Plaintiff said, DM made me file a complaint against Azam Khan, MP-MLA court overturned the lower court’s decision


Lucknow: Within the ‘hate speech’ case of Samajwadi Party’s nationwide common secretary and former minister Azam Khan, MP/MLA court docket decide Amit Veer Singh, after recording the assertion of complainant Anil Kumar Chauhan, fulfilled the three sentences given earlier to the senior SP chief by the decrease court docket. Yr sentence overturned. The witness of a authorities worker grew to become the idea for Azam Khan’s acquittal on this case. The MP/MLA court docket additionally pointed to the assertion of Anil Kumar Chauhan within the determination given on Wednesday. The court docket held that Azam had “no communal remarks and no statement was made to incite violence. There were several errors in the trial court’s judgment on October 27, 2022. The trial court had sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment. Azam Khan’s membership of the Legislative Assembly had ended.

Azam had “bitter” relations with the District Magistrate

Agriculture Development Officer (ADO) Anil Kumar Chauhan told the court that “I had lodged the grievance below strain from the District Election Officer (DM on this case).” The court observed that Azam and his family had a “bitter” relationship with the then District Magistrate Anjaneya Kumar Singh. The court order made comments on the then DM saying that he could have filed a criminal complaint or filed a civil suit, but “as an alternative he pressured Chauhan to file a grievance”. The court observed that the basic ingredients of the offense under IPC sections 153-A (promoting enmity), 505-1 (public mischief) and section 125 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 were nowhere to be found in the charge against Azam Khan. Went.

Basic rules not followed in evidence

The court referred to the previous judgments of the Supreme Court and said that the basic requirement of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act (identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing the manner in which it is to be produced) was not followed. Justice Amit Vir Singh based his judgment on the decision of the Supreme Court in Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India regarding “hate speech”. It was said that the use of only “unparliamentary” language does not come under the category of hate speech. In Amish Deogan v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that unparliamentary words should be scrutinized by “cheap, robust minded, agency and brave males, not those that are weak and of unsteady thoughts, nor those that sense hazard”. Are.

Click Here To Join Our Telegram Channel

If in case you have any issues or complaints relating to this text, please tell us and the article might be eliminated quickly. 

Raise A Concern