Thursday, March 24, 2005
Summons to Doc: Questions raised in Court
--Chargesheet Copies: March 31st might be D-day
http://www.dinamalar.com/2005march25/fpnews2.asp
"Chargesheet Copies in the Sankarraman Murder Case on the 31st?"
Kanchipuram: The Magistrate has ordered the accused in the Sankarraman murder case to be present in court on 31st without fail. It appears on that day, chargesheet copies will be distributed.
[25 people have been arrested in the case. Ravi Subramaniam turned approver. 5 people are out on bail.]
Yesterday, both Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal, Vijayendra Saraswati Swamigal appeared in court. At 10:05 am, Jayendrar [Swamigal] came in a van belonging to the Mutt. Vijayendra [Swamigal] came at 10:15 am in another van. Vijayendra Saraswati Swamigal's van came and stopped near Jayendrar [Swamigal]'s van. Vijayendra Swamigal got out and went into Jayendrar's van. The two talked alone in the van. At 10:40, they went into court. With them, Pazhani and Senthil also appeared. Attorneys Dinakaran and Shanmugam appeared on behalf of Jayendra [Swamigal] and Vijayendra [Swamigal]. Details of court proceeding follow.
Dinakaran: We request that chargesheet copies be given on any day except the 8th [April, presumably].
(Prosecutor) Thyagarajan: The people out on bail in the Sankarraman murder case are present in court. [Other newsreports said Arumugam did not show]. The other arrested persons are imprisoned in Cuddalore and Chennai jails. The chargesheet was filed back in January. [The court] should announce the date copies are going to be given to the accused. If the date is announced in advance, it will be more convenient for bringing the accused to court.
Magistrate: All should be present in court on the 31st [March] without fail.
Dinakaran: I am filing a petition on behalf of Jayendrar. Investigating Officer Shaktivel is continuing the investigation in the Sankarraman murder case. He has sent summons to Dr. Bhaskar for interrogation this past 12th [March]. It should be disclosed are the police are still investigating this case? After filing the chargesheet, if the investigation continues, it should be disclosed will an additional chargesheet will be filed?
Thyagarajan: This petition is unnecessary. In the Sankarraman murder case, the investigation has been completed and the chargesheet has been filed this prior January and the chargesheet copies are also ready. The Magistrate has also announced the date to distribute them.
Magistrate: The chargesheet copies are not ready yet.
Thyagarajan: This petition is being filed without any basis.
Dinakaran: I have attached the copy of the summons sent to Dr. Bhaskar by the investigating officer.
Thyagarajan: Sankarraman murder case investigation is over. The chargesheet has already been filed. No further investigation is taking place. The petition of the petitioner* has already been dismissed**. This is unnecessary.
Magistrate: They have given a petition. If you want, you can file a reply petition.
Like this the arguments continued.
After an hour, Prosecutor Thyagarajan told the Magistrate that the police did not send the summons to Dr Bhaskar in the Sankarraman murder case. The summons was sent in connection with the approver Ravi Subramaniam threat case filed in the SivaKanchi police station.***
Hearing that, Magistrate Uttamaraaj said the hearing could not proceed on the petition in the absence of the petitioner. Hence [he told the Prosecutor], you file a reply petition. We will take up the matter of the petition on the 31st.
Following this, the counter petition was filed by the Prosecution side.
* * *
* [probably refers to Dr. Bhaskar's petition in High Court to cancel summons issued to him by SIT]
** [This is not true. The summons was withdrawn after the prosecutor meekly informed the judge they were dropping further action against Dr. Bhaskar.]
*** [A dubious attempt by the Prosecution to dig themselves out of a hole they made for themselves! IF the summons was indeed in connection with the threat case, why wasn't it issued by the SivaKanchi police inspector (Mohanavelu, I believe) who registered it?
Besides, the Prosecution has already informed the courts that it is not going to proceed against the attorneys who are named in that complaint. If they cannot proceed against those named in the complaint, how does it make sense to summon a completely unconnected person in that case? (Of course, we're long past anything PK and Shakytale's SIT does making any sense).
