The advocates’ room at the Sessions Court erupted in debate the moment the news that Sanjay Dutt had been pronounced guilty.
The advocates’ common room at the Sessions Court, Fort, erupted in debate the moment television channels beamed the news that Sanjay Dutt had been pronounced guilty under the Arms Act, but acquitted of criminal conspiracy charges by the TADA court.
Some welcomed the judgment; others questioned the judge’s inherent power to grant Dutt time to surrender. DNA gets some prominent legal voices of the city affirming and questioning the 50:50 verdict by Judge PD Kode.
Senior advocate Nitin Pradhan, who recently withdrew from the case citing personal reasons said, “According to me, justice has been done. Everybody, except the prosecution and the political administration of the state, was convinced that he was not a terrorist. This has proved that Dutt had nothing to do with the blasts and the prosecution was hopelessly wrong.”
“It was apparent that he would be acquitted of criminal conspiracy charges as there was no evidence to prove his involvement. The case mainly rested on his possession of an AK-56,” said criminal lawyer Majeed Memon. “In our system, the law in its magnanimity has not put anybody at an advantage or a disadvantage for being who he is. I don’t think that Sanjay has paid the price of being a celebrity.”
Dutt has been granted time to surrender by the TADA court till December 19 and he can move the Supreme Court to get bail after that. “Sanjay Dutt should count his blessings for not being labelled a terrorist,” said criminal lawyer Mahesh Jethmalani. He added that not only did Dutt stand a good chance of getting bail from the Supreme Court, he might get out of the Arms Act charges as well.
“It is improper to question the judgment at this juncture as the sentence is still not pronounced. Various legal consequences will arise after the sentence is pronounced giving scope for a healthy debate including his acquittal under section 5 of the TADA Act and him being granted permission to surrender,” said criminal lawyer Abad Ponda.
Abu Salem’s advocate Ashok Sarogi felt that judgment had disclosed the exorbitant charges framed by the prosecution. The Sections 3 and 7 of the Arms Act that Dutt has been convicted under, have a minimum sentence of five years’ rigorous imprisonment and a maximum of 10. “Dutt has already served 16 months in prison. So he, as a matter of right, should be granted bail,” said Sarogi.
){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}