First speaks SIT lawyer, then Teesta and her lawyer Munshi and then JSM lawyer. Teesta is openly lying that this is her victory. The order presented below makes it clear that her plea is rejected at this stage.

Ahmedabad, 15 February 2012

The Ahmedabad Metropolitan court today dismissed separate petitions of Teesta Setalvad, Mukul Sinha, Jakia Jafri and one more applicant seeking copy of the SIT report.

The court in its order on Jakia Jafri’s petition said:

Operative part of today’s order in Jakia Jafri case

SIT has submitted a report in this case and has demanded(time) to submit the related material, in such circumstances it is not proper to pass an order asking SIT to submit the (particular this and that) documents until the detail comes to record that which documents/statements/material SIT would present, and once such documents/statements/material is submitted, whether the applicant deserves to get documents as per the criminal procedure code section 91. Such thing can be decided on merit. According to Supreme Court’s order applicant/complainant has to be given the copies, in such circumstances at this stage there’s no reason to accept applicant/complainant’s application as per criminal procedure code section 91, in such circumstances following order is passed.

Order

Applicant/complainant’s application is not accepted.

What Supreme Court had said?

“We direct the Chairman, SIT to forward a final report, along with the entire material collected by the SIT, to the Court which had taken cognizance of Crime Report No.67 of 2002, as required under Section 173(2) of the Code.”

“Before submission of its report, it will be open to the SIT to obtain from the Amicus Curiae copies of his reports submitted to this Court.”

“The said Court will deal with the matter in accordance with law relating to the trial of the accused, named in the report/charge-sheet, including matters falling within the 1 (2007) 1 SCC 110 ambit and scope of Section 173(8) of the Code.”

“However, at this juncture, we deem it necessary to emphasise that if for any stated reason the SIT opines in its report, to be submitted in terms of this order, that there is no sufficient evidence or reasonable grounds for proceeding against any person named in the complaint, dated 8th June 2006, before taking a final decision on such `closure’ report, the Court shall issue notice to the complainant and make available to her copies of the statements of the witnesses, other related documents and the investigation report strictly in accordance with law as enunciated by this Court in Bhagwant Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police & Anr.2.”

“For the sake of ready reference, we may note that in the said decision, it has been held that in a case where the Magistrate to whom a report is forwarded under Section 173(2)(i) of the Code, decides not to take cognizance of the offence and to drop the proceedings or takes a view that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against some of the persons mentioned in the FIR, the Magistrate must give notice to the informant and provide him an opportunity to be heard at the time of consideration of the report.”

Lawyers say:

Special Public Prosecutor for SIT said, “All petitions seeking copy and inspection of SIT report have been rejected. Now fresh petitions have been made by the persons like Jakia and others saying that now since the court has opened the report, they may be allowed inspection of the report. This has been opposed by SIT because it believes it is against SC direction.Hearing on this the matter has been on 29th. Zakia has no right to see the report at this stage.”

“Within a month SIT has to produce all material and documents before the court. Contents shall be opened by the magistrate and then he will take a decision. SIT has to submit all materials and documents to the court by 15th of March. Only court can supply the documents to Jakia.”

Photo of operative part of today’s order

Related posts: “Only court can give a clean chit and not SIT” (Video)

Court reserves order on sharing SIT report till 15th(Video)