|
|
|
General Forum: Current 'Affairs' | | Kanchi Shankaracharya VS Mohammed Naseeruddin | |
| The court was talking about the Evidences with respect to His Bail petition right??? as far as I understand when the court said it had evidences .. it meant to say it had sufficient Evidence to Deny Bail to him .. ( not sufficinet evidence to prove him guilty)
Posted by: Malakpet Rowdy At: 16, Dec 2004 5:06:58 AM IST
Whether all are genuine or not , it didn't say. It said there are strong evidences
_____________________________________________
So, that means the court has NOT YET CONCLUDED whether he is guilty or not .. and no court has so far said he was guilty .. whatever has been said out of judgement, as I have shown, is just the interpretation
I'm not sure but I think the IPC considers one innocent unless proved guilty .. right?
and by the way the current fight is about the BAIL application ... the evidences for rejection of bail may not be strong enuff comared to the evidences leading to sentence ..
for instance .. if you claim that you have seen me killing someone, i can be arrested and denied the bail .. btu if u fail to substantiate it .. i can be acquitted .. so deniual of bail does not necessarily mean finding someone guilty
It happened in Jayalilitha's case too .. she too was denied bail .. the judge said that there were Strong evidences.. btu fdinally she came out clean .. didnt she??
Posted by: Malakpet Rowdy At: 16, Dec 2004 4:46:37 AM IST
Jayendra Swami should comeout clean. If not , even a single case proves that he is guilty(as he had more than case)68 seers who worked hard for more than 2000 years in bringing up " Samkara Matham " will become a laughing stack to other religious people. Can't even imagine the post-consequences after he has proven guilty.
_____________________________________________
This is what I have been trying to say .. but for that he must be given a chance to present himself .. if he fails to prove innocence then hang him!! no one cares .. but if he comes out clean, who would punish the the people who have been sliging mud on sankar mutt?
He posted an article after I posted the High court's proccedings posting
_____________________________________________
He has been posting Gurumurty's articles from a long time (perhaps a couple of weeks) .. I even called him an RSS agent for that too ..
Posted by: Malakpet Rowdy At: 16, Dec 2004 4:40:20 AM IST
COURT VAARU UNNAAYI SAAKSHAALU ANI CHEBUTUNNAA KUDAA AVANNI DONGA SAAKSHAALU , KALPITAM ANI , POLISULU BALAVAMTAMGAA IPPINCHAERU ANI ANTUNNA VAARU KUDA UNNAARU.
___________________________________________
Court just said that it had witnesses but I doubt whether it claimed all of them to be genuine .. a Witness cannot be treated as valid until its proved genuine and no judgement can not be given till then ..
Without seeing both sides, how can one conclude one is innocent or guilty ?
________________________________________
Exactly. thas the question I am supposed to ask you ( Ulta chor kotwaal ko daante? :))
... I neither said Seer was guilty nor Innocent .. all I said was that people were making funny conclusions ..be in in his favor or against him
and by the way I think Murty gaaru was posting his links in response to the links posted py anonymous n fake id in "Throw and run" manner .. he was actually presenting the other side of the coin ..
Posted by: Malakpet Rowdy At: 16, Dec 2004 4:24:10 AM IST
Well I think Hayagreeva Murthy garu was posting his articles in response to the links that were being posted by the fake ids .. in fact he was trying to present the other side of the coin ..
and yeah You said it right .. "Without seeing both sides, how can one conclude one is innocent or guilty?"
You should ask yourself that question if you are looking only at one interpretation
_________________________________________
"High court already revealed there are 81 witnesses to prove it"
__________________________________________
As far as I know high court was just referring to numbers and not the validity of those witnesses ..
and the court so far has not said he is guilty .if that were the case, the sentnece also would have been delivered ..
The court just believes as that there witnesses (Human), the Seer can not be granted Bail. It doesnt mean to say he is already guilty // Correct me if I am wrong!
Posted by: Malakpet Rowdy At: 16, Dec 2004 3:53:11 AM IST
Look at the Phrase "reasonable grounds to believe that he was guilty"
The word 'Reasonable' says a lot of things
Posted by: Malakpet Rowdy At: 16, Dec 2004 3:45:49 AM IST
This was the text of the Judgement Publihsed on the BBC from "The Hindu"
_____________________________________________
Giving his ruling on the plea of the Seer for bail, Justice R Balasubramanian, held that Section 437 (i) (i) Cr PC stood in the way of granting the bail.
The Judge said although, the power of the High Court in exercising its right to grant bail under Section 439 Cr PC had not been taken away by 437(i)(i), the code, however, restricted the power of the court in considering the application for bail by a person against whom there were "reasonable grounds to believe that he was guilty" of an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment.
