Defence argues first in Malegaon blasts case

Defence lawyers of two accused in the 2008 Malegaon bomb blast case on Monday started their arguments even before the prosecution on framing of charges.

The defence decided to commence the arguments after the National Investigating Agency (NIA) sought further time to decide on framing of charges citing reason that it had not received the opinion of the Attorney General of India on whether the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) was applicable in this case or not.

Generally, the prosecution makes the first arguments on framing of charges, however on Monday when the NIA informed the court that it had not received the opinion of the Attorney General on application of the MCOCA in this case and sought an adjournment. The prosecution also told the court that the NIA was required to argue on framing of charges on the basis chargesheet field by ATS and hence it needed more time.

However, the special MCOCA court judge S.D. Tekale observed that it was the single case assigned to this court and adjourning the matter would waste a lot of time and the judge gave an opportunity to the defence to start arguments.

Following this, the defence lawyers of two of the accused agreed to start their arguments.

According to special public prosecutor Avinash Rasal, this time is being utilised by allowing the defence to argue first.

After this, the prosecution will be allowed to argue, and in case the defence lawyers who had already argued feel like they need to add something after the prosecution’s arguments, they would be allowed to submit further points before the court.

In the meantime, the NIA will also wait for Attorney General’s reply.

On the last date of hearing, the NIA had requested the court to adjourn arguments on framing of charges because it has written a letter to Attorney General seeking his opinion on invocation of MCOCA on this case.

Though the court had adjourned the hearing till February 15, it had also clarified at that time that if NIA does not receive a reply by the next date, then the court would proceed with the trial.