New Delhi, Apr 1: The Delhi Court on Thursday, Apr 1 reserved its order on the plea for transfer of 1984 anti-Sikh riots cases from a special court to a judge having local jurisdiction, made by Khushal Singh, co-accused of Congress leader Sajjan Kumar.
The District and sessions judge GP Mittal reserved his order on the plea after hearing the arguments of laywers for CBI and Khushal Singh.
VK Malik, counsel for Khushal argued that holding trial of an accused before a court, which is without any jurisdiction in the matter was illegal.
Stating that Delhi has been divided into nine judicial districts, Malik said that the case relating to the anti-Sikh riots should be tried only at the courts which have the jurisdiction to do so.
Malik argued that the cases should be tried at Rohini and Dwarka courts since the cases were chargesheeted by the CBI were in connection with the crime committed in Sultanpuri and Delhi Cantonment area.
Meanwhile, DP Singh, counsel for CBI said that special CBI judge at Karkardooma has already disposed of the application of the accused, adding that the sending of the file was strictly for administrative purposes for proper allocation of the cases.
The Distric jugde lashed out at the CBI, which said that the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) has sent the files concerning the two cases to the special judge at Karkardooma.
"Who gave power to the ACMM. Does the ACMM has the power to send a file to a special court," the district judge said.
Senior advocate HS Phoolka, representing the complainant said that accused the jurisdiction of the Karkardooma court has been accepted as he has filed an anticipatory bail petition before the court.
In response to Phoolka's sumission, Kushal's counsel said that the Phoolka has not right to speak matter.
Phoolka countered his statement saying that he has every right matter as it concerns public sentiments and is related to larger interest of the community.
Kushal' plea for transfer of cases was rejected by a special CBI court at Karkardooma on Mar 27.
The accused who had questioned ist jurisdiction, however, sent the case files to the district judge seeking proper allocation for hearing.