Ready to bear cost of videography of trial in 1984 riots case: Sajjan Kumar
Congress leader Sajjan Kumar and two others, facing trial in a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case, on Tuesday told a Delhi court that they are ready to bear the expenses of videography of the proceedings in the matter.
New Delhi: Congress leader Sajjan Kumar and two others, facing trial in a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case, on Tuesday told a Delhi court that they are ready to bear the expenses of videography of the proceedings in the matter.
The trio, while appearing before district judge Amar Nath to whom the case has been transferred by the Delhi High Court from Karkardooma court, said they were giving an undertaking that they would bear the cost of video recording of the proceedings of the case to be conducted here.
"If you are ready to bear the expenses, I am ready to pass an order on it," the judge said, adding that a mechanism would be drawn to videograph the proceedings.
"Put up the matter for checking the working of system (video recording) on January 29, 2016," the court said, adding that witness need not be summoned for that day.
While transferring the case to Patiala House court, the high court had directed the district judge to video record the proceedings at the cost of the accused.
During the hearing, the judge also said video recording system was not available in his court and he has to consult the computer branch for devising such a facility.
Advocate I U Khan, appearing for Kumar, submitted that videographing of proceedings was requested to safeguard the parties from any prejudice.
CBI prosecutor D P Singh and senior advocate H S Phoolka, who represents riot victims, suggested that the company who was already providing videographing service in the court can be hired for this case as it would be a trusted firm.
Sajjan Kumar, Brahmanand Gupta and Ved Prakash are facing trial on charges of murder and rioting in the case of killing of Surjit Singh in Sultanpuri here. During the hearing the three accused were present in the court.
The proceedings in the case were earlier stayed after the victim and complainant Joginder Singh had approached the high court seeking transfer of the case to another court alleging that the evidence was not being properly recorded.