It’s a question of propriety. If a judge has dealt with a criminal case in his career, he is unlikely to deal with it in a different capacity — it’s considered to be an issue of ethics in judicial circles. This golden rule has been allegedly ignored by the principal law secretary of Delhi government G P Mittal who is a serving judicial officer. Mittal is at the centre of a controversy because he advised the prosecution not to appeal against an acquittal order in a dowry death case in which he had granted anticipatory bail to the accused three years ago while presiding over a sessions court.
Incidentally, the principal law secretary to Delhi government is always a senior sessions judge level officer who serves on this post while on deputation from the judiciary. The allegation against Mittal is being examined at the highest quarters of the government with the home secretary assessing the question of propriety raised in this case.
Subhash Arora, the complainant who approached the government, had lost his daughter, Kajal, about three-and-ahalf years ago. She was found hanging from the ceiling fan of her matrimonial home on January 31, 2005. While the husband and in-laws said it was suicide, Arora lodged an FIR of dowry harassment and cruelty against his daughter’s in-laws, alleging she was murdered.
In a detailed order on February 22 the same year, additional sessions judge G P Mittal granted anticipatory bail to Kajal’s brothers-in-law, Amit Chaudhary and Parichay Chaudhary, and a few days later to the parents-in-law, namely Bharat Bhushan and Nirmala Chaudhary. While giving them this protection, the ASJ noted that the in-lwas were staying separately from Kajal and her husband who were in United States for a period of three years before returning to India.
Arora got a further setback when in May this year a Rohini sessions judge acquitted all the accused, observing that there was no evidence that Kajal was subjected to any cruelty. Quoting from verdicts of Supreme Court and Delhi High Court, the trial court assessed that the victim might have been ‘‘hypersensitive to ordinary petulance and discord’’ and then concluded this was not enough to prove Kajal’s husband and in-laws pushed her to hang herself.
Whatever be the merits of the case, Arora planned to appeal in the HC but was shocked to know even though the director of prosecution wanted to go in for an appeal, the principal law secretary refused to grant sanction. A reply from Mittal’s office dated June 20, 2008, to Arora’s enquiries informed him ‘‘the matter has been examined in this department and found not fit for filing appeal...’’
This forced Arora to write to both the L-G and the CM, pointing out since Mittal had dealt with this case earlier, he should not have given a legal opinion on it now. ‘‘It is humbly prayed that Sh G P Mittal be recused from making another opinion in this matter in the interest of justice,’’ says Arora’s letter.
Attempts to reach Mittal for his comments proved futile. His deputy secretary, Chaman Lal, when asked about the allegations refused to comment.
With thanks from The Times of India 29 July 2008 P. 4 Delhi
©All rights reserved with the Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd
For any query:- legalpoint@aol.in
No comments:
Post a Comment