A special court recently rejected the plea of Antilia case accused and dismissed policeman Sachin Vaze as “ambiguous”, in which he had sought statements recorded by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) during its probe, but not made part of the chargesheet.
Choice of prosecution whether to supply documents or not: Court
The court said that Vaze’s plea is silent on which documents were not relied on by the agency. It said the application itself is “ambiguous”. Special Judge AM Patil further pointed out that the further investigation in the case is pending and till the completion of further investigation, it is the choice of the prosecution (whether to supply unrelied on documents) and it it cannot be said that these have been withheld by the prosecution.
NIA didn't supply documents as they could help in defence: Vaze
Vaze in his plea had alleged that the agency had not supplied the documents as they could help him with his defence. Mentioning the name of some persons who he had been confronted with during the investigation of the case, he had said that their statements, though recorded, are not part of the chargesheet. His plea had also submitted that it is a mandate of law to supply unrelied on documents and their non-supply is causing unpreparedness for his defence.
The NIA had opposed his plea and informed the court that its further investigation in the matter is ongoing and providing the copy of the documents may hamper its investigation.
