Justice Akil Kureshi, hearing the CBI's petition in the high court, issued notices to Amin and the state government who are respondents in the case and scheduled the hearing on September 9.
The CBI today filed a petition in the Gujarat high court to quash the order of a lower court on an application questioning the constitutional validity of NK Amin turning approver in the Sohrabuddin Shaikh fake encounter case.
Justice Akil Kureshi, hearing the CBI's petition in the high court, issued notices to Amin and the state government who are respondents in the case and scheduled the hearing on September 9.
A CBI magisterial court had on August 26 referred Amin's plea to become turn approver in the case to the high court to assess the constitutional validity of the application.
However, the CBI, in its petition, claimed that the Supreme Court has approved the validity of CrPC section 306, hence the reference to high court by the magistrate was not valid.
Also, even if the magistrate has to refer the matter to the high court, it has to state the ground on which the constitutional validity has to be assessed, which has not been stated in the magistrate's order, it further said.
The CBI had also sought direction from the high court for the magistrate to expedite decision on Amin's plea raising concerns about his security in jail.
The CBI counsel YN Ravani also appraised the court on the issue of security concerns raised by Amin inside Sabarmati Central Jail, where he is lodged with other accused in the case.
Last week, additional chief judicial magistrate AY Dave had referred Amin's plea to become an approver to the high court after the eight accused including DG Vanzara, who are opposing Amin's plea, raised questions about the constitutional validity of Amin's plea under section 306 of CrPC seeking pardon.
The court said that it did not have powers to decide on the constitutional validity of Amin's application and referred the matter to the high court.
SB Vakil, representing the eight accused, cited a number of the Supreme Court orders in order to substantiate his contention that Amin's plea was constitutionally not valid.
He also argued that the magisterial court did not have any jurisdiction to record the statement of Amin under section 164 of the CrPC, which is first step towards deciding on a person becoming approver.
Amin had last month filed an application in the court to become approver and had also asked the court to grant him pardon in the case.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}