Justice Shinde: before you begin tell us what is your contention in one line.
Mundargi: The first leg is that there are two chargesheets and nothing substantial against me.
Mundargi: The second leg of argument is that the prosecution investigation is cooked up.
Even if they have arrested people there is nothing against the applicants.
Justice Shinde: So you are saying there is nothing against you even though there are two chargesheets filed?
Mundargi: Yes so for this reason my petition may be admitted and then directions may be given on the expeditious completion of investigation.
Justice Shinde: We may not agree with this contention. There is no statutory timeline to complete investigation.
SPP Shishir Hiray appearing for the State is asked by the court what happens to investigation if the petition is admitted and how long will the investigation take.
Hiray submits he will need instructions on this point.
Justice Shinde: Yes but there are two chargesheets, and there seems to be no evidence against them. And also is there a statutory requirement that the investigation should be completed before the High Court takes cognizance in Section 482?
Justice Shinde: And this FIR is of October 2020. We are in March 2021. We have seen in matters k “khichdi pak rahi hai”...
Why keep the sword hanging on their head?
Justice Pitale: Their contention is that they are always in the fear that some action may be taken against them and it seems so from the past action against their employees.
Justice Shinde: You are investigating for the last 3 months and you have no evidence against them.
Mundargi: and they are not making me an accused too.
Justice Shinde: yes you are not making them an accused also, why so?
Hiray: milords it is not like we do not have evidence against them. We are collecting.
Justice Pitale: Then why not make them an accused? We do not think there is anything as such as “suspect” in criminal law.
Hiray: Chief PP Thakare is not here. Let him come. In the meantime Mr. Mundargi can continue.
Mundargi commences his submissions.
He reads from a letter from IO in TRP case to BARC which is a notice inder Section 91 and the response of BARC to that.
Mundargi: So they may say that the investigation is from June 2020. They had information, but the details to the scam were received only in December 2020.
Justice Pitale: But there is this letter from the police..
Mundargi: Maybe so.. and they may have information against anyone but then their target is going to be this channel only.
Mundargi: There is an interview .. let me read that out.. not the entire thing..
Mundargi (reads): There is also manipulation in certain entertainment channels also. That portion is being investigated. ... So on October 6 we started investigating..
Justice Pitale: Can we go to the portion of the Commissioner...
The analytical report which BARC has submitted of July.
Jt. CP says he has no information, but then...
Justice Pitale: So you are saying that the report was not submitted to the IO? Even if that report does not give information about Republic that is another realm of argument.
Hiray: The report is the internal forensic report and what the judges are referring to is an analytical report of BARC. The Commissioner had information about the report on October 7
Justice Pitale: The documents that are shown to us and the submissions that are being made, we do not see the correlation with the worth of the scam. Is there any document which mentions the worth, how many crores of rupees was involved, etc..?
Mundargi begins reading the BARc internal report. (In Marathi)
The report gives details on how the investigation commenced when they found discrepancies in the “viewership ratings”.
Mundargi reads from the official statement of Abhijit Mehendale (in Marathi): that officers of the vigilance department of BARC had approached the people in whose homes they had installed barometers.
Mundargi: if we go by evidence, there need not be quantitative evidence, this particular channel is not mentioned. The statement of one Tejal Solanki mentions another channel.
Mundargi reads statement of one of the accused Bompalli Mistry who was arrested with Bhandari (Hansa informant): I got commission for telling people to watch particular channels for some hours.
Mundargi: And they recovered cash amount from his locker but these are inadmissible evidence because it is the accused’s statement.
But then there are three channels named in the statement of October 8 including the name of Republic.
Mundargi: Will get details. There has been months of investigation. But in spite of so much there is nothing against us.
Mundargi: We are still suspects. If there is material against us then let that material be shown. After 4 months they cannot say they will not show material and keep the sword hanging.
Mundargi: They cannot keep investigating forever. If they have some material against us, they have to show us, they cannot keep playing hot and cold.
Justice Shinde: if you are not able to quickly answer our queries ... At appropriate stage we will have questions. Will you be answering them? We don't know who is briefing you or from whom you are taking instructions. Sr Adv Sibal had said and we were to hear the case finally.
Justice Shinde: We have tremendous work. 100s of matter are there. Our time with view of the litigants is precious. 300 minutes are available. So therefore pls take instructions properly.
Justice Shinde: We have certain things in mind that we do not want to disclose right now. But we are awaiting instructions and our decision depends on that.
Justice Shinde: Tomorrow when you (Hiray) come please come with instructions.
Justice Shinde (To Mundargi): There are judgments from the SC which states that the powers of High Court are inherent to exercise powers under Section 482 of CrPC.
Mundargi: Earlier when applications for bail were made reasons were not required for grant of bail. Now a days applications are dismissed for want of reasons.. times have changed..
Justice Shinde: We have kept the matter tomorrow. Whoever is appearing for the State, we want to know...
Hearing ends. Will continue tomorrow at 11 am.
TRP Scam: "You have no evidence against Republic TV after 3 months:" Bombay High Court to Mumbai Police
#SupremeCourt bench states that it was of the opinion that a committee be formed to frame guidelines on ascertaining economic value of trees to be felled. However CJI says it might not be able to pursue the committee report on time (CJI Bobde to retire in end of April)
CJI SA Bobde: We will lay down guidelines which needs to be taken into account for ascertaining the economic value of trees.
CJI: we had said Ranjeet Singh is a senior member in this field and be in the committee
SG: He is not well
CJI: he had appeared before us. He seems quite well
CJI SA Bobde led bench to hear transfer petitions filed by Serum Institute of India and Bharat Biotech seeking to transfer the pending cases from Delhi HC and other courts to #SupremeCourt
Senior Adv Mukul Rohatgi appears for @BharatBiotech : Delhi HC heard a suo motu writ petiton. We want a stay on the order. Lawyers were interested in the issue and they joined proceedings
CJI: show me the Delhi HC order
Rohatgi: Both of us including @SerumInstIndia appeared
We were asked capacity to manufacture #COVID19vaccines , capacity to transport etc. Even centre was asked to reply on the similar issues. Why 45 years to 60 years was the rationale for vaccines and we were asked for it
Justice SS Shinde led bench of #BombayHighCourt will continue hearing the plea filed by @republic TV challenging the proceedings initiated by the @MumbaiPolice in the #TRPScam case today.
In previous hearing the Court demanded why @republic and #ArnabGoswami were not named as accused in the matter. The State will respond to this today.
CJI SA Bobde led bench to hear a plea by Central government (Narcotics Control Bureau) against Bombay High Court decision granting Regular Bail to @Tweet2Rhea (Rhea Chakraborty) in the NDPS case. #SushantSinghRajput #RheaChakraborty
Solicitor-General: We know you will not interfere in the grant of bail. But my worry is Bombay HC has made wide ranging interpretation if NDPS Act which will make the Act meaningless
CJI: We interfere in bail. But you can come here only if you challenge the bail order and not finding of the High Court in a bail order