ROPAR: The defence counsels Wednesda started arguments on behalf of former Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal’s family during the hearing on the issue of framing of charges in the disproportionate assets case against them and others in the court of Ropar special Judge G.S.Saran.

Presenting the arguments former Punjab Advocate General H.S.Mattewal claimed  that charges could not be framed against Badals, as there was not an iota to truth in the charges leveled by the prosecution against them and frivolous case had been registered against Badal’s out of political vendetta. 

He alleged that prosecution was misleading the court by not placing on record the Income Tax report regarding the Orbit resort of Badals in which every penny used in the resort had been explained.

He claimed that Income Tax department had acted on the request of prosecution regarding the assessment of the Orbit resort. He also requested the court to place on record the assessment report of Income Tax department.

However, the prosecution counsels opposed the same saying that no record other than that attached with challan could be place on record. The prosecution counsel also denied having written any letter to the Income Tax department for the assessment of Orbit Resort of Badals'.

At this Mattewal requested the court to summon Home Minister (Capt Amarinder Singh), then Home secretary, then Director General Vigilance Bureau and Investigating officer for providing information in this regard.

The judge asked the defence counsel to file an affidavit regarding his contention on the Orbit resort and adjourned the hearing to February 23 for further arguments by the defence counsels. 

Earlier, the hearing of arguments by defence counsel on behalf of accused Gurpinder Singh Grewal was concluded in the court.
Meanwhile, the defence counsels also filed an application in the court seeking the termination of further proceedings arising out of challan/final report filed by the Vigilance Bureau “in view of the fatal infirmity crept in by the prosecution in the proposed charges to be framed against the accused emanating from the said final report”.’

The applicants maintained that bare perusal of the proposed charges and the final report showed that offences alleged therein were not committed in course of same transaction or committed jointly within the period of 12 months or embraces other ingredients envisaged in section 223 of Cr.PC justifying a joint trial of all the accused in the case.