Govt to move SC against Dutt's acquittal
NEW DELHI: In a belated move that may even intrigue many, the law ministry now plans to move Supreme Court challenging the acquittal of cinestar
Sanjay Dutt two years ago of TADA charges in the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts case.
Ministry sources said the file has been sent to attorney general G E Vahanvati and solicitor general Gopal Subramaniam with a note that non-filing of appeal against Dutt's acquittal from TADA charges could work to the advantage of other similarly placed accused in the serial blast case.
Dutt was convicted under the Arms Act but was let off on the serious charges under the anti-terror law TADA by the special court in Mumbai on July 31, 2007. Dutt quickly moved the Supreme Court challenging his conviction and has since been on bail, which was granted in August 2007.
The move to challenge acquittal from TADA charges after two years assumes significance as Dutt, who is close to Samajwadi Party leaders Mulayam Singh Yadav and Amar Singh, was virtually given a clean chit by the government's top law officer in 2008 when he advised against filing of such an appeal.
The 2008 opinion of the law officer had said that the evidence gathered by CBI was not enough and adequate to fasten serious charges under TADA on Dutt, whom the trial court had rightly found to have committed an offence under the Arms Act.
With the 2008 opinion coming in the way, the ministry now wants the top law officers to examine the case afresh from the point of view whether non-filing of appeal could come in the way of seeking reversal of similar trial court orders acquitting some other accused of TADA charges.
Dutt was convicted in November 2006 under the Arms Act for the illegal possession of a 9mm pistol and an AK-56 rifle but was acquitted of more serious terrorism charges under the stringent TADA law. On July 31, 2007, TADA special judge P D Kode had sentenced Dutt to six years of rigorous imprisonment under the Arms Act.
It had said the crime committed by Dutt and his friends were not "anti-social, ghastly, inhuman, immoral or pre-planned" and did not cause any harm to the general public.
