1984 anti-Sikh riots case: Delhi court reserves order on pleas for transfer of case
A Delhi court on Wednesday reserved its order on pleas of the three accused who, along with Congress leader Sajjan Kumar, are facing trial in a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case, seeking transfer of case on the ground of jurisdiction.chandigarh Updated: Jan 14, 2015 20:55 IST
A Delhi court on Wednesday reserved its order on pleas of the three accused who, along with Congress leader Sajjan Kumar, are facing trial in a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case, seeking transfer of case on the ground of jurisdiction.
District Judge Talwant Singh, after hearing arguments of counsels for the CBI and accused, fixed the matter for January 31 for pronouncing order on the applications.
Sajjan Kumar, Brahmanand Gupta, Peeriya and Ved Prakash are facing trial on charges of murder and rioting in connection with the case of killing of Surjit Singh in Sultanpuri area of West Delhi.
During the hearing, counsel for accused Ved Prakash argued that the court should implement the Delhi high court’s 2013 order asking sessions judges to transfer the cases as per their jurisdiction.
He said the case related to the alleged incident in Sultanpuri where Ved Prakash was a resident and in terms of jurisdiction, the case should be transferred to the Rohini district courts.
Apart from Ved Prakash, Gupta and Peeriya have also filed similar pleas before the judge, who recently took over charge, seeking transfer of the case from Karkardooma district court
in East Delhi to Rohini district court on grounds of jurisdiction.
CBI prosecutor DP Singh, however, opposed the plea saying that as per the provisions of the CrPC, the district judge does not have the power to transfer a case from his division to another and this power lies only with the high court.
He sought dismissal of the pleas contending that when the high court’s 2013 order was passed, this case was already pending but the accused did not raise this issue at that time.
“They did not urge anything before the high court when they had challenged framing of charges against them in the case,” he argued.