provisions are there and the issues will be agitated upon at the court. Fair criticism can be only on matters of law as Mr.sorabji has done (I too share the view), and not on facts, by the general public. There can not be a public jury trial through electronic media/internet fora.
Each convict's case for light/harsh view of the offence and applicability of benovelent provisions of law, depends upon the facts relating to that person, in isolation. There can not be a universal formula for this. As for an ex-police officer's statement, it may perhaps operate against him, in fact, for deriliction of duty,upon his own confession publicly, and does not amount to legal evidence against any other person.
Blasts and riots can not be equated even on facts.The former is a pre-meditated concerted offence with a view to hold the society at ransom and the latter is eruption of emotions as sudden and grave provocation, with mob-psychology in fore.
In a society of rule of law,faith in the syspem of administration of justice, is essenial.
I hold brief for none, but am of the view that name and fame of a person shall not operate against that person in getting justice for himself, because of mass psychosis against famous persons.
Sanjay Dutta was awarded for six years of imprisonment for possessing illegal weapon and for participating in the parties hosted by underworld dons. He was convicted for the offence under Arms Act not under TADA. So there is no double standard of justice because other offenders were convicted under TADA because they have participated in the Mumbai Blasts.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:
More Law Questions and Answers: