Former Delhi Chief Secretary Anshu Prakash challenged the court’s order to remove Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia and nine others related to the suspected attack on him in 2018. All charges against the defendant were dropped in August. The allegations are only against AAP MLAs Amantullah Khan and Prakash Jarwal.
On Monday, a special judge of the Rose Avenue District Court notified Kejriwal and others of Prakash’s request for modification, and included the matter in further proceedings on November 23. In addition to Kejriwal and Sisodia, a total of 11 AAP MLAs were booked in the case related to the attack on Prakash. The case allegedly took place at the Chief Minister’s residence in February 2018, where the then Chief Secretary was summoned.
Participate in conference advertisements related to the release. Observing that “co-conspirators are more willing to secretly execute their illegal designs” rather than creating witnesses for themselves, the additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Sachin Gupta punished the defendant, saying that those present at the meeting were elected representatives, and Not a criminal. Prakash, in the amendment request for the trial, once stated that the court of first instance conducted fishing and circuit investigations on the “accusations in the bill of charges” and reached “wrong inferences and inferences without reviewing the prosecution witnesses.” in conclusion”.
Prakash argued that the court of first instance did not realize that the midnight meeting was very unusual and that there was no guarantee of an emergency. He said that he did not disclose that the 11 priorities will also be there, adding that at the request of Kejriwal and Sisodia, a “pre-planned conspiracy” was planned. “The Ld Trial Court failed to realize that the complainant/revisionist incurred the anger of CM and its political party for failing to obtain or provide the necessary proof for the release of TV commercials.
In addition, the major TV channels did not accept the existing DAVP Rates, higher rates have not been approved,” the amendment request wrote, adding that the meeting was held only to force Prakash to publish advertisements that violated Supreme Court guidelines.
News Source : The Indian Express
