Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

A Delhi Court on Saturday last week, deprecated the wild allegations made by Advocate Mehmood Pracha against Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Amit Prasad, appearing for Delhi Police, in the larger conspiracy case of the 2020 northeast Delhi riots.

Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Amitabh Rawat of the Karkardooma Court said, “The court deprecates the wild allegations without substantiation made against the ld. Prosecutor and particularly when it did not concern the merits of the case."

“In all fairness, the court does not, in this case, want to meddle in the allegations particularly made by Ld. counsel for the accused against the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor, and for that, Ld. SPP may take action at his own end if he so desires," the ASJ said.

The other issue revolved around the insistence of accused Tasleem Ahmed on being represented by Advocate Mehmood Pracha, despite the latter being mentioned by a witness, 'Smith,' in his statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and it was argued by the SPP that Pracha, as the accused's counsel, might be cited as a witness by the prosecution or any of the accused individuals due to his mention in Smith's statement.

However, the court declined to delve into the appointment of a prosecutor or advocate in the case, asserting that it is the accused's prerogative to choose their legal representation.

The court said that the accused, fully aware of the conflict of interest allegations, expressed a strong preference for Mehmood Pracha as their advocate.

The court acknowledged the accused's choice and did not interfere with the decision, leaving the determination of whether this constitutes a conflict of interest and if it violates Bar Council of Delhi Rules open for consideration by the prosecutor or the Bar Council of Delhi. It did not explicitly rule on the matter, leaving it to relevant authorities to assess and, if necessary, take appropriate action.

Earlier, SPP Prasad told the court that in the application, Advocate Mehmood Pracha, the counsel for one of the accused (Tasleem Ahmed), had levelled personal allegations against him—that he had "taken cash from the police in an underhand manner." Pracha had claimed in the application that these were the findings of a private investigator.

Prasad had contended that if this allegation was found to be correct, he is "not fit to continue as the SPP” in the present case. He had also submitted that Pracha should place the material on record to substantiate his "false and grave allegations," along with the affidavit of the private investigator.

The SPP had further contended that Pracha had put a "question mark on his integrity" and the "prosecution cannot be browbeaten like this”. Prasad had also contended that under the law, Pracha cannot represent Tasleem Ahmed as he himself was named in the statement of one witness. “Despite no objection by the accused to be represented by Sh. Mehmood Pracha, there is still conflict of interest and violation of Bar Council Rules," he had contended.

Furthermore, SPP Prasad had requested the court to refer the matter to the High Court on the question of law about Advocate Mehmood Pracha representing an accused in this case. “This will have an implication at the later stage of trial”, he had added.

The present application has been filed by Pracha in an ongoing matter related to the larger conspiracy of Delhi riots in which Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Tahir Hussain, Khalid Saifi, Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita, Safoora Zargar, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima. Meeran Haider and others are accused. Pracha has alleged that SPP Prasad travelled to Europe via State’s money.

Case Title: State v. Tahir Hussain & Others