_____________________________________________
The Judge clearly means to saY that THE POWERS OF THE COURT ARE RESTRICTED IN CASE OF BAIL PLEA IN THE CASES PUSHABLE WITH DEATH SENTENCE ....
He was saying that the Court was Powerless to grant a bail since the allegation was realted to a case that may be punishable with Death Sentence ..
and Andhra Jyothi interpreted that as "JUDGE FOUND EVIDENCE SUITABLE FOR DEATH SENTENCE"
waaah waah waaah!!!!!!
Posted by: Malakpet Rowdy At: 16, Dec 2004 3:42:24 AM IST
And yeah, I agree on this .. since the court has found him NOT INNOCENT so far, he must can be considerd guilty ..
if Supreme court finds him guilty too then the supporters would be silenced and may turn non-supporters..
But what if the Supreme court finds himNot guilty? Would all the non supporters turn supporters? :))
Posted by: Malakpet Rowdy At: 16, Dec 2004 3:22:40 AM IST
I was talking about you quoting Cho Ramaswami to support your views.
Talking about the court judgement, its fine ( In fact dailies like Hindu wrote that the Bail had been denied due to technical reaons reg sections 437 or 439, though Andhra Jyothi puts it in a different way) ...
In any case, I am not saying whether Sankaracharya is guilty or not .. I'm just laughing at the way people are making their own conclusions even before the courts delivered any verdict. The High court has delivered its verdict only onthe prima facie evidence about the Bail ... that judgement was not the final one.
If the Supreme court reverses the high court judgement, what would u ignore?
And more over,
"KANCHI MUTT PADAIPOINDOHOOOOOOO" ANI GOLA CHESE VAALLALO GENUINE GA HINDUSIM GURINCHI CONCERN UNNA VAALLA KANNA .. CHANCE DORIKINDI KADA MANAM KOODA RAALLU VESEDDAM ANNA JANAALE EKKUVA KANIPISTUNNARU NAAKU :))
Posted by: Malakpet Rowdy At: 16, Dec 2004 3:17:42 AM IST
one more from Cho Ramaswami about Tulsi
_________________________________________
The duty of a public prosecutor – an explanation by Cho Ramaswamy
(Translated from Tughlak dated 15-12-2004)
Readers of my earlier article called ‘Warning’ that appeared in Tughlak dated 8-12-2004 have asked for a few explanations on the views I had expressed.
“Is it not the duty of the public prosecutor to get the accused punished? In the course of doing so what is wrong if he were to use some strong terms?” is a question they have asked. This view is published in a few magazines too.
This is a wrong view.
The thought that the prosecutor must get the accused punished is itself a wrong notion. The prosecutor is considered the officer of the court. His duty is to establish the truth and not get the accused punished some how or the other.
There are court judgments that explain this view in detail.
“The prosecutor should NOT try to get the accused – whether guilty or innocent – punished some how or the other. It is his duty to place all the evidences in front of the court” – Patna High Court
“The public Prosecutor who appears on behalf of the government is not a mouthpiece (of the government). He is not some one who repeats verbatim what the government says. Nor is he an instrument to do the government’s bidding. He has a duty towards the Government who is his client. However, it is also his duty to perform in independently, fairly and in an unbiased manner bin the court. In circumstances that threaten to vitiate his ability to operate thus, he must disobey the government orders” – Calcutta High Court
“The only goal for the prosecutor is to help the court find out the truth. He should not exhibit a behaviour that seeks to get accused punished some how or the other.” – Mumbai High Court
“It is the prosecutor’s duty to conduct the government’s case in a fair manner. His ambition should be to ensure that justice prevails. It should not be his ambition that the accused should some how get punished.” – Allahabad High Court
In addition, if the prosecutor were to get evidences or witnesses that might be favourable to the accused, he should be the first one to place them in the court. This is the principle we have studied in the law books.
However, what happens here? The prosecutor pronounces the accused ‘a lowly criminal’ even before the start of the trial, while dealing with a bail application. Mr. Tulsi, the Senior Counsel who appears on behalf of the prosecution, goes several steps above, and describes the accused in the most severe terms, portrays him almost like the guilty on basis of evidence inadmissible in the court, in a media interview.
“Can the counsel who appears on behalf of the prosecution, talk about evidences in this manner in a media interview? Can he indulge in commenting about the character of the accused in this manner? Can he still continue to appear on behalf of the prosecution even after this?”
In my view, there is a room for these questions to arise.
Efforts to get the accused punished in the eyes of the public even before a court trial is an unhealthy practice.
Posted by: Malakpet Rowdy At: 16, Dec 2004 2:46:35 AM IST
| |
|
|
|
| Advertisements |
|
|
|
|
| Advertisements |
|
