A Delhi court on Monday issued a non-bailable warrant (NBW) against Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) leader Medha Patkar in a defamation case filed by Khadi and Village Industries Commission (KVIC) Chairman V.K. Saxena.
Metropolitan Magistrate Vikrant Vaid rejected Ms. Patkar’s request for exemption from personal appearance for the day through her lawyer and issued the NBW for July 10, the next date of hearing.
Train ticket
Seeking exemption, the proxy counsel for Ms. Patkar informed the court that she was attending a protest in a Madhya Pradesh village and hadn’t been able to get a confirmed train ticket to come to the Capital to appear in court.
The court however rejected her plea saying that the grounds cited by her were not convincing and didn’t inspire confidence of the court. “The grounds for absence are not convincing and don’t inspire confidence of the court. Hence, request for exemption is liable to be rejected on merit,” the Magistrate said.
The court also noted that the case was at the stage of prosecution evidence and Section 273 of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandated the presence of the accused in court. “Evidence cannot be led in the absence of the accused [Ms. Patkar]. Tersely speaking, Ms. Patkar is absent and unrepresented in court. Even otherwise, grounds for absence is not acceptable for she had knowledge and awareness about the court proceedings. It was incumbent upon her to have made the arrangements for her return to Delhi for appearing in court today [on Monday]. The NBW be issued against Ms. Patkar and notice to her surety through DCP [south-east] for July 10,” it said.
The court also noted that the advocate who appeared on behalf of the main counsel for Ms. Patkar had no authorisation to represent her. The court had in 2015 imposed a cost of ₹3,000 on Ms. Patkar for non-appearance and given her the last and final opportunity to appear before it.
Exemplary cost
Stating that he had been appearing regularly in court, Mr. Saxena said the accused had remained absent for no valid ground on previous occasions as well. He urged the court to impose an exemplary cost on Ms. Patkar.
According to the main counsel for Ms. Patkar, V.K. Ohri, Mr. Saxena filed the case against her alleging she had defamed him by making a statement that he had donated money to her trust through cheque which was dishonoured on submission in bank. Mr. Ohri told The Hindu over telephone that Mr. Saxena said he had never issued any cheque in the name of her trust.
