Gujarat Riots- Zakia Jafri's Plea Against Clean Chit To Narendra Modi- LIVE UPDATES

Bench: Should we look at the finding (w.r.t Tehelka). Once we are looking, we are looking on merit.

Rohatgi: A word from your lordship would have bearing on the appeal, the trial is already complete.

Rohatgi: I would want to read Tehelka here. It was not a part of complaint, it surfaced during investigation. SIT looked at it, examined 13 people affected by sting, including Bajrangi, Anil Shankar bhai, Haresh Bhat etc.

Rohatgi: See pg 3. The order lifting stay is not on record, I have provided it. The efforts of SIT were appreciated by SC. 

Rohatgi: Kindly take up final note part 2. There is a thicker volume, first take the thinner one.

Rohatgi: See No. 2.The Trial court in 8 cases given to SIT did not find any material in the allegation of Zakia, including that of larger conspiracy. Only in one, trial is pending

Rohatgi: I am done with this compilation. I am now giving one more note, part 2 and a compilation. And that is all.

Bench: Given to other side?

Rohatgi: Yes. I have sent to Mr. Sibal’s office at 1.

Rohatgi: Then, order in two petitions filed by Sanjeev Bhat w.r.t. criminal cases filed against him for transfer to CBI. This was dismissed by making serious observations against this officer. This judgement talks about SIT and the Commission. He is one of the star witnesses

Bench: This was before the SC asked to look into the complaint? Chart C prepared when?

Rohatgi: Look into the complaint is 2009. Mandate in 2009.

Bench: Chart C presented before SC?

Rohatgi: Yes.

Rohatgi: There is overlap.

Bench: Allegation wise investigation started, amicus directed further investigation, then investigation was done w.r.t. remaining allegations and the further investigation pointed out by amicus.

Bench: We find from this report there are three charts from Amicus. Each carrying comments of amicus, they are w.r.t. diff allegations. There is overlap.

Mr. Rohatgi reads out that the amicus agrees to all findings of the SIT expect one w.r.t. A1 (then CM). For A1 amicus said maybe the speech of A1 would invite 153A, but that is for the court to look into.