Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 73,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'catslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 73,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/babri-case-final-hearing-on-conspiracy-charge-on-march-27-by-j-venkatesan-12628/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/babri-case-final-hearing-on-conspiracy-charge-on-march-27-by-j-venkatesan-12628/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'catslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 73
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 74,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 74,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/babri-case-final-hearing-on-conspiracy-charge-on-march-27-by-j-venkatesan-12628/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/babri-case-final-hearing-on-conspiracy-charge-on-march-27-by-j-venkatesan-12628/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 74
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Code Context
            if (Configure::read('debug')) {

                trigger_error($message, E_USER_WARNING);

            } else {
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6803f4e6315a8-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6803f4e6315a8-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr6803f4e6315a8-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6803f4e6315a8-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6803f4e6315a8-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6803f4e6315a8-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6803f4e6315a8-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr6803f4e6315a8-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr6803f4e6315a8-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 12508,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Babri Case: Final hearing on conspiracy charge on March 27 by J Venkatesan&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The Supreme Court on Monday posted for final hearing on March 27 a CBI special leave petition against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which upheld the dropping of the conspiracy charge by a special court against BJP leaders L. K. Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharti and 18 others in the Babri Masjid demolition case.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Senior counsel Ravi Shankar Prasad drew the court&#039;s attention to the fact that the appeal was time-barred. However, a Bench of Justices H.L. Dattu and C.K. Prasad said it would post the matter for final disposal.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;&amp;lsquo;Just an incident&#039;&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
When Additional Solicitor-General Vivek Tanka described the matter as the famous Babri Masjid demolition case, Justice Dattu retorted, &amp;ldquo;It is neither famous nor infamous, just an incident that had happened.&amp;rdquo;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The High Court had on May 20, 2010 upheld the special court&#039;s order of May 4, 2001 and dismissed the CBI&#039;s revision petition for a direction to proceed with the conspiracy charge against Mr. Advani and others. The CBI filed the appeal nearly nine months after the High Court verdict, with an application for condonation of the delay.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Mr. Advani and others, in their response, said the accused in crime no 198/1992 had already appeared before the special court, Rae Bareli, pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them, and claimed trial. Already 12 witnesses were examined.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
They said the entire exercise of the CBI in filing a consolidated charge sheet before the special court in Lucknow and challenging the proceedings up to the level of the Supreme Court was nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It also raised serious doubts about the bona fides of the CBI especially when the issue that the Lucknow special court had no jurisdiction to try the case had attained finality for, the special leave petition, the review petition and the curative petition had all been dismissed.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Mr. Advani said the trial court had rightly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to try the case, and therefore there was no illegality in the impugned order dropping the conspiracy charge. This order was rightly upheld by the High Court.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Two FIRs&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Mr. Advani and 20 others faced charges in two cases arising out of two separate First Information Reports. The first FIR, in which conspiracy was alleged against &amp;ldquo;lakhs of unknown kar sevaks,&amp;rdquo; was for the offence of demolition (case 197).
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The second FIR specifically charged Mr. Advani and other leaders with making inflammatory speeches leading to the demolition, and this case (198) was tried in the special court in Rae Bareli. The two cases were later merged and handed over to the CBI, which filed a composite charge sheet on October 5, 1993.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
However, due to a technical flaw, the two cases were revived by an order of the High Court on February 12, 2001. On May 4, 2001, the sessions judge dropped the conspiracy charge against Mr. Advani and others, on the ground that case 197 related only to kar sevaks. This ruling was upheld by the High Court last year.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Assailing this order of the High Court order, the CBI said the trial court had erroneously concluded that the three BJP leaders and 18 others should be tried in case 198 and not 197. This distinction was made on the ground that those against whom only instigation and allied offences were made out should be relegated to case 198. Those who had indulged in the actual demolition, along with the offences of snatching of cameras and assault on mediapersons, should be tried in case 197.The CBI contended that the bifurcation of the case attempted by the trial court and approved by the High Court was completely erroneous in law.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu, 17 January, 2012, http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article2806711.ece&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;babri-case-final-hearing-on-conspiracy-charge-on-march-27-by-j-venkatesan-12628&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 12628,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 12508,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Babri Case: Final hearing on conspiracy charge on March 27 by J Venkatesan&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Minority,Law and Justice&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;



The Supreme Court on Monday posted for final hearing on March 27 a CBI special leave petition against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which upheld the dropping of the conspiracy charge by a special court against BJP leaders...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The Supreme Court on Monday posted for final hearing on March 27 a CBI special leave petition against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which upheld the dropping of the conspiracy charge by a special court against BJP leaders L. K. Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharti and 18 others in the Babri Masjid demolition case.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Senior counsel Ravi Shankar Prasad drew the court&#039;s attention to the fact that the appeal was time-barred. However, a Bench of Justices H.L. Dattu and C.K. Prasad said it would post the matter for final disposal.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&amp;lsquo;Just an incident&#039;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;When Additional Solicitor-General Vivek Tanka described the matter as the famous Babri Masjid demolition case, Justice Dattu retorted, &amp;ldquo;It is neither famous nor infamous, just an incident that had happened.&amp;rdquo;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The High Court had on May 20, 2010 upheld the special court&#039;s order of May 4, 2001 and dismissed the CBI&#039;s revision petition for a direction to proceed with the conspiracy charge against Mr. Advani and others. The CBI filed the appeal nearly nine months after the High Court verdict, with an application for condonation of the delay.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Mr. Advani and others, in their response, said the accused in crime no 198/1992 had already appeared before the special court, Rae Bareli, pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them, and claimed trial. Already 12 witnesses were examined.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;They said the entire exercise of the CBI in filing a consolidated charge sheet before the special court in Lucknow and challenging the proceedings up to the level of the Supreme Court was nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It also raised serious doubts about the bona fides of the CBI especially when the issue that the Lucknow special court had no jurisdiction to try the case had attained finality for, the special leave petition, the review petition and the curative petition had all been dismissed.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Mr. Advani said the trial court had rightly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to try the case, and therefore there was no illegality in the impugned order dropping the conspiracy charge. This order was rightly upheld by the High Court.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Two FIRs&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Mr. Advani and 20 others faced charges in two cases arising out of two separate First Information Reports. The first FIR, in which conspiracy was alleged against &amp;ldquo;lakhs of unknown kar sevaks,&amp;rdquo; was for the offence of demolition (case 197).&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The second FIR specifically charged Mr. Advani and other leaders with making inflammatory speeches leading to the demolition, and this case (198) was tried in the special court in Rae Bareli. The two cases were later merged and handed over to the CBI, which filed a composite charge sheet on October 5, 1993.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;However, due to a technical flaw, the two cases were revived by an order of the High Court on February 12, 2001. On May 4, 2001, the sessions judge dropped the conspiracy charge against Mr. Advani and others, on the ground that case 197 related only to kar sevaks. This ruling was upheld by the High Court last year.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Assailing this order of the High Court order, the CBI said the trial court had erroneously concluded that the three BJP leaders and 18 others should be tried in case 198 and not 197. This distinction was made on the ground that those against whom only instigation and allied offences were made out should be relegated to case 198. Those who had indulged in the actual demolition, along with the offences of snatching of cameras and assault on mediapersons, should be tried in case 197.The CBI contended that the bifurcation of the case attempted by the trial court and approved by the High Court was completely erroneous in law.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 12508,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Babri Case: Final hearing on conspiracy charge on March 27 by J Venkatesan&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The Supreme Court on Monday posted for final hearing on March 27 a CBI special leave petition against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which upheld the dropping of the conspiracy charge by a special court against BJP leaders L. K. Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharti and 18 others in the Babri Masjid demolition case.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Senior counsel Ravi Shankar Prasad drew the court&#039;s attention to the fact that the appeal was time-barred. However, a Bench of Justices H.L. Dattu and C.K. Prasad said it would post the matter for final disposal.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;&amp;lsquo;Just an incident&#039;&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
When Additional Solicitor-General Vivek Tanka described the matter as the famous Babri Masjid demolition case, Justice Dattu retorted, &amp;ldquo;It is neither famous nor infamous, just an incident that had happened.&amp;rdquo;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The High Court had on May 20, 2010 upheld the special court&#039;s order of May 4, 2001 and dismissed the CBI&#039;s revision petition for a direction to proceed with the conspiracy charge against Mr. Advani and others. The CBI filed the appeal nearly nine months after the High Court verdict, with an application for condonation of the delay.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Mr. Advani and others, in their response, said the accused in crime no 198/1992 had already appeared before the special court, Rae Bareli, pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them, and claimed trial. Already 12 witnesses were examined.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
They said the entire exercise of the CBI in filing a consolidated charge sheet before the special court in Lucknow and challenging the proceedings up to the level of the Supreme Court was nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It also raised serious doubts about the bona fides of the CBI especially when the issue that the Lucknow special court had no jurisdiction to try the case had attained finality for, the special leave petition, the review petition and the curative petition had all been dismissed.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Mr. Advani said the trial court had rightly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to try the case, and therefore there was no illegality in the impugned order dropping the conspiracy charge. This order was rightly upheld by the High Court.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Two FIRs&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Mr. Advani and 20 others faced charges in two cases arising out of two separate First Information Reports. The first FIR, in which conspiracy was alleged against &amp;ldquo;lakhs of unknown kar sevaks,&amp;rdquo; was for the offence of demolition (case 197).
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The second FIR specifically charged Mr. Advani and other leaders with making inflammatory speeches leading to the demolition, and this case (198) was tried in the special court in Rae Bareli. The two cases were later merged and handed over to the CBI, which filed a composite charge sheet on October 5, 1993.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
However, due to a technical flaw, the two cases were revived by an order of the High Court on February 12, 2001. On May 4, 2001, the sessions judge dropped the conspiracy charge against Mr. Advani and others, on the ground that case 197 related only to kar sevaks. This ruling was upheld by the High Court last year.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Assailing this order of the High Court order, the CBI said the trial court had erroneously concluded that the three BJP leaders and 18 others should be tried in case 198 and not 197. This distinction was made on the ground that those against whom only instigation and allied offences were made out should be relegated to case 198. Those who had indulged in the actual demolition, along with the offences of snatching of cameras and assault on mediapersons, should be tried in case 197.The CBI contended that the bifurcation of the case attempted by the trial court and approved by the High Court was completely erroneous in law.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu, 17 January, 2012, http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article2806711.ece&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;babri-case-final-hearing-on-conspiracy-charge-on-march-27-by-j-venkatesan-12628&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 12628,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 12508
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Babri Case: Final hearing on conspiracy charge on March 27 by J Venkatesan&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Minority,Law and Justice&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;



