Sanjay Dutt:
Actor Sanjay Dutt on Thursday moved the Supreme Court, challenging his conviction and six-year imprisonment awarded by the TADA court in the “1993 Mumbai bomb blast case.” He also filed an interim application seeking a direction to release him on bail.
Prosecution’s case:
Mr. Dutt said the prosecution case was that he was in possession of an illegal weapon from January 16, 1993 to April 12, 1993 (in the notified area under the TADA Act).
Further, it stated that he was in possession of a 9 mm pistol from September 1992. He said no arms or ammunition were recovered from him or his residence or at his instance.
He said there was no credible evidence against him and the prosecution failed to discharge the burden cast upon it.
The procedure adopted by the trial court was in utter violation of the Criminal Procedure Code and Article 21 of the Constitution (right to life and liberty), he said.
His conviction was entirely based on inadmissible evidence, and as such, the judgment rendered by the trial court was erroneous in law and consequently unsustainable.
The actor said the TADA court judge had acquitted him of any involvement in the conspiracy in the case and convicted him for an offence under the Arms Act. Hence the rigorous conditions for grant of bail would not apply to him.
Mr. Dutt said that during the pendency of the trial he was on bail for over 12 years. During this period, he abided by all the conditions stipulated in the bail order.
Foreign travel:
He had travelled abroad on more than 50 occasions and on every occasion returned and surrendered to the jurisdiction of the trial court, Mr. Dutt said.
He prayed for quashing the impugned judgment and to release him on bail until the disposal of the criminal appeal.
Prosecution’s case:
Mr. Dutt said the prosecution case was that he was in possession of an illegal weapon from January 16, 1993 to April 12, 1993 (in the notified area under the TADA Act).
Further, it stated that he was in possession of a 9 mm pistol from September 1992. He said no arms or ammunition were recovered from him or his residence or at his instance.
He said there was no credible evidence against him and the prosecution failed to discharge the burden cast upon it.
The procedure adopted by the trial court was in utter violation of the Criminal Procedure Code and Article 21 of the Constitution (right to life and liberty), he said.
His conviction was entirely based on inadmissible evidence, and as such, the judgment rendered by the trial court was erroneous in law and consequently unsustainable.
The actor said the TADA court judge had acquitted him of any involvement in the conspiracy in the case and convicted him for an offence under the Arms Act. Hence the rigorous conditions for grant of bail would not apply to him.
Mr. Dutt said that during the pendency of the trial he was on bail for over 12 years. During this period, he abided by all the conditions stipulated in the bail order.
Foreign travel:
He had travelled abroad on more than 50 occasions and on every occasion returned and surrendered to the jurisdiction of the trial court, Mr. Dutt said.
He prayed for quashing the impugned judgment and to release him on bail until the disposal of the criminal appeal.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment