National Herald Case: Court Dismisses Swamy’s S-294 Petition

Swamy had sought for the accused to admit or deny that certain documents were originals in the National Herald Case.

Delhi High Court on Saturday, 26 May, disallowed BJP leader Subramanian Swamy’s application under Section 294, where he had sought for the accused to admit or deny whether certain documents were originals in the National Herald Case.

However, it did allow him to to summon those documents as evidence.

The Bar & Bench reports that Swamy believed these documents were the same ones that had been filed by one of the accused before the Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition. In its order, the court has said that Swamy is to now be examined first, in order to ‘lay the foundation of the case’.

The report quotes the Judge’s statement, which said: “It is made clear that there will be no deviation from this procedure so that this trial can be brought to its conclusion expeditiously in an effective manner.”

As per the complaint that Swamy had filed in the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, the Congress had granted an interest-free loan of Rs 90.25 crore to Associated Journals Limited (AJL), which is the owner of the National Herald newspaper, which was founded by Jawaharlal Nehru and other freedom fighters back in 1938.

Swamy had filed the complaint against Rahul Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi, Moti Lal Vora, Oscar Fernandes, Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda and Young Indian under IPS sections pertaining to misappropriation of property, criminal breach of trust, cheating and criminal conspiracy, the report adds.

Responding to Swamy’s application under Section 294, two of the accused, Rahul and Sonia Gandhi in their defence said that it was moved with the sole objective of delaying the trial. They added that it had been drafted in a “haphazard manner” so that it was difficult to gauge which document was being put for admission or denial.

Adding to this The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) Samar Vishal also stated that once the accused had been summoned on the basis of certain evidence, the prosecution has to then proceed with the case on the basis of that evidence, since it is on this on which the prosecution was launched, the report adds.

(With inputs from Bar & Bench)