The Supreme Court on Monday posted for final hearing on March 27 a CBI special leave petition against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which upheld the dropping of the conspiracy charge by a special court against BJP leaders...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The Supreme Court on Monday posted for final hearing on March 27 a CBI special leave petition against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which upheld the dropping of the conspiracy charge by a special court against BJP leaders L. K. Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharti and 18 others in the Babri Masjid demolition case.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Senior counsel Ravi Shankar Prasad drew the court&#039;s attention to the fact that the appeal was time-barred. However, a Bench of Justices H.L. Dattu and C.K. Prasad said it would post the matter for final disposal.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&amp;lsquo;Just an incident&#039;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;When Additional Solicitor-General Vivek Tanka described the matter as the famous Babri Masjid demolition case, Justice Dattu retorted, &amp;ldquo;It is neither famous nor infamous, just an incident that had happened.&amp;rdquo;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The High Court had on May 20, 2010 upheld the special court&#039;s order of May 4, 2001 and dismissed the CBI&#039;s revision petition for a direction to proceed with the conspiracy charge against Mr. Advani and others. The CBI filed the appeal nearly nine months after the High Court verdict, with an application for condonation of the delay.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Mr. Advani and others, in their response, said the accused in crime no 198/1992 had already appeared before the special court, Rae Bareli, pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them, and claimed trial. Already 12 witnesses were examined.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;They said the entire exercise of the CBI in filing a consolidated charge sheet before the special court in Lucknow and challenging the proceedings up to the level of the Supreme Court was nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It also raised serious doubts about the bona fides of the CBI especially when the issue that the Lucknow special court had no jurisdiction to try the case had attained finality for, the special leave petition, the review petition and the curative petition had all been dismissed.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Mr. Advani said the trial court had rightly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to try the case, and therefore there was no illegality in the impugned order dropping the conspiracy charge. This order was rightly upheld by the High Court.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Two FIRs&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Mr. Advani and 20 others faced charges in two cases arising out of two separate First Information Reports. The first FIR, in which conspiracy was alleged against &amp;ldquo;lakhs of unknown kar sevaks,&amp;rdquo; was for the offence of demolition (case 197).&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The second FIR specifically charged Mr. Advani and other leaders with making inflammatory speeches leading to the demolition, and this case (198) was tried in the special court in Rae Bareli. The two cases were later merged and handed over to the CBI, which filed a composite charge sheet on October 5, 1993.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;However, due to a technical flaw, the two cases were revived by an order of the High Court on February 12, 2001. On May 4, 2001, the sessions judge dropped the conspiracy charge against Mr. Advani and others, on the ground that case 197 related only to kar sevaks. This ruling was upheld by the High Court last year.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Assailing this order of the High Court order, the CBI said the trial court had erroneously concluded that the three BJP leaders and 18 others should be tried in case 198 and not 197. This distinction was made on the ground that those against whom only instigation and allied offences were made out should be relegated to case 198. Those who had indulged in the actual demolition, along with the offences of snatching of cameras and assault on mediapersons, should be tried in case 197.The CBI contended that the bifurcation of the case attempted by the trial court and approved by the High Court was completely erroneous in law.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/babri-case-final-hearing-on-conspiracy-charge-on-march-27-by-j-venkatesan-12628.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Babri Case: Final hearing on conspiracy charge on March 27 by J Venkatesan | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="



The Supreme Court on Monday posted for final hearing on March 27 a CBI special leave petition against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which upheld the dropping of the conspiracy charge by a special court against BJP leaders..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Babri Case: Final hearing on conspiracy charge on March 27 by J Venkatesan</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The Supreme Court on Monday posted for final hearing on March 27 a CBI special leave petition against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which upheld the dropping of the conspiracy charge by a special court against BJP leaders L. K. Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharti and 18 others in the Babri Masjid demolition case.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Senior counsel Ravi Shankar Prasad drew the court's attention to the fact that the appeal was time-barred. However, a Bench of Justices H.L. Dattu and C.K. Prasad said it would post the matter for final disposal.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify"><em>&lsquo;Just an incident'</em></div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">When Additional Solicitor-General Vivek Tanka described the matter as the famous Babri Masjid demolition case, Justice Dattu retorted, &ldquo;It is neither famous nor infamous, just an incident that had happened.&rdquo;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The High Court had on May 20, 2010 upheld the special court's order of May 4, 2001 and dismissed the CBI's revision petition for a direction to proceed with the conspiracy charge against Mr. Advani and others. The CBI filed the appeal nearly nine months after the High Court verdict, with an application for condonation of the delay.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Mr. Advani and others, in their response, said the accused in crime no 198/1992 had already appeared before the special court, Rae Bareli, pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them, and claimed trial. Already 12 witnesses were examined.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">They said the entire exercise of the CBI in filing a consolidated charge sheet before the special court in Lucknow and challenging the proceedings up to the level of the Supreme Court was nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It also raised serious doubts about the bona fides of the CBI especially when the issue that the Lucknow special court had no jurisdiction to try the case had attained finality for, the special leave petition, the review petition and the curative petition had all been dismissed.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Mr. Advani said the trial court had rightly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to try the case, and therefore there was no illegality in the impugned order dropping the conspiracy charge. This order was rightly upheld by the High Court.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify"><em>Two FIRs</em></div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Mr. Advani and 20 others faced charges in two cases arising out of two separate First Information Reports. The first FIR, in which conspiracy was alleged against &ldquo;lakhs of unknown kar sevaks,&rdquo; was for the offence of demolition (case 197).</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The second FIR specifically charged Mr. Advani and other leaders with making inflammatory speeches leading to the demolition, and this case (198) was tried in the special court in Rae Bareli. The two cases were later merged and handed over to the CBI, which filed a composite charge sheet on October 5, 1993.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">However, due to a technical flaw, the two cases were revived by an order of the High Court on February 12, 2001. On May 4, 2001, the sessions judge dropped the conspiracy charge against Mr. Advani and others, on the ground that case 197 related only to kar sevaks. This ruling was upheld by the High Court last year.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Assailing this order of the High Court order, the CBI said the trial court had erroneously concluded that the three BJP leaders and 18 others should be tried in case 198 and not 197. This distinction was made on the ground that those against whom only instigation and allied offences were made out should be relegated to case 198. Those who had indulged in the actual demolition, along with the offences of snatching of cameras and assault on mediapersons, should be tried in case 197.The CBI contended that the bifurcation of the case attempted by the trial court and approved by the High Court was completely erroneous in law.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$maxBufferLength = (int) 8192
$file = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php'
$line = (int) 853
$message = 'Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853'
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Code Context
            $response->getStatusCode(),