The Prosecution's lame explanation conjured up an hour into the hearings smells of cover-up all over.]
|
http://www.dinamalar.com/2005march25/fpnews2.asp
"Chargesheet Copies in the Sankarraman Murder Case on the 31st?"
Kanchipuram: The Magistrate has ordered the accused in the Sankarraman murder case to be present in court on 31st without fail. It appears on that day, chargesheet copies will be distributed.
[25 people have been arrested in the case. Ravi Subramaniam turned approver. 5 people are out on bail.]
Yesterday, both Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal, Vijayendra Saraswati Swamigal appeared in court. At 10:05 am, Jayendrar [Swamigal] came in a van belonging to the Mutt. Vijayendra [Swamigal] came at 10:15 am in another van. Vijayendra Saraswati Swamigal's van came and stopped near Jayendrar [Swamigal]'s van. Vijayendra Swamigal got out and went into Jayendrar's van. The two talked alone in the van. At 10:40, they went into court. With them, Pazhani and Senthil also appeared. Attorneys Dinakaran and Shanmugam appeared on behalf of Jayendra [Swamigal] and Vijayendra [Swamigal]. Details of court proceeding follow.
Dinakaran: We request that chargesheet copies be given on any day except the 8th [April, presumably].
(Prosecutor) Thyagarajan: The people out on bail in the Sankarraman murder case are present in court. [Other newsreports said Arumugam did not show]. The other arrested persons are imprisoned in Cuddalore and Chennai jails. The chargesheet was filed back in January. [The court] should announce the date copies are going to be given to the accused. If the date is announced in advance, it will be more convenient for bringing the accused to court.
Magistrate: All should be present in court on the 31st [March] without fail.
Dinakaran: I am filing a petition on behalf of Jayendrar. Investigating Officer Shaktivel is continuing the investigation in the Sankarraman murder case. He has sent summons to Dr. Bhaskar for interrogation this past 12th [March]. It should be disclosed are the police are still investigating this case? After filing the chargesheet, if the investigation continues, it should be disclosed will an additional chargesheet will be filed?
Thyagarajan: This petition is unnecessary. In the Sankarraman murder case, the investigation has been completed and the chargesheet has been filed this prior January and the chargesheet copies are also ready. The Magistrate has also announced the date to distribute them.
Magistrate: The chargesheet copies are not ready yet.
Thyagarajan: This petition is being filed without any basis.
Dinakaran: I have attached the copy of the summons sent to Dr. Bhaskar by the investigating officer.
Thyagarajan: Sankarraman murder case investigation is over. The chargesheet has already been filed. No further investigation is taking place. The petition of the petitioner* has already been dismissed**. This is unnecessary.
Magistrate: They have given a petition. If you want, you can file a reply petition.
Like this the arguments continued.
After an hour, Prosecutor Thyagarajan told the Magistrate that the police did not send the summons to Dr Bhaskar in the Sankarraman murder case. The summons was sent in connection with the approver Ravi Subramaniam threat case filed in the SivaKanchi police station.***
Hearing that, Magistrate Uttamaraaj said the hearing could not proceed on the petition in the absence of the petitioner. Hence [he told the Prosecutor], you file a reply petition. We will take up the matter of the petition on the 31st.
Following this, the counter petition was filed by the Prosecution side.
* * *
* [probably refers to Dr. Bhaskar's petition in High Court to cancel summons issued to him by SIT]
** [This is not true. The summons was withdrawn after the prosecutor meekly informed the judge they were dropping further action against Dr. Bhaskar.]
*** [A dubious attempt by the Prosecution to dig themselves out of a hole they made for themselves! IF the summons was indeed in connection with the threat case, why wasn't it issued by the SivaKanchi police inspector (Mohanavelu, I believe) who registered it?
Besides, the Prosecution has already informed the courts that it is not going to proceed against the attorneys who are named in that complaint. If they cannot proceed against those named in the complaint, how does it make sense to summon a completely unconnected person in that case? (Of course, we're long past anything PK and Shakytale's SIT does making any sense).
The Prosecution's lame explanation conjured up an hour into the hearings smells of cover-up all over.]
