North East Delhi riots case: Court deprecates wild allegations levelled by Defence counsel against SPP for Delhi police

New Delhi [India], November 30 : Delhi's Karkardooma Court recently deprecated the wild allegations levelled by Advocate Mehmood Pracha against Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Amit Prasad. The court also termed the allegations unsubstantiated.
Pracha had alleged that the SPP received money in cash from Delhi Police and has evidence against the SPP based on a private investigation.
Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Amitabh Rawat said, "The court deprecates the wild allegations without substantiation made against the learned prosecutor, and particularly when it does not concern the merits of the case."
"The court does not want to meddle in the allegations, particularly those made by learned counsel for the accused against the learned SPP," ASJ Rawat said in the order passed on November 25, 2023.
The court said that the SPP may take action at his own end if he so desires.
The court also took note of the reply filed by the SPP stating that Pracha, the counsel for the applicant or accused, has made specific personal allegations against him, as stated in the application.
SPP submitted that the counsel had alleged that he had conducted a private investigation on him and had found out that he (SPP) had, in an underhand manner, taken money in cash from the police.
He also stated that, if these allegations are correct, he is not fit to continue as SPP in this case and the learned counsel for the accused may place the material on record to substantiate his false and grave allegations about his integrity, along with the affidavit of the private investigator.
SPP Prasad further stated that the counsel for the accused has put question marks on his integrity and the prosecution cannot be browbeaten like this.
He pointed out that even under the law, Mehmood Pracha, the learned counsel for the accused, cannot represent an accused in this case, as he himself has been mentioned in the statement of one publicly protected witness, namely 'SMITH', and there is a conflict of interest as he can be summoned as a witness by court, prosecution or any accused person during trial.
It was further submitted that, despite no objection by the accused to be represented by Mehmood Pracha, there is still a conflict of interest and a violation of Bar Council Rules meant for advocates.
He had referred to Section 395 of CrPC and asked the Court to refer the matter to the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on the question of whether Mehmood Pracha can represent an accused in this case. He argued that this would have implications at a later stage of the trial.
Accused Tasleem Ahmed stated that he wants to continue with Mehmood Pracha.
The court said that it is for the accused to decide which advocate he wants. The accused, despite being aware of the allegations of conflict of interest, still insists that he should be represented by the same advocate, Mehmood Pracha.
Regarding this issue, whether it is a conflict of interest and is not allowed by Bar Council of Delhi Rules, the same is left open for the prosecutor or for the Bar Council of Delhi to consider or initiate an action, if deemed fit, said the court.