            ($reasonPhrase ? ' ' . $reasonPhrase : '')

        ));
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6803f4e6315a8-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6803f4e6315a8-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr6803f4e6315a8-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6803f4e6315a8-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6803f4e6315a8-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6803f4e6315a8-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6803f4e6315a8-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr6803f4e6315a8-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr6803f4e6315a8-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 12508,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Babri Case: Final hearing on conspiracy charge on March 27 by J Venkatesan&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The Supreme Court on Monday posted for final hearing on March 27 a CBI special leave petition against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which upheld the dropping of the conspiracy charge by a special court against BJP leaders L. K. Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharti and 18 others in the Babri Masjid demolition case.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Senior counsel Ravi Shankar Prasad drew the court&#039;s attention to the fact that the appeal was time-barred. However, a Bench of Justices H.L. Dattu and C.K. Prasad said it would post the matter for final disposal.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;&amp;lsquo;Just an incident&#039;&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
When Additional Solicitor-General Vivek Tanka described the matter as the famous Babri Masjid demolition case, Justice Dattu retorted, &amp;ldquo;It is neither famous nor infamous, just an incident that had happened.&amp;rdquo;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The High Court had on May 20, 2010 upheld the special court&#039;s order of May 4, 2001 and dismissed the CBI&#039;s revision petition for a direction to proceed with the conspiracy charge against Mr. Advani and others. The CBI filed the appeal nearly nine months after the High Court verdict, with an application for condonation of the delay.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Mr. Advani and others, in their response, said the accused in crime no 198/1992 had already appeared before the special court, Rae Bareli, pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them, and claimed trial. Already 12 witnesses were examined.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
They said the entire exercise of the CBI in filing a consolidated charge sheet before the special court in Lucknow and challenging the proceedings up to the level of the Supreme Court was nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It also raised serious doubts about the bona fides of the CBI especially when the issue that the Lucknow special court had no jurisdiction to try the case had attained finality for, the special leave petition, the review petition and the curative petition had all been dismissed.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Mr. Advani said the trial court had rightly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to try the case, and therefore there was no illegality in the impugned order dropping the conspiracy charge. This order was rightly upheld by the High Court.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Two FIRs&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Mr. Advani and 20 others faced charges in two cases arising out of two separate First Information Reports. The first FIR, in which conspiracy was alleged against &amp;ldquo;lakhs of unknown kar sevaks,&amp;rdquo; was for the offence of demolition (case 197).
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The second FIR specifically charged Mr. Advani and other leaders with making inflammatory speeches leading to the demolition, and this case (198) was tried in the special court in Rae Bareli. The two cases were later merged and handed over to the CBI, which filed a composite charge sheet on October 5, 1993.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
However, due to a technical flaw, the two cases were revived by an order of the High Court on February 12, 2001. On May 4, 2001, the sessions judge dropped the conspiracy charge against Mr. Advani and others, on the ground that case 197 related only to kar sevaks. This ruling was upheld by the High Court last year.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Assailing this order of the High Court order, the CBI said the trial court had erroneously concluded that the three BJP leaders and 18 others should be tried in case 198 and not 197. This distinction was made on the ground that those against whom only instigation and allied offences were made out should be relegated to case 198. Those who had indulged in the actual demolition, along with the offences of snatching of cameras and assault on mediapersons, should be tried in case 197.The CBI contended that the bifurcation of the case attempted by the trial court and approved by the High Court was completely erroneous in law.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu, 17 January, 2012, http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article2806711.ece&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;babri-case-final-hearing-on-conspiracy-charge-on-march-27-by-j-venkatesan-12628&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 12628,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 12508,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Babri Case: Final hearing on conspiracy charge on March 27 by J Venkatesan&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Minority,Law and Justice&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;



The Supreme Court on Monday posted for final hearing on March 27 a CBI special leave petition against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which upheld the dropping of the conspiracy charge by a special court against BJP leaders...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The Supreme Court on Monday posted for final hearing on March 27 a CBI special leave petition against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which upheld the dropping of the conspiracy charge by a special court against BJP leaders L. K. Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharti and 18 others in the Babri Masjid demolition case.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Senior counsel Ravi Shankar Prasad drew the court&#039;s attention to the fact that the appeal was time-barred. However, a Bench of Justices H.L. Dattu and C.K. Prasad said it would post the matter for final disposal.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&amp;lsquo;Just an incident&#039;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;When Additional Solicitor-General Vivek Tanka described the matter as the famous Babri Masjid demolition case, Justice Dattu retorted, &amp;ldquo;It is neither famous nor infamous, just an incident that had happened.&amp;rdquo;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The High Court had on May 20, 2010 upheld the special court&#039;s order of May 4, 2001 and dismissed the CBI&#039;s revision petition for a direction to proceed with the conspiracy charge against Mr. Advani and others. The CBI filed the appeal nearly nine months after the High Court verdict, with an application for condonation of the delay.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Mr. Advani and others, in their response, said the accused in crime no 198/1992 had already appeared before the special court, Rae Bareli, pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them, and claimed trial. Already 12 witnesses were examined.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;They said the entire exercise of the CBI in filing a consolidated charge sheet before the special court in Lucknow and challenging the proceedings up to the level of the Supreme Court was nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It also raised serious doubts about the bona fides of the CBI especially when the issue that the Lucknow special court had no jurisdiction to try the case had attained finality for, the special leave petition, the review petition and the curative petition had all been dismissed.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Mr. Advani said the trial court had rightly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to try the case, and therefore there was no illegality in the impugned order dropping the conspiracy charge. This order was rightly upheld by the High Court.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Two FIRs&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Mr. Advani and 20 others faced charges in two cases arising out of two separate First Information Reports. The first FIR, in which conspiracy was alleged against &amp;ldquo;lakhs of unknown kar sevaks,&amp;rdquo; was for the offence of demolition (case 197).&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The second FIR specifically charged Mr. Advani and other leaders with making inflammatory speeches leading to the demolition, and this case (198) was tried in the special court in Rae Bareli. The two cases were later merged and handed over to the CBI, which filed a composite charge sheet on October 5, 1993.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;However, due to a technical flaw, the two cases were revived by an order of the High Court on February 12, 2001. On May 4, 2001, the sessions judge dropped the conspiracy charge against Mr. Advani and others, on the ground that case 197 related only to kar sevaks. This ruling was upheld by the High Court last year.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Assailing this order of the High Court order, the CBI said the trial court had erroneously concluded that the three BJP leaders and 18 others should be tried in case 198 and not 197. This distinction was made on the ground that those against whom only instigation and allied offences were made out should be relegated to case 198. Those who had indulged in the actual demolition, along with the offences of snatching of cameras and assault on mediapersons, should be tried in case 197.The CBI contended that the bifurcation of the case attempted by the trial court and approved by the High Court was completely erroneous in law.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 12508,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Babri Case: Final hearing on conspiracy charge on March 27 by J Venkatesan&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The Supreme Court on Monday posted for final hearing on March 27 a CBI special leave petition against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which upheld the dropping of the conspiracy charge by a special court against BJP leaders L. K. Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharti and 18 others in the Babri Masjid demolition case.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Senior counsel Ravi Shankar Prasad drew the court&#039;s attention to the fact that the appeal was time-barred. However, a Bench of Justices H.L. Dattu and C.K. Prasad said it would post the matter for final disposal.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;&amp;lsquo;Just an incident&#039;&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
When Additional Solicitor-General Vivek Tanka described the matter as the famous Babri Masjid demolition case, Justice Dattu retorted, &amp;ldquo;It is neither famous nor infamous, just an incident that had happened.&amp;rdquo;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The High Court had on May 20, 2010 upheld the special court&#039;s order of May 4, 2001 and dismissed the CBI&#039;s revision petition for a direction to proceed with the conspiracy charge against Mr. Advani and others. The CBI filed the appeal nearly nine months after the High Court verdict, with an application for condonation of the delay.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Mr. Advani and others, in their response, said the accused in crime no 198/1992 had already appeared before the special court, Rae Bareli, pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them, and claimed trial. Already 12 witnesses were examined.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
They said the entire exercise of the CBI in filing a consolidated charge sheet before the special court in Lucknow and challenging the proceedings up to the level of the Supreme Court was nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It also raised serious doubts about the bona fides of the CBI especially when the issue that the Lucknow special court had no jurisdiction to try the case had attained finality for, the special leave petition, the review petition and the curative petition had all been dismissed.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Mr. Advani said the trial court had rightly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to try the case, and therefore there was no illegality in the impugned order dropping the conspiracy charge. This order was rightly upheld by the High Court.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Two FIRs&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Mr. Advani and 20 others faced charges in two cases arising out of two separate First Information Reports. The first FIR, in which conspiracy was alleged against &amp;ldquo;lakhs of unknown kar sevaks,&amp;rdquo; was for the offence of demolition (case 197).
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The second FIR specifically charged Mr. Advani and other leaders with making inflammatory speeches leading to the demolition, and this case (198) was tried in the special court in Rae Bareli. The two cases were later merged and handed over to the CBI, which filed a composite charge sheet on October 5, 1993.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
However, due to a technical flaw, the two cases were revived by an order of the High Court on February 12, 2001. On May 4, 2001, the sessions judge dropped the conspiracy charge against Mr. Advani and others, on the ground that case 197 related only to kar sevaks. This ruling was upheld by the High Court last year.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Assailing this order of the High Court order, the CBI said the trial court had erroneously concluded that the three BJP leaders and 18 others should be tried in case 198 and not 197. This distinction was made on the ground that those against whom only instigation and allied offences were made out should be relegated to case 198. Those who had indulged in the actual demolition, along with the offences of snatching of cameras and assault on mediapersons, should be tried in case 197.The CBI contended that the bifurcation of the case attempted by the trial court and approved by the High Court was completely erroneous in law.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu, 17 January, 2012, http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article2806711.ece&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;babri-case-final-hearing-on-conspiracy-charge-on-march-27-by-j-venkatesan-12628&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 12628,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 12508
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Babri Case: Final hearing on conspiracy charge on March 27 by J Venkatesan&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Minority,Law and Justice&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;



