Thursday, May 23, 2013
Last Updated: 22 May 15:21 PM IST
12 October 2012
Press Trust of India
NEW DELHI, 12 OCT: Delhi chief minister Mrs Sheila Dikshit was today directed by a court here to appear in person before it on 9 November in a defamation case filed by her against city BJP chief Mr Vijender Gupta.
Metropolitan magistrate Mr Navjeet Budhiraja made it clear to the counsel appearing for the Delhi chief minister that he should ensure her presence on the next date of hearing or else the case will be dismissed, saying she has not appeared before the court since recording of her evidence on 30 May.
Mrs Dikshit's counsel, Mr Mehmood Pracha submitted that the complainant was following Delhi High Court's direction that she could take exemption from personal appearance on valid grounds by moving appropriate application.
Brushing aside the submission, the court said, “She (Dikshit) is also like other complainants who have lodged complaints against an accused, so she needs to appear before the court.
The counsel for Mr Gupta, Mr Ajay Verman, Mr Ajay Digpaul and Mr Neeraj Kumar opposed the Delhi chief minister's application for exemption from personal appearance.
Mrs Dikshit had filed the criminal defamation case against Mr Gupta alleging that the BJP leader used “uncivilised” language against her before the 15 April MCD polls.
During today's proceedings, Mr Gupta's counsel also said that on the last date of hearing, they had filed an application for making “corrections” in the court's earlier order of 31 August.
The court had issued notice to Mrs Dikshit and Mr Gupta after the filing of the application. Mr Gupta had appeared before the court today.
On 31 August, the court had also granted bail to Mr Gupta in the defamation case, after he had appeared in person before it in response to the summons issued to him earlier in the case.
The chief minister had also filed a civil suit in Delhi High Court demanding a token damage of Rs one from Mr Gupta for erecting hoardings across the city in which her government was accused of conniving with private discoms and indulging in corruption in fixing power tariff.
Mr Gupta, however, had contended in the High Court that “fair” criticism is part and parcel of a healthy democracy.