|
Delhi's Rouse Avenue court on Monday pulled up the counsels for repeating the arguments on charges in the alleged sexual harassment case against BJP MP Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh. The matter pertains to complaints filed by six women wrestlers alleging sexual harassment.
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) Harjeet Singh Jaspal asked the counsels for all parties to file written submissions. The matter was listed in the fourth week of November. On a lighter side, the judge referred to an old English saying, "When not able to clarify, just confuse." "You are confusing me, Mr Counsel," he pointed out towards the defence counsel. ACMM Jaspal said in the order that after hearing the arguments for a while, this court encourages the three counsels to file a written compilation of the arguments, so that the arguments can be concluded in a systematic manner. The court said, "At the request of counsels two weeks' time is granted. Let the matter be listed on November 22, 23, and 24." The court noted that it is argued by the defence counsel, Rajiv Mohan, that this court has no jurisdiction to try any offence allegedly committed outside India as the sanction under Section 188 Cr.PC has not been obtained. It is also argued that no sanction is required when the offence is partly committed in India and partly outside India, the court noted. The court also noted the defence counsel's arguments that the alleged offences, as per their prosecution, have happened in Tokyo, Mongolia, Bulgaria, Jakarta, Kazakhstan, Turkey etc. and cannot be tried by this court. The court asked the question of whether sexual harassment can be called a continuing offence. Multiple offences separated by date, time and place can be covered. The court also noted the submissions made by the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) that the act of sexual harassment was a continuing offence as it didn't stop at any particular time.As per APP, the accused molested the victim whenever he got the opportunity and such harassment can not be looked at as isolated, the court noted. During the hearing, defence counsel submitted that one of the complainants alleged that the accused made sexual advances in 2022. He further submitted that the 2022 incident is from Bulgaria and the WFI office. The incident at the WFI office was not mentioned before the oversight committee. He also referred to the 1993 SC judgement, which said that the offences committed here can be tried in India. (ANI)
|