The Supreme Court on Monday posted for final hearing on March 27 a CBI special leave petition against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which upheld the dropping of the conspiracy charge by a special court against BJP leaders...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The Supreme Court on Monday posted for final hearing on March 27 a CBI special leave petition against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which upheld the dropping of the conspiracy charge by a special court against BJP leaders L. K. Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharti and 18 others in the Babri Masjid demolition case.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Senior counsel Ravi Shankar Prasad drew the court&#039;s attention to the fact that the appeal was time-barred. However, a Bench of Justices H.L. Dattu and C.K. Prasad said it would post the matter for final disposal.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&amp;lsquo;Just an incident&#039;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;When Additional Solicitor-General Vivek Tanka described the matter as the famous Babri Masjid demolition case, Justice Dattu retorted, &amp;ldquo;It is neither famous nor infamous, just an incident that had happened.&amp;rdquo;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The High Court had on May 20, 2010 upheld the special court&#039;s order of May 4, 2001 and dismissed the CBI&#039;s revision petition for a direction to proceed with the conspiracy charge against Mr. Advani and others. The CBI filed the appeal nearly nine months after the High Court verdict, with an application for condonation of the delay.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Mr. Advani and others, in their response, said the accused in crime no 198/1992 had already appeared before the special court, Rae Bareli, pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them, and claimed trial. Already 12 witnesses were examined.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;They said the entire exercise of the CBI in filing a consolidated charge sheet before the special court in Lucknow and challenging the proceedings up to the level of the Supreme Court was nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It also raised serious doubts about the bona fides of the CBI especially when the issue that the Lucknow special court had no jurisdiction to try the case had attained finality for, the special leave petition, the review petition and the curative petition had all been dismissed.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Mr. Advani said the trial court had rightly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to try the case, and therefore there was no illegality in the impugned order dropping the conspiracy charge. This order was rightly upheld by the High Court.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Two FIRs&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Mr. Advani and 20 others faced charges in two cases arising out of two separate First Information Reports. The first FIR, in which conspiracy was alleged against &amp;ldquo;lakhs of unknown kar sevaks,&amp;rdquo; was for the offence of demolition (case 197).&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The second FIR specifically charged Mr. Advani and other leaders with making inflammatory speeches leading to the demolition, and this case (198) was tried in the special court in Rae Bareli. The two cases were later merged and handed over to the CBI, which filed a composite charge sheet on October 5, 1993.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;However, due to a technical flaw, the two cases were revived by an order of the High Court on February 12, 2001. On May 4, 2001, the sessions judge dropped the conspiracy charge against Mr. Advani and others, on the ground that case 197 related only to kar sevaks. This ruling was upheld by the High Court last year.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Assailing this order of the High Court order, the CBI said the trial court had erroneously concluded that the three BJP leaders and 18 others should be tried in case 198 and not 197. This distinction was made on the ground that those against whom only instigation and allied offences were made out should be relegated to case 198. Those who had indulged in the actual demolition, along with the offences of snatching of cameras and assault on mediapersons, should be tried in case 197.The CBI contended that the bifurcation of the case attempted by the trial court and approved by the High Court was completely erroneous in law.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/babri-case-final-hearing-on-conspiracy-charge-on-march-27-by-j-venkatesan-12628.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Babri Case: Final hearing on conspiracy charge on March 27 by J Venkatesan | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="



The Supreme Court on Monday posted for final hearing on March 27 a CBI special leave petition against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which upheld the dropping of the conspiracy charge by a special court against BJP leaders..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Babri Case: Final hearing on conspiracy charge on March 27 by J Venkatesan</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The Supreme Court on Monday posted for final hearing on March 27 a CBI special leave petition against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which upheld the dropping of the conspiracy charge by a special court against BJP leaders L. K. Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharti and 18 others in the Babri Masjid demolition case.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Senior counsel Ravi Shankar Prasad drew the court's attention to the fact that the appeal was time-barred. However, a Bench of Justices H.L. Dattu and C.K. Prasad said it would post the matter for final disposal.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify"><em>&lsquo;Just an incident'</em></div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">When Additional Solicitor-General Vivek Tanka described the matter as the famous Babri Masjid demolition case, Justice Dattu retorted, &ldquo;It is neither famous nor infamous, just an incident that had happened.&rdquo;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The High Court had on May 20, 2010 upheld the special court's order of May 4, 2001 and dismissed the CBI's revision petition for a direction to proceed with the conspiracy charge against Mr. Advani and others. The CBI filed the appeal nearly nine months after the High Court verdict, with an application for condonation of the delay.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Mr. Advani and others, in their response, said the accused in crime no 198/1992 had already appeared before the special court, Rae Bareli, pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them, and claimed trial. Already 12 witnesses were examined.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">They said the entire exercise of the CBI in filing a consolidated charge sheet before the special court in Lucknow and challenging the proceedings up to the level of the Supreme Court was nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It also raised serious doubts about the bona fides of the CBI especially when the issue that the Lucknow special court had no jurisdiction to try the case had attained finality for, the special leave petition, the review petition and the curative petition had all been dismissed.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Mr. Advani said the trial court had rightly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to try the case, and therefore there was no illegality in the impugned order dropping the conspiracy charge. This order was rightly upheld by the High Court.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify"><em>Two FIRs</em></div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Mr. Advani and 20 others faced charges in two cases arising out of two separate First Information Reports. The first FIR, in which conspiracy was alleged against &ldquo;lakhs of unknown kar sevaks,&rdquo; was for the offence of demolition (case 197).</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The second FIR specifically charged Mr. Advani and other leaders with making inflammatory speeches leading to the demolition, and this case (198) was tried in the special court in Rae Bareli. The two cases were later merged and handed over to the CBI, which filed a composite charge sheet on October 5, 1993.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">However, due to a technical flaw, the two cases were revived by an order of the High Court on February 12, 2001. On May 4, 2001, the sessions judge dropped the conspiracy charge against Mr. Advani and others, on the ground that case 197 related only to kar sevaks. This ruling was upheld by the High Court last year.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Assailing this order of the High Court order, the CBI said the trial court had erroneously concluded that the three BJP leaders and 18 others should be tried in case 198 and not 197. This distinction was made on the ground that those against whom only instigation and allied offences were made out should be relegated to case 198. Those who had indulged in the actual demolition, along with the offences of snatching of cameras and assault on mediapersons, should be tried in case 197.The CBI contended that the bifurcation of the case attempted by the trial court and approved by the High Court was completely erroneous in law.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$reasonPhrase = 'OK'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitStatusLine() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 54
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
Code Context
                    $value

