Results 1 to 1 of 1
01-31-2013, 02:31 PM #1
- Join Date
- Sep 2011
Salman's hit-and-run case: Cops deny they delayed trial
Mumbai Police filed an affidavit in a court denying the allegation that they had deliberately delayed the trial for four years in the 2002 hit-and-run case involving Bollywood actor Salman Khan in order to favour him.
A magistrate was hearing a complaint filed by activist Santosh Daundkar alleging that the trial was delayed because police had, in connivance with Salman, produced a wrong set of witnesses, as a result of which the proceedings were hampered.
The complainant had alleged this was done to benefit the actor who delivered several hits and made pecuniary gains. The Bandra Metropolitan Magistrate took on record the reply filed by police and deferred the hearing till March 5.
Meanwhile, the exemption granted to the actor from personal appearance would continue, his lawyer Dipesh Mehta said. Police contended they had not given any false information to the court to delay the trial as had been alleged by the complainant.
"We did not cause any delay," said senior police inspector of Bandra police station in the reply. After the court issued summons to doctors (who had examined the injured in this case), police served the summons to the concerned officers in the hospital and they were kept present during the trial, police said in their affidavit.
The trial began in 2006 and till January 25, 2011, 17 witnesses had been examined. These included doctors, injured, eye witnesses and vehicle inspector. However, the investigating officer is yet to depose, police said.
Earlier, Salman had pleaded that he was not at all responsible for delaying the trial and sought dismissal of the complaint. His lawyer argued the Bombay High Court had granted him permanent exemption from appearance on June 10, 2005, and hence the actor had not appeared in the trial.
He had also argued the complaint filed against Salman was not maintainable under Cr Pc and the complainant had no locus standi in the matter.
The actor had further pleaded that the complainant had falsely alleged that the trial was delayed because he had sought exemption from appearance.