The Ernakulam Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offence) on Friday dismissed the petition filed by the counsel of Saritha S Nair seeking permission to visit the jail and record the written statement of his client in the Solar Scam.
Passing the order Additional CJM N V Raju observed that Saritha did not speak about the facts relating to the case other than the complaint regarding the alleged threat to her life when she was produced before the court on July 20.
And the Magistrate said that sending the counsel to record the statement of the accused was unheard of. According to the court, the accused is an educated lady and she can give in writing the complaint about the offences committed against her, if any.
“While dismissing the petition, the court issues appropriate direction to the Jail Superintendent concerned to permit the second accused Saritha S Nair to make her own complaint if any, uninfluenced by anybody else (and to)forward the same to the court concerned.”
“The petition for sending the counsel to record the statement of the second accused and obtain her signature is rejected. When the complaint is prepared the Superintendent of the said Jail will forward the same to the court having jurisdiction over the matter,” the court ordered.
And the presiding judge held that the Jail Superintendent shall report compliance by July 31.
According to the Additional CJM, considering this petition with reference to the averments in the petition, the controversies, false reports and the claims that have been made with reference to the proceedings conducted in the case, it is necessary to bring on record as to what had transpired in the court on July 20.
The court said that when a woman accused is produced from police custody and she submits to the court that she has to say something in-camera, the court will definitely grant her permission to do so since it has a duty to protect the rights of the accused in custody.
It also said that it had not recorded the statement of the accused and this can be done only on a petition filed by the investigation officer under CrPC 164.
Moreover, the Magistrate said that the court had neither solicited nor elicited or permitted any statements of the accused with reference to the facts in the case. Unfortunately false reports and false impression have been created claiming that the court is in possession of secret information.