The Bharatiya Abhibhashaka Parishat and former Opposition leader Ramesh Chennithala had approached the trial court seeking permission to intervene in the discharge petition filed by State Minister V. Sivankutty and five others in the case
The Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapruam, will pronounce its order on the petitions seeking intervention in the Assembly ruckus discharge case on September 6.
The Bharatiya Abhibhashaka Parishat and former Opposition leader Ramesh Chennithala had approached the trial court seeking permission to intervene in the discharge petition filed by General Education Minister V. Sivankutty and five others in the case.
Mr. Sivankutty, former Minister K. T. Jaleel and four other LDF leaders stand accused in the Assembly ruckus case for causing damage to public property under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, as they barged on to the dais of the Assembly Speaker on March 13, 2015, to prevent the then Finance Minister K. M. Mani from presenting the annual budget.
The State suffered a loss of ₹2.20 lakh as the legislators damaged the chair of the speaker and electric equipment on the dais. The accused had moved the petitions to discharge them from the case.
As the case came up for hearing on Tuesday, the counsel for Mr. Chennithala submitted that the court may postpone the hearing as a petition seeking to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor in the case was pending before the government.
The counsel further submitted that the court shall not arrive at a decision after hearing the prosecution, which according him, had colluded with the accused in the trial court, the High Court and the Supreme Court for the withdrawal of the petition, which was rejected by the courts.
The counsel for Parishat contended that there was no effective prosecution in the case as the prosecutor had earlier applied his mind and moved an application to withdraw the prosecution against the accused. The unruly incidents that unfolded on the floor of the Assembly did not happen on the spur of the moment but was the outcome of a conspiracy hatched by the accused. However, the provisions of conspiracy were conspicuously missing in the investigation records, the counsel submitted.
‘No locus standi’
Defending his position, the Deputy Director of Prosecution submitted that the petitioners, who were prejudiced against the prosecution, lacked locus standi in the case. No third-party intervention could be permitted during the trial stage of a case. However, such interventions can be permitted only when the court considers the question of withdrawal of prosecution, he submitted.
Source: Read Full Article