On May 24, Saket Court Metropolitan Magistrate Raghav Sharma convicted Patkar in the case, marking 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 It is an incident. Liberties, when the Liga controversy began in 2000.
The parties completed their arguments in Sentensin's case on Thursday, after which the judge fixed the next hearing of the case on June 7.
Complainant Saxena has submitted written arguments emphasizing the need to give maximum punishment to Patkar. The submission cites several important points to support their call for harsher punishment.Firstly, Patkar's 'criminal history' and 'antecedent' have been brought to the attention of the court, which shows the consistent disregard for law that 'characterizes the accused'.
This defiance is further evidenced by the Supreme Court's rebuke to the NBA for false arguments.
Emphasis has also been laid on linking the seriousness of the offense of defamation to 'moral turpitude'. The complainant argues that such a 'serious crime' demands a tough sentence, especially as there is no evidence that Patkar respects 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, discouraging others from indulging in such actions which are detrimental to the country." hinder development”.
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 derogatory towards 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 One was a coward and not a patriot”.
Magistrate Sharma said: "By publishing the above defamation the accused intended to cause harm or had reason to know or believe that such defamation would cause harm to the reputation of the complainant."
Passing the order for his sentencing, Magistrate Sharma said that reputation is one of the most valuable assets for a person, as it affects personal and business relationships, and significantly affects a person's status in society. Can do.
The parties completed their arguments in Sentensin's case on Thursday, after which the judge fixed the next hearing of the case on June 7.
Complainant Saxena has submitted written arguments emphasizing the need to give maximum punishment to Patkar. The submission cites several important points to support their call for harsher punishment.Firstly, Patkar's 'criminal history' and 'antecedent' have been brought to the attention of the court, which shows the consistent disregard for law that 'characterizes the accused'.
This defiance is further evidenced by the Supreme Court's rebuke to the NBA for false arguments.
Emphasis has also been laid on linking the seriousness of the offense of defamation to 'moral turpitude'. The complainant argues that such a 'serious crime' demands a tough sentence, especially as there is no evidence that Patkar respects 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, discouraging others from indulging in such actions which are detrimental to the country." hinder development”.
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 derogatory towards 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 One was a coward and not a patriot”.
Magistrate Sharma said: "By publishing the above defamation the accused intended to cause harm or had reason to know or believe that such defamation would cause harm to the reputation of the complainant."
Passing the order for his sentencing, Magistrate Sharma said that reputation is one of the most valuable assets for a person, as it affects personal and business relationships, and significantly affects a person's status in society. Can do.
