LawChakra

Delhi Court Directs Verification of Medical Documents in Case Against Swati Maliwal

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

On Monday, the court directed the Investigation Officer (IO) to verify the medical records of Barkha Singh. Her legal counsel had sought an exemption on medical grounds, stating that she was unable to appear in court.

New Delhi, February 24: The Rouse Avenue Court has ordered the verification of medical documents submitted by Barkha Singh, the complainant in the corruption case against former Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) chairperson Swati Maliwal.

On Monday, the court directed the Investigation Officer (IO) to verify the medical records of Barkha Singh. Her legal counsel had sought an exemption on medical grounds, stating that she was unable to appear in court.

Special Judge Jitendra Singh, while addressing the request, stated, “The Investigation Officer is directed to verify the medical documents filed by the counsel for Barkha Singh, seeking exemption on medical grounds.”

The court questioned if Barkha Singh could join the proceedings via video conferencing.

However, her counsel responded,

“Even this is not possible for her. She has been advised a surgery also.”

This case pertains to alleged irregularities in recruitment at the Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) during the tenure of Swati Maliwal. The accused in the case include Swati Maliwal, Promila Gupta, Sarika Chaudhary, and Farheen Malik. The court is currently recording prosecution evidence.

Swati Maliwal and the other accused appeared before the court via video conferencing. Advocate Sanjay Gupta represented Swati Maliwal in the proceedings.

The Delhi High Court had earlier dismissed two appeals challenging the framing of charges against Swati Maliwal and others. This ruling was delivered on September 20, 2024.

Barkha Singh, the complainant in this case, had previously served as the chairperson of DCW during the Congress Government, before Swati Maliwal took over the position.

The court has listed the case for the examination of other prosecution witnesses on March 19.

The court also observed,

“The complainant is required to depose before the court. However, she is not appearing and has been seeking an exemption.”

FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE

Exit mobile version