Following the culmination of the 2G Spectrum allocation case, the Delhi High court has recalled an order of a trial court which had adjourned proceedings sine die (indefinitely) in a criminal defamation case filed by journalist Vir Sanghvi against Outlook magazine.
Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva directed that the order of the trial court be recalled as the 2G Spectrum allocation case has already ended and resulted in a judgment.
Sanghvi had filed a defamation case against Outlook in connection with a story purporting to extract tapped conversations allegedly between him and certain other individuals. Sanghvi had claimed the recordings were tampered with and the imputations made in the story were false and defamatory.
However, Outlook then moved an application in the court seeking to adjourn the proceedings of this case sine die because the original recordings were kept with the Supreme Court in a sealed cover as part of evidence in the ongoing trial of the 2G spectrum case. On June 30, 2014, a trial court allowed this application and the case went into a box.
Following the judgment in the 2G Spectrum allocation, Sanghvi sought the recall of the earlier order to proceed further with the case.
The court has held that the case should now be heard again, as the judgment on this case has been delivered.
"In view of the above facts and the changed circumstance that the 2G Scam Case has culminated in a judgment, in my view, the order adjourning the complaint case filed by the petitioner sine die needs to be recalled. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 30.06.2014 is set aside," the single judge bench said.
Appearing for Sanghvi, his counsel Nitya Rama Krishna contended that the recordings were made available to the CBI and the Income Tax Department during the trial. Hence, she argued, they can be summoned at any time if required by Outlook during the case.
The court agreed and stated, "It may be noticed that post the impugned order dated 30.06.2014, the trial of the 2G Scam Case has already concluded and resulted in a judgment. It may also be noticed that the Supreme Court, by its order 10.02.2011, made available copies of the said recorded conversation, to the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Income Tax Authorities, to facilitate the trial..."
The bench also said that the respondents may call for the recordings as and when required in their defense. It directed the trial court to expedite the hearing and conclude it within a year since the case has already been pending for three years without a single hearing.
"The case shall be listed before the concerned Trial Court for directions on 3rd February, 2018. In view of the facts that the proceedings have remained stayed for over three years, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the proceedings and preferably conclude the same within a period of one year," the court said.
