Best Bakery case: 1 year SI for Zaheera for falsehood

New Delhi, Mar 8: The Supreme Court today sentenced Zaheera Sheikh, key witness in the Best Bakery case, to one year's simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 50000 for making a false statement before the apex court on oath through an affidavit.

The verdict was a loud and clear signal to the witnesses in a criminal case that they can no longer get away by derailing a trial through falsehood.

A bench comprising Mr. Arijit Pasayat and Mr. Justice H.K. Sema directed Zaheera to pay the fine within two months failing which she will have to undergo further simple imprisonment for one year. All her assets including bank deposits shall remain attached for three months.

The court also directed the Income Tax authorities to initiate proceedings requiring her to explain the sources of acquisitions of various assets and expenses met by her during the period from Jan.1.2002 till today. Directing the Chief Income Tax commissioner , Vadodara to initiate the proceedings immediately, the apex court also made it clear that it will be open to the tax authorities to direct continuation of attachment in accordance with law, if so advised.

''The Income Tax authorities shall also require BJP MLA Madhu Srivastava and (and his brother) Bhatu Srivastava to explain as to why claim as made in VCD of paying money shall not be further enquired into and if anything tangible material comes to surface, appropriate action under the Income Tax Law shall be taken notwithstanding the findings recorded by the inquiry officer that there is no acceptable material to show that they had paid the money,'' the court ordered.

In the case of a defective investigation the court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence. But it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect, to do so would amount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is designedly defective." the court said.

The court further observed," Time has become ripe to act on account of numerous experiences faced by courts on account of frequent turning of witnesses hostile either due to threats, coercion, lures, and monetary considerations at the instance of those in power, their henchmen and hirelings, political clout and patronage and innumerable other corrupt practices ingeniously adopted to smother and stifle truth and justice to become ultimate casualities. Broader public and societal interests require that the victims of the crime who are not ordinarily parties to the prosecution and the interests of state represented by their prosecuting agencies do not suffer even in slow process but irreversibly and irretrievably ,which if allowed would undermine and destroy the public confidence in the administration of justice which may ultimately pave way for anarchy,oppression, injustice resulting in complete breakdown and collapse of edifice of rule of law,enshrined and zealously guarded and protected by the Constitution. There comes the need for protecting the witness.The time has come when serious and undiluted thoughts are to be bestowed for protecting witnesses so that ultimate truth is presented before the court and justice triumphs and that the trial is not reduced to mockery," The court concluded.

The judges in their 50-page judgment also observed that if trial court was to be effective instrument in dispensing justice ,the presiding judge must cease to be a spectator and a mere recording machine by becoming a participant in the trial evincing intelligence, active interest and elicit all relevant materials necessary for reaching the correct conclusion, to find out the truth.

UNI