                ), $first);

                $first = false;
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6803f4e6315a8-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6803f4e6315a8-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr6803f4e6315a8-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6803f4e6315a8-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6803f4e6315a8-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6803f4e6315a8-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6803f4e6315a8-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr6803f4e6315a8-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr6803f4e6315a8-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 12508,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Babri Case: Final hearing on conspiracy charge on March 27 by J Venkatesan&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The Supreme Court on Monday posted for final hearing on March 27 a CBI special leave petition against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which upheld the dropping of the conspiracy charge by a special court against BJP leaders L. K. Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharti and 18 others in the Babri Masjid demolition case.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Senior counsel Ravi Shankar Prasad drew the court&#039;s attention to the fact that the appeal was time-barred. However, a Bench of Justices H.L. Dattu and C.K. Prasad said it would post the matter for final disposal.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;&amp;lsquo;Just an incident&#039;&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
When Additional Solicitor-General Vivek Tanka described the matter as the famous Babri Masjid demolition case, Justice Dattu retorted, &amp;ldquo;It is neither famous nor infamous, just an incident that had happened.&amp;rdquo;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The High Court had on May 20, 2010 upheld the special court&#039;s order of May 4, 2001 and dismissed the CBI&#039;s revision petition for a direction to proceed with the conspiracy charge against Mr. Advani and others. The CBI filed the appeal nearly nine months after the High Court verdict, with an application for condonation of the delay.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Mr. Advani and others, in their response, said the accused in crime no 198/1992 had already appeared before the special court, Rae Bareli, pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them, and claimed trial. Already 12 witnesses were examined.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
They said the entire exercise of the CBI in filing a consolidated charge sheet before the special court in Lucknow and challenging the proceedings up to the level of the Supreme Court was nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It also raised serious doubts about the bona fides of the CBI especially when the issue that the Lucknow special court had no jurisdiction to try the case had attained finality for, the special leave petition, the review petition and the curative petition had all been dismissed.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Mr. Advani said the trial court had rightly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to try the case, and therefore there was no illegality in the impugned order dropping the conspiracy charge. This order was rightly upheld by the High Court.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Two FIRs&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Mr. Advani and 20 others faced charges in two cases arising out of two separate First Information Reports. The first FIR, in which conspiracy was alleged against &amp;ldquo;lakhs of unknown kar sevaks,&amp;rdquo; was for the offence of demolition (case 197).
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The second FIR specifically charged Mr. Advani and other leaders with making inflammatory speeches leading to the demolition, and this case (198) was tried in the special court in Rae Bareli. The two cases were later merged and handed over to the CBI, which filed a composite charge sheet on October 5, 1993.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
However, due to a technical flaw, the two cases were revived by an order of the High Court on February 12, 2001. On May 4, 2001, the sessions judge dropped the conspiracy charge against Mr. Advani and others, on the ground that case 197 related only to kar sevaks. This ruling was upheld by the High Court last year.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Assailing this order of the High Court order, the CBI said the trial court had erroneously concluded that the three BJP leaders and 18 others should be tried in case 198 and not 197. This distinction was made on the ground that those against whom only instigation and allied offences were made out should be relegated to case 198. Those who had indulged in the actual demolition, along with the offences of snatching of cameras and assault on mediapersons, should be tried in case 197.The CBI contended that the bifurcation of the case attempted by the trial court and approved by the High Court was completely erroneous in law.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu, 17 January, 2012, http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article2806711.ece&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;babri-case-final-hearing-on-conspiracy-charge-on-march-27-by-j-venkatesan-12628&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 12628,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 12508,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Babri Case: Final hearing on conspiracy charge on March 27 by J Venkatesan&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Minority,Law and Justice&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;



The Supreme Court on Monday posted for final hearing on March 27 a CBI special leave petition against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which upheld the dropping of the conspiracy charge by a special court against BJP leaders...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The Supreme Court on Monday posted for final hearing on March 27 a CBI special leave petition against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which upheld the dropping of the conspiracy charge by a special court against BJP leaders L. K. Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharti and 18 others in the Babri Masjid demolition case.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Senior counsel Ravi Shankar Prasad drew the court&#039;s attention to the fact that the appeal was time-barred. However, a Bench of Justices H.L. Dattu and C.K. Prasad said it would post the matter for final disposal.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&amp;lsquo;Just an incident&#039;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;When Additional Solicitor-General Vivek Tanka described the matter as the famous Babri Masjid demolition case, Justice Dattu retorted, &amp;ldquo;It is neither famous nor infamous, just an incident that had happened.&amp;rdquo;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The High Court had on May 20, 2010 upheld the special court&#039;s order of May 4, 2001 and dismissed the CBI&#039;s revision petition for a direction to proceed with the conspiracy charge against Mr. Advani and others. The CBI filed the appeal nearly nine months after the High Court verdict, with an application for condonation of the delay.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Mr. Advani and others, in their response, said the accused in crime no 198/1992 had already appeared before the special court, Rae Bareli, pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them, and claimed trial. Already 12 witnesses were examined.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;They said the entire exercise of the CBI in filing a consolidated charge sheet before the special court in Lucknow and challenging the proceedings up to the level of the Supreme Court was nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It also raised serious doubts about the bona fides of the CBI especially when the issue that the Lucknow special court had no jurisdiction to try the case had attained finality for, the special leave petition, the review petition and the curative petition had all been dismissed.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Mr. Advani said the trial court had rightly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to try the case, and therefore there was no illegality in the impugned order dropping the conspiracy charge. This order was rightly upheld by the High Court.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Two FIRs&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Mr. Advani and 20 others faced charges in two cases arising out of two separate First Information Reports. The first FIR, in which conspiracy was alleged against &amp;ldquo;lakhs of unknown kar sevaks,&amp;rdquo; was for the offence of demolition (case 197).&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The second FIR specifically charged Mr. Advani and other leaders with making inflammatory speeches leading to the demolition, and this case (198) was tried in the special court in Rae Bareli. The two cases were later merged and handed over to the CBI, which filed a composite charge sheet on October 5, 1993.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;However, due to a technical flaw, the two cases were revived by an order of the High Court on February 12, 2001. On May 4, 2001, the sessions judge dropped the conspiracy charge against Mr. Advani and others, on the ground that case 197 related only to kar sevaks. This ruling was upheld by the High Court last year.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Assailing this order of the High Court order, the CBI said the trial court had erroneously concluded that the three BJP leaders and 18 others should be tried in case 198 and not 197. This distinction was made on the ground that those against whom only instigation and allied offences were made out should be relegated to case 198. Those who had indulged in the actual demolition, along with the offences of snatching of cameras and assault on mediapersons, should be tried in case 197.The CBI contended that the bifurcation of the case attempted by the trial court and approved by the High Court was completely erroneous in law.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 12508,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Babri Case: Final hearing on conspiracy charge on March 27 by J Venkatesan&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The Supreme Court on Monday posted for final hearing on March 27 a CBI special leave petition against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which upheld the dropping of the conspiracy charge by a special court against BJP leaders L. K. Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharti and 18 others in the Babri Masjid demolition case.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Senior counsel Ravi Shankar Prasad drew the court&#039;s attention to the fact that the appeal was time-barred. However, a Bench of Justices H.L. Dattu and C.K. Prasad said it would post the matter for final disposal.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;&amp;lsquo;Just an incident&#039;&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
When Additional Solicitor-General Vivek Tanka described the matter as the famous Babri Masjid demolition case, Justice Dattu retorted, &amp;ldquo;It is neither famous nor infamous, just an incident that had happened.&amp;rdquo;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The High Court had on May 20, 2010 upheld the special court&#039;s order of May 4, 2001 and dismissed the CBI&#039;s revision petition for a direction to proceed with the conspiracy charge against Mr. Advani and others. The CBI filed the appeal nearly nine months after the High Court verdict, with an application for condonation of the delay.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Mr. Advani and others, in their response, said the accused in crime no 198/1992 had already appeared before the special court, Rae Bareli, pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them, and claimed trial. Already 12 witnesses were examined.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
They said the entire exercise of the CBI in filing a consolidated charge sheet before the special court in Lucknow and challenging the proceedings up to the level of the Supreme Court was nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It also raised serious doubts about the bona fides of the CBI especially when the issue that the Lucknow special court had no jurisdiction to try the case had attained finality for, the special leave petition, the review petition and the curative petition had all been dismissed.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Mr. Advani said the trial court had rightly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to try the case, and therefore there was no illegality in the impugned order dropping the conspiracy charge. This order was rightly upheld by the High Court.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Two FIRs&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Mr. Advani and 20 others faced charges in two cases arising out of two separate First Information Reports. The first FIR, in which conspiracy was alleged against &amp;ldquo;lakhs of unknown kar sevaks,&amp;rdquo; was for the offence of demolition (case 197).
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The second FIR specifically charged Mr. Advani and other leaders with making inflammatory speeches leading to the demolition, and this case (198) was tried in the special court in Rae Bareli. The two cases were later merged and handed over to the CBI, which filed a composite charge sheet on October 5, 1993.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
However, due to a technical flaw, the two cases were revived by an order of the High Court on February 12, 2001. On May 4, 2001, the sessions judge dropped the conspiracy charge against Mr. Advani and others, on the ground that case 197 related only to kar sevaks. This ruling was upheld by the High Court last year.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Assailing this order of the High Court order, the CBI said the trial court had erroneously concluded that the three BJP leaders and 18 others should be tried in case 198 and not 197. This distinction was made on the ground that those against whom only instigation and allied offences were made out should be relegated to case 198. Those who had indulged in the actual demolition, along with the offences of snatching of cameras and assault on mediapersons, should be tried in case 197.The CBI contended that the bifurcation of the case attempted by the trial court and approved by the High Court was completely erroneous in law.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu, 17 January, 2012, http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article2806711.ece&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;babri-case-final-hearing-on-conspiracy-charge-on-march-27-by-j-venkatesan-12628&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 12628,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 12508
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Babri Case: Final hearing on conspiracy charge on March 27 by J Venkatesan&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Minority,Law and Justice&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;



