Arguments were heard in a defamation case involving Rahul Gandhi, as a local MP-MLA court reserved its ruling for May 2. The hearing focused on an application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Arguments heard in a defamation matter involving Lok Sabha’s Leader of the Opposition and Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, as a local MP-MLA court reserved its ruling for May 2, officials said.
The hearing before the MP-MLA court centered on an application moved under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
This provision allows a court to summon, recall, or re-examine any witness at any stage of a trial if it considers the testimony necessary for arriving at a fair decision. Counsel for both sides made their submissions during the proceedings.
ALSO READ: Defamation Case Against Rahul Gandhi | Court Adjourns Hearing to March 6
Gandhi’s lawyer, Kashi Prasad Shukla, stated that the court listened to arguments on the plea filed by complainant’s counsel Santosh Kumar Pandey and scheduled May 2 for pronouncing the order.
The previous date of hearing in the case was April 17.
Earlier, at the hearing held on March 28, the complainant had sought the examination of Gandhi’s voice sample under Section 311 read with Section 91 of the CrPC.
The application requested that Gandhi’s voice sample be compared with a CD already submitted to a forensic laboratory. Gandhi’s legal team opposed this request.
ALSO READ: Savarkar Defamation Case || Pune Court Grants Rahul Gandhi Permanent Exemption
The defamation case was filed in October 2018 by local BJP politician Vijay Mishra. Gandhi surrendered before the court on February 20, 2024, after which he was granted bail on two sureties of Rs 25,000 each.
He appeared in court on July 26, 2024, and recorded his statement, in which he maintained his innocence and described the case as a political conspiracy. After his statement, the court asked the complainant to present evidence, and the witnesses have since been examined.
Earlier, Gandhi had also recorded his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC. Following this, the court directed him to produce his defence and evidence; however, no such evidence was submitted on his behalf, according to court proceedings.