Let’s Start this Interesting Article Shared on DesiNew.xyz
Nirav’s barrister Claire Montgomery QC made an application to the Westminster Magistrate’s court on Monday for reporting a ban on Thipsay’s evidence during Nirav’s second extradition hearing, claiming that Thipsay after testifying during the first hearing in May Were charged with “solicitation”.
Montgomery asked District Judge Samuel Mark Goosey to defer to Thipsay’s evidence to be heard privately by the court or to report until “to prevent Nirav from fully criticizing her evidence.” Sting is out of the story “” once again by Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad.
TOI and other press objected to the application orally in court.
Gozoi then refused to sit in private or deferred reporting, pointing out that Justice Thipsay had associated himself with the media in response to the controversy.
Thipsay, who retired as a judge in 2017, gave evidence as a witness for Nirav in his first hearing on May 13, saying that the charges leveled against Nirav by the CBI – namely fraud and criminal conspiracy – stand for Indian law. Will not be.
The next day Prasad held a press conference in which he accused Thipsay of acting at the behest of Congress to save Nirav.
Montgomery told the court about the incident that Prasad carried out “an ad hominem attack on Thipsay and suggested incompetence in his evidence, saying that he was biased and at the behest of the Congress party” to protect an established fraudster “The evidence was given.”
He said reporting restrictions to “the interests of order and justice” were necessary to prevent another attack on Thipsay.
“The number of papers that went along with the story was engineered as a result of that press conference,” Montgomery said.
“I would like the press and the Indian government to be excluded from a private hearing, but allow lawyers to stay there,” he said. “He will give written opinions or his evidence will be heard privately or there will be sufficient reporting restrictions during the hearing to at least limit inappropriate commentary on his evidence,” he said.
“What the Minister said was clearly contempt. The Justice Minister and Advocate General saw nothing wrong in making inappropriate and baseless remarks about the proceedings, ”she said.
“You do not make a public statement in the middle of a hearing and publicly discredit a witness and dispute his evidence in such a way that he was not the subject of a cross-examination in court and of favoritism from the rival side.” Was accusing. The Law Minister sees nothing wrong in his behavior and claims that as long as you can make your choice on behalf of the BJP through inappropriate remarks. Montgomery said the statement described a lot of hostile press as lies and insults.
Montgomery said Thipsay’s personal and family contacts had indicated that he should withdraw from the case. “He did not make contact on a paper, but received several phone messages asking highly offensive questions. He is not a politician – he joined Congress 15 months after retirement.”
“It is my view that the press conference was given in the political context of the BJP and the political commentary about the Congress party,” Gooji said, rejecting the application. “This is a high profile case in India and I have no doubt that Thipsay has overseen many high profile cases and entered the fray with his eyes closed.” He points out that Thipsay did not refuse to give evidence, but gave more evidence for this week, and he wanted to protect him from personal disgrace, but for this he needed the extraordinary circumstances necessary to make it private. There was no evidence nor would it give rise to a substantial risk of bias during justice. I have not worried about political commentary in India.
“It happened in a political context, the minister said that it is BJP and Thipsay is a well-known member of Congress. There is zero evidence that what happened later was engineered by the Government of India. Representing the Crown Prosecution Service on behalf of the government in India, the manner of expression, hyperbole and level of discussion in India that we cannot see in this country.
Nirav is battling extradition on Punjab National Bank to face charges of committing massive fraud between $ 1 billion to Rs 2 billion (Rs 7,346 crore and Rs 14,693 crore), some of which withholding income and witnesses Evidence to intervene and destroy.
STAY TUNED WITH US FOR MORE INTERESTING CONTENT ONLY ON DESINEW.XYZ