Republic TV And Arnab Goswami's Plea Against Mumbai Police's FIR In TRP Scam: Live Updates From Bombay High Court

J Shinde - We are very happy with the determination of Mr Mundargi. He is one of the counsels who will keep the atmosphere lively in the court.

Hearing ends

Mundargi- If there is vicarious liability then Pet 1 (channel), if not then Pet 2 (Arnab). But in criminal law, there is no vicarious liability.

Justice Shinde said the court will continue tomorrow 11am-1pm on the challenge to the Charge sheet

Mundargi - There is no vicarious liability. My petition becomes even stronger if the individual is divorced from the company...

J Shinde- He is saying that if the company goes, where is the scam 

J Pitale - Usually channels are bunched together

Mundargi- Now their allegations is I want to be first in that bunch

Sr Adv Mundargi now begins referring to the MumbaiPolice's reply to the petition

Mundargi - They say there is no material to indicate culpability of your channel...the role of the channel is not disclosed by anyone 

Hirey - Partho Dasgupta (CEO) had resigned so BARC only got this forensic analysis done.

Mundargi - In November 2020 BARC said there is nothing.

The report is tendered

J Pitale says that this is a forensic analysis of the BARC report. Not the report itself.

Mundargi - This forensic analysis report which names Republic is not part of the first charge sheet

J Pitale - Where is the analytical report by BARC where Republic TV is suspect as per the CP Mumbai Police's interview

Special PP Shishir Hirey says there is a report and he will deal with it. It is a part of the charge sheet. 

Mundargi now refers to a communication from BARC's Sunil Lulla to Arnab Goswami where BARC says - "There is no disciplinary proceedings initiated against Republic TV or Republic Bharat from 2017 under Code..

Mundargi now refers to a press report of another channel saying "another channel is involved, not them"