New Delhi [India], August 9 (ANI): After a Rouse Avenue Court rejected Christian Michel James’ request for release from custody, Aljo K Joseph, lawyer representing the AgustaWestland scam accused, alleged that the judiciary remains under “serious pressure” in this matter to act contrary to the law.
Questioning the court for not taking cognizance of the law of the land, Joseph labelled the order “strange.” He argued that the courts must consider section 21 of the Extradition Act in the case.
“I am amused by the order that has been passed today. My major submission was that section 21 of the Extradition Act, which is the law of the land, has to be considered even before framing the charge. This order is very strange. I don’t know why the courts are not taking cognizance of the law of the land. There is some serious pressure in this matter over the judiciary to act contrary to the law,” Joseph told ANI.
The Rouse Avenue Court has rejected the request of Christian Michel James for releasing him from custody in the VVIP chopper deal case. He had prayed for his release on the ground that he had undergone the maximum punishment of seven years.
Special judge Sanjay Jindal rejected the prayer on Thursday after considering the submissions of CBI, ED and counsel for James.
“The request of the accused Christian Michel James for his release u/sec 436A CrPC stands declined,” the Special Judge ordered.
The court said that it is clear that the issues raised by the accused Christian Michel James now, including the issue of his release under section 436A CrPC, have already been considered by this court, by the High Court and also by the Hon’ble Apex Court as described above.
“It has been held in categorical terms that the plea of the accused that he is entitled to the benefit under sec. 436A CrPC cannot be accepted as, besides the provisions of section 415 & 420 read with 120B IPC and section 8 of the PC Act, the accused is alleged to have committed an offence under section 467 IPC, which is punishable upto life imprisonment. Considering the allegations under section 467 IPC, which entails life imprisonment, it cannot be said that the accused has already undergone the period of maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offences,” the court observed.
The court pointed out that the question of whether section 467 IPC is made out or not is to be decided at the relevant stage of framing of charges, and it cannot be said at this stage that section 467 cannot be attributed to the present accused.
“The judicial propriety does not allow this court to reconsider the above issues again and again when the Hon’ble Superior Courts have already given observations on the same,” the court said. (ANI)