E-Paper
Court rejects plea to play CD in Savarkar-Gandhi case
The complainant’s lawyer Sangram Kolhatkar urged the court to allow both CDs to be played for verification. However, the request was turned down, prompting him to seek additional time to complete the cross-examination and submission of evidence.
Pune: The MP-MLA Court on Thursday rejected an application filed by complainant Satyaki Savarkar seeking permission to play a compact disc (CD) that he claimed contained a defamatory video of a speech delivered by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi. The order was passed in open court by Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Amol Shriram Shinde and uploaded online on Friday.
The case, being heard in the special court designated for cases involving elected representatives, stems from remarks Gandhi allegedly made about freedom fighter Vinayak Damodar Savarkar during a March 2023 speech in London. As part of his evidence, complainant Satyaki submitted two CDs said to contain the contentious speech.
During cross-examination, efforts to play one of two CDs failed due to a technical issue. The complainant’s lawyer Sangram Kolhatkar urged the court to allow both CDs to be played for verification. However, the request was turned down, prompting him to seek additional time to complete the cross-examination and submission of evidence.
In response to discovering the blank CD, Kolhatkar moved an application requesting the court to directly view the speech available on YouTube. Advocate Milind Dattatray Pawar, representing Gandhi, strongly objected, arguing that such online content is not automatically admissible.
Pawar opposed the plea under Section 309 CrPC, arguing that the complainant had already been granted three extensions and was attempting to prolong the proceedings. He requested that no further adjournments be allowed and that the evidence stage be concluded expeditiously.
The matter escalated further on Thursday when Savarkar filed another application before magistrate Shinde, seeking permission to play a CD that he claimed contained the defamatory video. He submitted that earlier CDs had failed to play due to unknown reasons and asserted that the new CD was accompanied by the mandatory Section 65-B certification under the Indian Evidence Act.
The defence opposed the move, pointing out that one earlier CD submitted by the complainant was found to be empty, and alleged that Savarkar was attempting to fill gaps in his evidence by introducing fresh electronic material at a late stage. Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Arjun Panditrao Kotkar vs Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, the defence maintained that the court had no power to revisit or review its previous orders on electronic evidence.
After hearing both sides, the court observed that although a CD was shown as received by the defence, no CD was actually found on the court record for consideration. Concluding that the question of playing the CD did not arise, magistrate Shinde rejected the application.