The Supreme Court on Monday posted for final hearing on March 27 a CBI special leave petition against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which upheld the dropping of the conspiracy charge by a special court against BJP leaders...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The Supreme Court on Monday posted for final hearing on March 27 a CBI special leave petition against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which upheld the dropping of the conspiracy charge by a special court against BJP leaders L. K. Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharti and 18 others in the Babri Masjid demolition case.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Senior counsel Ravi Shankar Prasad drew the court&#039;s attention to the fact that the appeal was time-barred. However, a Bench of Justices H.L. Dattu and C.K. Prasad said it would post the matter for final disposal.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&amp;lsquo;Just an incident&#039;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;When Additional Solicitor-General Vivek Tanka described the matter as the famous Babri Masjid demolition case, Justice Dattu retorted, &amp;ldquo;It is neither famous nor infamous, just an incident that had happened.&amp;rdquo;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The High Court had on May 20, 2010 upheld the special court&#039;s order of May 4, 2001 and dismissed the CBI&#039;s revision petition for a direction to proceed with the conspiracy charge against Mr. Advani and others. The CBI filed the appeal nearly nine months after the High Court verdict, with an application for condonation of the delay.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Mr. Advani and others, in their response, said the accused in crime no 198/1992 had already appeared before the special court, Rae Bareli, pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them, and claimed trial. Already 12 witnesses were examined.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;They said the entire exercise of the CBI in filing a consolidated charge sheet before the special court in Lucknow and challenging the proceedings up to the level of the Supreme Court was nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It also raised serious doubts about the bona fides of the CBI especially when the issue that the Lucknow special court had no jurisdiction to try the case had attained finality for, the special leave petition, the review petition and the curative petition had all been dismissed.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Mr. Advani said the trial court had rightly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to try the case, and therefore there was no illegality in the impugned order dropping the conspiracy charge. This order was rightly upheld by the High Court.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Two FIRs&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Mr. Advani and 20 others faced charges in two cases arising out of two separate First Information Reports. The first FIR, in which conspiracy was alleged against &amp;ldquo;lakhs of unknown kar sevaks,&amp;rdquo; was for the offence of demolition (case 197).&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The second FIR specifically charged Mr. Advani and other leaders with making inflammatory speeches leading to the demolition, and this case (198) was tried in the special court in Rae Bareli. The two cases were later merged and handed over to the CBI, which filed a composite charge sheet on October 5, 1993.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;However, due to a technical flaw, the two cases were revived by an order of the High Court on February 12, 2001. On May 4, 2001, the sessions judge dropped the conspiracy charge against Mr. Advani and others, on the ground that case 197 related only to kar sevaks. This ruling was upheld by the High Court last year.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Assailing this order of the High Court order, the CBI said the trial court had erroneously concluded that the three BJP leaders and 18 others should be tried in case 198 and not 197. This distinction was made on the ground that those against whom only instigation and allied offences were made out should be relegated to case 198. Those who had indulged in the actual demolition, along with the offences of snatching of cameras and assault on mediapersons, should be tried in case 197.The CBI contended that the bifurcation of the case attempted by the trial court and approved by the High Court was completely erroneous in law.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/babri-case-final-hearing-on-conspiracy-charge-on-march-27-by-j-venkatesan-12628.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Babri Case: Final hearing on conspiracy charge on March 27 by J Venkatesan | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="



The Supreme Court on Monday posted for final hearing on March 27 a CBI special leave petition against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which upheld the dropping of the conspiracy charge by a special court against BJP leaders..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Babri Case: Final hearing on conspiracy charge on March 27 by J Venkatesan</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The Supreme Court on Monday posted for final hearing on March 27 a CBI special leave petition against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which upheld the dropping of the conspiracy charge by a special court against BJP leaders L. K. Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharti and 18 others in the Babri Masjid demolition case.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Senior counsel Ravi Shankar Prasad drew the court's attention to the fact that the appeal was time-barred. However, a Bench of Justices H.L. Dattu and C.K. Prasad said it would post the matter for final disposal.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify"><em>&lsquo;Just an incident'</em></div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">When Additional Solicitor-General Vivek Tanka described the matter as the famous Babri Masjid demolition case, Justice Dattu retorted, &ldquo;It is neither famous nor infamous, just an incident that had happened.&rdquo;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The High Court had on May 20, 2010 upheld the special court's order of May 4, 2001 and dismissed the CBI's revision petition for a direction to proceed with the conspiracy charge against Mr. Advani and others. The CBI filed the appeal nearly nine months after the High Court verdict, with an application for condonation of the delay.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Mr. Advani and others, in their response, said the accused in crime no 198/1992 had already appeared before the special court, Rae Bareli, pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them, and claimed trial. Already 12 witnesses were examined.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">They said the entire exercise of the CBI in filing a consolidated charge sheet before the special court in Lucknow and challenging the proceedings up to the level of the Supreme Court was nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It also raised serious doubts about the bona fides of the CBI especially when the issue that the Lucknow special court had no jurisdiction to try the case had attained finality for, the special leave petition, the review petition and the curative petition had all been dismissed.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Mr. Advani said the trial court had rightly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to try the case, and therefore there was no illegality in the impugned order dropping the conspiracy charge. This order was rightly upheld by the High Court.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify"><em>Two FIRs</em></div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Mr. Advani and 20 others faced charges in two cases arising out of two separate First Information Reports. The first FIR, in which conspiracy was alleged against &ldquo;lakhs of unknown kar sevaks,&rdquo; was for the offence of demolition (case 197).</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The second FIR specifically charged Mr. Advani and other leaders with making inflammatory speeches leading to the demolition, and this case (198) was tried in the special court in Rae Bareli. The two cases were later merged and handed over to the CBI, which filed a composite charge sheet on October 5, 1993.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">However, due to a technical flaw, the two cases were revived by an order of the High Court on February 12, 2001. On May 4, 2001, the sessions judge dropped the conspiracy charge against Mr. Advani and others, on the ground that case 197 related only to kar sevaks. This ruling was upheld by the High Court last year.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Assailing this order of the High Court order, the CBI said the trial court had erroneously concluded that the three BJP leaders and 18 others should be tried in case 198 and not 197. This distinction was made on the ground that those against whom only instigation and allied offences were made out should be relegated to case 198. Those who had indulged in the actual demolition, along with the offences of snatching of cameras and assault on mediapersons, should be tried in case 197.The CBI contended that the bifurcation of the case attempted by the trial court and approved by the High Court was completely erroneous in law.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$cookies = []
$values = [
	(int) 0 => 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
]
$name = 'Content-Type'
$first = true
$value = 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitHeaders() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 55
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

