Girls again, clinch top three spots in Class X PSEB exams
Panji, Following a formal application from the accused, Additional Sessions Judge Pramod Kamat on Thursday recused himself from the case involving Tehelka co-founder Tarun Tejpal where a woman journalist had alleged sexual abuse. The case was transferred to Principal District Sessions Judge P. B. Deshpande.
Mr. Tejpal’s application seeking recusal, inter alia, alleged that the history of the present trial and the investigation had been rife with pressure imposed by the state government. The matter pertaining to application moved by the accused, seeking the Court’s directions on copies of documents forming part of chargesheets, has now been posted for hearing to October 1 before Judge Deshpande.
On September 16, Judge Kamat had suo motu disclosed in the court that prior to his joining the Office as the Presiding Judge of the District Sessions Court, Panaji, he was on deputation as Law Secretary for the state government. He said that in that capacity he was instrumental in the appointment of Special Public Prosecutors/lawyers for prosecution in the instant matter.
Earlier on Thursday, responding to the judge’s offer of recusal, Mr. Tejpal’s lawyer moved a formal application before the judge praying that he recuse himself from continuation as the Presiding Officer in the matter forthwith and sought an appropriate direction.
Mr. Tejpal’s application alleged that the history of the present trial and investigation has been rife with pressure imposed by the State Government from its very inception by an FIR filed not by the prosecutrix but at the instance of the Goa police. So the applicant/accused has reasonable belief that the State Government by misusing the process of law has falsely been implicated in this false case.
Therefore, it further said that the continuation of the Presiding officer of this case in this matter will cause grave prejudice to the applicant as former was part of the executive of the Government at the relevant time.
“The previous position held by the Judge, making him formerly part of the State machinery is similarly a cause for reasonable apprehension on the part of the accused as it once again threatens the imposition of State pressure on the trial,” it reiterated and insisted that recusal of the Presiding Officer in the matter becomes imperative for the quest of fair trail.
‘The application appreciated that in this instance the Judge himself, recognizing that the right of the accused to a fair trial is of paramount concern and acknowledging that the position formerly held by him has posed a cause for reasonable apprehension in the mind of the accused, had offered to recuse himself should either party request the same.
