Oversight committee formed under POSH Act is quasi-judicial in nature: Singh to court

New Delhi [India], October 19 : Accused BJP MP Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh's counsel on Thursday argued before the court that the oversight committee formed under POSH Act is quasi judicial in nature. Statement recorded before it has statutory value under the POSH Act.
On the other hand, prosecution said that the oversight committee is not formed under the POSH Act and can't be compared to an Internal Complaint Committee (ICC). Therefore, the accused cannot take benefit of the finding of the committee.
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) Harjeet Singh Jaspal after hearing the arguments adjourned the hearing on arguments on charge till Saturday. The court noted that it has been argued that the oversight committee shall be compared to Internal complaint committee under POSH act and therefore the statements made to the oversight committee can be considered as previous statement of the victim.
It has been also submitted that the observation made by the oversight committee do not have the effect of direct exoneration of accused Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh though the oversight committee has not averted any finding regarding him yet the statements have statutory value of section 11(3) of POSH Act.
On the other hand, Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Atul Srivastava countered the said submissions on the account that the oversight committee is not a committee constituted under POSH act and therefore do not avail any benefit or avail any power under the same act.
Both the parties seek time to file authority, the court said and adjourned the matter. The court will further hear arguments on October 21 at 2 PM.
Advocate Rajiv Mohan, counsel for Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh, referred to the affidavit filed by a complainant which mentioned the incidents took place outside and inside India. Defence Counsel also referred to the statement of one of the complainants stating that on 15 October 2017, she visited WFI office.
He referred to the statement which started that the Complainant visited WFI office and husband was asked to stay outside and she was scolded by the president over her tweet.
There is a contradiction in dates of the incident, the defence counsel argued and said that there is no mention of date in complaint and it has been changed in the FIR to 16 October 2017 from October 15. In her 164 Crpc statement the said complainant stated that the incident took place on October 16.
counsel further argued that on 16 and 17 October 2015 He (accused) was not in Delhi but in Haryana that creates a strong suspicion of not happening of the incident.
It has been also stated that allegations levelled by four complaints are beyond jurisdiction. Advocate Rajiv Mohan Even the statement of the complainant stated inappropriate touching by the accused which attracts section 354 A IPC which has a maximum punishment of three year and It is time barred.
However, there is no time limit in the offence under 354 IPC, he added. But there is no application for condonation of delay. He further argued that the incidents of 2018 at Sirifort, the complainant stated that the accused hugged the victim forcefully, without her concent.
There are two allegations of incidents which took place in Delhi, one is of 2017 of inappropriate touching and another of 2018 of hugging. These Two incidents took place in Delhi and that the complainant first time mentioned the allegations in the statement under section 164 Crpc.
He also submitted that the Oversight committee formed under POSH is a quasi-judicial in nature and has power of civil court, the counsel argued.
He also referred to the letter of MC Mary Kom, head, Oversight committee to the secretary. Oversight committee dealt with the issued of sexual harrasment. He further argued that the complainants were examined before the oversight committee.