<head>

    <link rel="canonical" href="<?php echo Configure::read('SITE_URL'); ?><?php echo $urlPrefix;?><?php echo $article_current->category->slug; ?>/<?php echo $article_current->seo_url; ?>.html"/>

    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>

$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp'
$dataForView = [
	'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		'id' => (int) 12508,
		'title' => 'Babri Case: Final hearing on conspiracy charge on March 27 by J Venkatesan',
		'subheading' => '',
		'description' => '<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
The Supreme Court on Monday posted for final hearing on March 27 a CBI special leave petition against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which upheld the dropping of the conspiracy charge by a special court against BJP leaders L. K. Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharti and 18 others in the Babri Masjid demolition case.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
Senior counsel Ravi Shankar Prasad drew the court's attention to the fact that the appeal was time-barred. However, a Bench of Justices H.L. Dattu and C.K. Prasad said it would post the matter for final disposal.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<em>&lsquo;Just an incident'</em>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
When Additional Solicitor-General Vivek Tanka described the matter as the famous Babri Masjid demolition case, Justice Dattu retorted, &ldquo;It is neither famous nor infamous, just an incident that had happened.&rdquo;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
The High Court had on May 20, 2010 upheld the special court's order of May 4, 2001 and dismissed the CBI's revision petition for a direction to proceed with the conspiracy charge against Mr. Advani and others. The CBI filed the appeal nearly nine months after the High Court verdict, with an application for condonation of the delay.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
Mr. Advani and others, in their response, said the accused in crime no 198/1992 had already appeared before the special court, Rae Bareli, pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them, and claimed trial. Already 12 witnesses were examined.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
They said the entire exercise of the CBI in filing a consolidated charge sheet before the special court in Lucknow and challenging the proceedings up to the level of the Supreme Court was nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It also raised serious doubts about the bona fides of the CBI especially when the issue that the Lucknow special court had no jurisdiction to try the case had attained finality for, the special leave petition, the review petition and the curative petition had all been dismissed.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
Mr. Advani said the trial court had rightly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to try the case, and therefore there was no illegality in the impugned order dropping the conspiracy charge. This order was rightly upheld by the High Court.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<em>Two FIRs</em>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
Mr. Advani and 20 others faced charges in two cases arising out of two separate First Information Reports. The first FIR, in which conspiracy was alleged against &ldquo;lakhs of unknown kar sevaks,&rdquo; was for the offence of demolition (case 197).
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
The second FIR specifically charged Mr. Advani and other leaders with making inflammatory speeches leading to the demolition, and this case (198) was tried in the special court in Rae Bareli. The two cases were later merged and handed over to the CBI, which filed a composite charge sheet on October 5, 1993.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
However, due to a technical flaw, the two cases were revived by an order of the High Court on February 12, 2001. On May 4, 2001, the sessions judge dropped the conspiracy charge against Mr. Advani and others, on the ground that case 197 related only to kar sevaks. This ruling was upheld by the High Court last year.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
Assailing this order of the High Court order, the CBI said the trial court had erroneously concluded that the three BJP leaders and 18 others should be tried in case 198 and not 197. This distinction was made on the ground that those against whom only instigation and allied offences were made out should be relegated to case 198. Those who had indulged in the actual demolition, along with the offences of snatching of cameras and assault on mediapersons, should be tried in case 197.The CBI contended that the bifurcation of the case attempted by the trial court and approved by the High Court was completely erroneous in law.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>',
		'credit_writer' => 'The Hindu, 17 January, 2012, http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article2806711.ece',
		'article_img' => '',
		'article_img_thumb' => '',
		'status' => (int) 1,
		'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
		'lang' => 'EN',
		'category_id' => (int) 16,
		'tag_keyword' => '',
		'seo_url' => 'babri-case-final-hearing-on-conspiracy-charge-on-march-27-by-j-venkatesan-12628',
		'meta_title' => null,
		'meta_keywords' => null,
		'meta_description' => null,
		'noindex' => (int) 0,
		'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		'most_visit_section_id' => null,
		'article_big_img' => null,
		'liveid' => (int) 12628,
		'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'edate' => '',
		'tags' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		'[new]' => false,
		'[accessible]' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[hasErrors]' => false,
		'[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[repository]' => 'Articles'
	
	},
	'articleid' => (int) 12508,
	'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Babri Case: Final hearing on conspiracy charge on March 27 by J Venkatesan',
	'metaKeywords' => 'Minority,Law and Justice',
	'metaDesc' => '



