Saket Court Metropolitan Magistrate Raghav Sharma reserved the order after considering the Victim Impact Report (VIR) submitted by the Delhi Legal Services Authority (DLSA).
The VIR is designed to evaluate the extent of harm caused to the victim after conviction, which helps determine the appropriate punishment for the convicted.
On May 24, the metropolitan magistrate convicted Patkar in the case, which was a significant development in the more than two decade-long legal battle between Patkar and Saxena, head of the Ahmedabad-based NGO, National Council for Civil Liberties. Legal disputes began in 2000.
In the last hearing, the parties completed their arguments in the sentencing case.The complainant, Saxena, had submitted written arguments emphasizing the need to give maximum punishment to Patkar. The plea cited several important points to support their call for stricter punishment.
Firstly, Patkar's 'criminal history' and 'antecedent' were brought to the attention of the court, which reflected the consistent disregard for law that "characterizes the accused".
This defiance was further evidenced by the Supreme Court's rebuke to the NBA for false arguments.
The seriousness of the offense of defamation was also emphasized and it was equated with 'moral turpitude'.The complainant argued that this was a 'serious offence' and hence demanded a harsher punishment, especially as there was no evidence that Patkar respected the law.
The complainant has identified Patkar as a 'habitual offender', citing another defamation case of 2006, which is still pending before the court.
The complainant also claimed that Patkar shows no concern for social control and disregards moral and ethical propriety, aggravating circumstances which indicate her culpability based on her past conduct and 'criminal history' .
The submission concluded that a deterrent punishment is necessary, stating that "maximum punishment should be given to deter Patkar and set an example in the society, thereby deterring others from indulging in similar acts hindering the development of the country." To be discouraged from happening”.
The defamation case stems from a series of legal disputes that began in 2000.At the time, Patkar had filed a lawsuit against Saxena for publishing advertisements which he claimed were defamatory of him and the NBA.
In response, Saxena filed two defamation cases against Patkar, while the second case involved a press statement issued by Patkar.
While convicting him, the magistrate said that Patkar alleged and published that the complainant had visited Malegaon, praised the NBA, issued a check of Rs 40,000, which came from the Lal Bhai Group, and that “He was a coward and not a patriot.” ,
Magistrate Sharma said: "The accused intended to cause harm by publishing the above defamation or had reason to know or believe that such defamation would damage the reputation of the complainant."
Advocates Gajinder Kumar, Kiran Jai, Chandra Shekhar, Drishti and Soumya Arya appeared for the Lieutenant Governor.Passing the order convicting him, Magistrate Sharma said that reputation is one of the most valuable assets for any person, as it affects both personal and business relationships, and significantly determines a person's status in the society. Can be affected by.
The VIR is designed to evaluate the extent of harm caused to the victim after conviction, which helps determine the appropriate punishment for the convicted.
On May 24, the metropolitan magistrate convicted Patkar in the case, which was a significant development in the more than two decade-long legal battle between Patkar and Saxena, head of the Ahmedabad-based NGO, National Council for Civil Liberties. Legal disputes began in 2000.
In the last hearing, the parties completed their arguments in the sentencing case.The complainant, Saxena, had submitted written arguments emphasizing the need to give maximum punishment to Patkar. The plea cited several important points to support their call for stricter punishment.
Firstly, Patkar's 'criminal history' and 'antecedent' were brought to the attention of the court, which reflected the consistent disregard for law that "characterizes the accused".
This defiance was further evidenced by the Supreme Court's rebuke to the NBA for false arguments.
The seriousness of the offense of defamation was also emphasized and it was equated with 'moral turpitude'.The complainant argued that this was a 'serious offence' and hence demanded a harsher punishment, especially as there was no evidence that Patkar respected the law.
The complainant has identified Patkar as a 'habitual offender', citing another defamation case of 2006, which is still pending before the court.
The complainant also claimed that Patkar shows no concern for social control and disregards moral and ethical propriety, aggravating circumstances which indicate her culpability based on her past conduct and 'criminal history' .
The submission concluded that a deterrent punishment is necessary, stating that "maximum punishment should be given to deter Patkar and set an example in the society, thereby deterring others from indulging in similar acts hindering the development of the country." To be discouraged from happening”.
The defamation case stems from a series of legal disputes that began in 2000.At the time, Patkar had filed a lawsuit against Saxena for publishing advertisements which he claimed were defamatory of him and the NBA.
In response, Saxena filed two defamation cases against Patkar, while the second case involved a press statement issued by Patkar.
While convicting him, the magistrate said that Patkar alleged and published that the complainant had visited Malegaon, praised the NBA, issued a check of Rs 40,000, which came from the Lal Bhai Group, and that “He was a coward and not a patriot.” ,
Magistrate Sharma said: "The accused intended to cause harm by publishing the above defamation or had reason to know or believe that such defamation would damage the reputation of the complainant."
Advocates Gajinder Kumar, Kiran Jai, Chandra Shekhar, Drishti and Soumya Arya appeared for the Lieutenant Governor.Passing the order convicting him, Magistrate Sharma said that reputation is one of the most valuable assets for any person, as it affects both personal and business relationships, and significantly determines a person's status in the society. Can be affected by.
