Ahmedabad : Congress to stay two-year sentence from lower court in defamation case on ‘Modi surname’ Congress leader Rahul Gandhi has approached the Gujarat High Court on Saturday. Hearing on Rahul Gandhi’s revision application started in the Gujarat High Court on Saturday, in which his lawyer presented six basic grounds to stay the sentence. After getting a sentence of two years from the lower court, the membership of the Parliament was canceled, disqualifying him. The next hearing of this matter will be on May 2.

Singhvi Raised questions on Surat Court’s sentence

Hearing in the Gujarat High Court, in the court of Justice Hemant Prachhak, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi presented his arguments. During this, keeping Rahul Gandhi’s side in the court, Abhishek Manu Singhvi demanded a stay on the sentence. Singhvi said that when Navjot Singh can stop Sidhu on punishment, then why not Rahul Gandhi? During the nearly one and a half hour long arguments, Singhvi raised questions on the sentence given by the Surat court. Singhvi also presented references of several cases. The petitioner Purnesh Modi is expected to present arguments in this matter during the hearing of the appeal in the High Court.

Purnesh Modi did not produce evidence before the Magistrate

According to media reports, Purnesh Modi’s lawyers Harshit Towala and Nirupam Nanavati were present in the court chamber during the hearing in the Gujarat High Court on Saturday. During the hearing in the High Court, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi said that no evidence was presented before the prima facie magistrate when Rahul Gandhi was summoned for the first time. Purnesh Modi was also not present in the meeting, he said that someone sent me the clip on WhatsApp, but did not tell who sent the clip. Singhvi said that the decision of the Surat court is perverted. We are seeking a stay of the conviction.

Who witnessed the speech?

Also senior advocate Abhishek Manu Keeping his arguments before the court, Singhvi said that there would be three possibilities in the matter of speech. I heard the speech myself and I was present there, so I am filing a complaint. Second, a reporter may attend and file a story, then he may testify, or finally another person who may have attended the event and may attest to that speech. He said that none of the witnesses present in this case belonged to the above three categories.

Delayed production of electronic evidence

Singhvi thereafter heard the case in the trial court, production of evidence and Questioned the attitude. Singhvi also said about the Modi community that 17 has claimed crores, whereas it is not so. Singhvi also questioned the authenticity of the electronic evidence that was presented late. Singhvi also argued about the jurisdiction and geographical presence of complainant Purnesh Modi, in which he said that Rahul Gandhi’s statement made in Kolar, Karnataka, did not refer to any identifiable class of people. He said that the three people (Nirav Modi, Mehul Choksi and Vijay Mallya) who were named in the speech, none of the people named in the statement are included in the complainant.

19910078161991007816Sessions Court granted Rahul’s application Was dismissed

The decision of the Surat Court was challenged by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi in the first Sessions Court, but the Sessions Court of Surat upheld the decision of the CJM Court. Rahul Gandhi’s application was rejected keeping it intact. The Congress leader has now filed an appeal in the Gujarat High Court against the two-year sentence awarded in the Modi surname case. The Congress leader’s appeal had earlier gone for hearing in the court of Justice Geeta Gopi, but Justice Geeta Gopi recused herself from the hearing by saying not before me. After this, a second single bench was fixed for hearing on this Rahul Gandhi’s appeal. After this the matter was listed in the court of Justice Hemant M Prachak.