The Supreme Court on Monday posted for final hearing on March 27 a CBI special leave petition against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which upheld the dropping of the conspiracy charge by a special court against BJP leaders...',
	'disp' => '<div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The Supreme Court on Monday posted for final hearing on March 27 a CBI special leave petition against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which upheld the dropping of the conspiracy charge by a special court against BJP leaders L. K. Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharti and 18 others in the Babri Masjid demolition case.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Senior counsel Ravi Shankar Prasad drew the court's attention to the fact that the appeal was time-barred. However, a Bench of Justices H.L. Dattu and C.K. Prasad said it would post the matter for final disposal.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify"><em>&lsquo;Just an incident'</em></div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">When Additional Solicitor-General Vivek Tanka described the matter as the famous Babri Masjid demolition case, Justice Dattu retorted, &ldquo;It is neither famous nor infamous, just an incident that had happened.&rdquo;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The High Court had on May 20, 2010 upheld the special court's order of May 4, 2001 and dismissed the CBI's revision petition for a direction to proceed with the conspiracy charge against Mr. Advani and others. The CBI filed the appeal nearly nine months after the High Court verdict, with an application for condonation of the delay.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Mr. Advani and others, in their response, said the accused in crime no 198/1992 had already appeared before the special court, Rae Bareli, pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them, and claimed trial. Already 12 witnesses were examined.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">They said the entire exercise of the CBI in filing a consolidated charge sheet before the special court in Lucknow and challenging the proceedings up to the level of the Supreme Court was nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It also raised serious doubts about the bona fides of the CBI especially when the issue that the Lucknow special court had no jurisdiction to try the case had attained finality for, the special leave petition, the review petition and the curative petition had all been dismissed.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Mr. Advani said the trial court had rightly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to try the case, and therefore there was no illegality in the impugned order dropping the conspiracy charge. This order was rightly upheld by the High Court.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify"><em>Two FIRs</em></div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Mr. Advani and 20 others faced charges in two cases arising out of two separate First Information Reports. The first FIR, in which conspiracy was alleged against &ldquo;lakhs of unknown kar sevaks,&rdquo; was for the offence of demolition (case 197).</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The second FIR specifically charged Mr. Advani and other leaders with making inflammatory speeches leading to the demolition, and this case (198) was tried in the special court in Rae Bareli. The two cases were later merged and handed over to the CBI, which filed a composite charge sheet on October 5, 1993.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">However, due to a technical flaw, the two cases were revived by an order of the High Court on February 12, 2001. On May 4, 2001, the sessions judge dropped the conspiracy charge against Mr. Advani and others, on the ground that case 197 related only to kar sevaks. This ruling was upheld by the High Court last year.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Assailing this order of the High Court order, the CBI said the trial court had erroneously concluded that the three BJP leaders and 18 others should be tried in case 198 and not 197. This distinction was made on the ground that those against whom only instigation and allied offences were made out should be relegated to case 198. Those who had indulged in the actual demolition, along with the offences of snatching of cameras and assault on mediapersons, should be tried in case 197.The CBI contended that the bifurcation of the case attempted by the trial court and approved by the High Court was completely erroneous in law.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div>',
	'lang' => 'English',
	'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/',
	'site_title' => 'im4change',
	'adminprix' => 'admin'
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	'id' => (int) 12508,
	'title' => 'Babri Case: Final hearing on conspiracy charge on March 27 by J Venkatesan',
	'subheading' => '',
	'description' => '<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
The Supreme Court on Monday posted for final hearing on March 27 a CBI special leave petition against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which upheld the dropping of the conspiracy charge by a special court against BJP leaders L. K. Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharti and 18 others in the Babri Masjid demolition case.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
Senior counsel Ravi Shankar Prasad drew the court's attention to the fact that the appeal was time-barred. However, a Bench of Justices H.L. Dattu and C.K. Prasad said it would post the matter for final disposal.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<em>&lsquo;Just an incident'</em>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
When Additional Solicitor-General Vivek Tanka described the matter as the famous Babri Masjid demolition case, Justice Dattu retorted, &ldquo;It is neither famous nor infamous, just an incident that had happened.&rdquo;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
The High Court had on May 20, 2010 upheld the special court's order of May 4, 2001 and dismissed the CBI's revision petition for a direction to proceed with the conspiracy charge against Mr. Advani and others. The CBI filed the appeal nearly nine months after the High Court verdict, with an application for condonation of the delay.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
Mr. Advani and others, in their response, said the accused in crime no 198/1992 had already appeared before the special court, Rae Bareli, pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them, and claimed trial. Already 12 witnesses were examined.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
They said the entire exercise of the CBI in filing a consolidated charge sheet before the special court in Lucknow and challenging the proceedings up to the level of the Supreme Court was nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It also raised serious doubts about the bona fides of the CBI especially when the issue that the Lucknow special court had no jurisdiction to try the case had attained finality for, the special leave petition, the review petition and the curative petition had all been dismissed.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
Mr. Advani said the trial court had rightly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to try the case, and therefore there was no illegality in the impugned order dropping the conspiracy charge. This order was rightly upheld by the High Court.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<em>Two FIRs</em>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
Mr. Advani and 20 others faced charges in two cases arising out of two separate First Information Reports. The first FIR, in which conspiracy was alleged against &ldquo;lakhs of unknown kar sevaks,&rdquo; was for the offence of demolition (case 197).
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
The second FIR specifically charged Mr. Advani and other leaders with making inflammatory speeches leading to the demolition, and this case (198) was tried in the special court in Rae Bareli. The two cases were later merged and handed over to the CBI, which filed a composite charge sheet on October 5, 1993.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
However, due to a technical flaw, the two cases were revived by an order of the High Court on February 12, 2001. On May 4, 2001, the sessions judge dropped the conspiracy charge against Mr. Advani and others, on the ground that case 197 related only to kar sevaks. This ruling was upheld by the High Court last year.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
Assailing this order of the High Court order, the CBI said the trial court had erroneously concluded that the three BJP leaders and 18 others should be tried in case 198 and not 197. This distinction was made on the ground that those against whom only instigation and allied offences were made out should be relegated to case 198. Those who had indulged in the actual demolition, along with the offences of snatching of cameras and assault on mediapersons, should be tried in case 197.The CBI contended that the bifurcation of the case attempted by the trial court and approved by the High Court was completely erroneous in law.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>',
	'credit_writer' => 'The Hindu, 17 January, 2012, http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article2806711.ece',
	'article_img' => '',
	'article_img_thumb' => '',
	'status' => (int) 1,
	'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
	'lang' => 'EN',
	'category_id' => (int) 16,
	'tag_keyword' => '',
	'seo_url' => 'babri-case-final-hearing-on-conspiracy-charge-on-march-27-by-j-venkatesan-12628',
	'meta_title' => null,
	'meta_keywords' => null,
	'meta_description' => null,
	'noindex' => (int) 0,
	'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	'most_visit_section_id' => null,
	'article_big_img' => null,
	'liveid' => (int) 12628,
	'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'edate' => '',
	'tags' => [
		(int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	'[new]' => false,
	'[accessible]' => [
		'*' => true,
		'id' => false
	],
	'[dirty]' => [],
	'[original]' => [],
	'[virtual]' => [],
	'[hasErrors]' => false,
	'[errors]' => [],
	'[invalid]' => [],
	'[repository]' => 'Articles'

}
$articleid = (int) 12508
$metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Babri Case: Final hearing on conspiracy charge on March 27 by J Venkatesan'
$metaKeywords = 'Minority,Law and Justice'
$metaDesc = '



The Supreme Court on Monday posted for final hearing on March 27 a CBI special leave petition against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which upheld the dropping of the conspiracy charge by a special court against BJP leaders...'
$disp = '<div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The Supreme Court on Monday posted for final hearing on March 27 a CBI special leave petition against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which upheld the dropping of the conspiracy charge by a special court against BJP leaders L. K. Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharti and 18 others in the Babri Masjid demolition case.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Senior counsel Ravi Shankar Prasad drew the court's attention to the fact that the appeal was time-barred. However, a Bench of Justices H.L. Dattu and C.K. Prasad said it would post the matter for final disposal.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify"><em>&lsquo;Just an incident'</em></div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">When Additional Solicitor-General Vivek Tanka described the matter as the famous Babri Masjid demolition case, Justice Dattu retorted, &ldquo;It is neither famous nor infamous, just an incident that had happened.&rdquo;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The High Court had on May 20, 2010 upheld the special court's order of May 4, 2001 and dismissed the CBI's revision petition for a direction to proceed with the conspiracy charge against Mr. Advani and others. The CBI filed the appeal nearly nine months after the High Court verdict, with an application for condonation of the delay.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Mr. Advani and others, in their response, said the accused in crime no 198/1992 had already appeared before the special court, Rae Bareli, pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them, and claimed trial. Already 12 witnesses were examined.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">They said the entire exercise of the CBI in filing a consolidated charge sheet before the special court in Lucknow and challenging the proceedings up to the level of the Supreme Court was nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It also raised serious doubts about the bona fides of the CBI especially when the issue that the Lucknow special court had no jurisdiction to try the case had attained finality for, the special leave petition, the review petition and the curative petition had all been dismissed.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Mr. Advani said the trial court had rightly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to try the case, and therefore there was no illegality in the impugned order dropping the conspiracy charge. This order was rightly upheld by the High Court.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify"><em>Two FIRs</em></div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Mr. Advani and 20 others faced charges in two cases arising out of two separate First Information Reports. The first FIR, in which conspiracy was alleged against &ldquo;lakhs of unknown kar sevaks,&rdquo; was for the offence of demolition (case 197).</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The second FIR specifically charged Mr. Advani and other leaders with making inflammatory speeches leading to the demolition, and this case (198) was tried in the special court in Rae Bareli. The two cases were later merged and handed over to the CBI, which filed a composite charge sheet on October 5, 1993.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">However, due to a technical flaw, the two cases were revived by an order of the High Court on February 12, 2001. On May 4, 2001, the sessions judge dropped the conspiracy charge against Mr. Advani and others, on the ground that case 197 related only to kar sevaks. This ruling was upheld by the High Court last year.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Assailing this order of the High Court order, the CBI said the trial court had erroneously concluded that the three BJP leaders and 18 others should be tried in case 198 and not 197. This distinction was made on the ground that those against whom only instigation and allied offences were made out should be relegated to case 198. Those who had indulged in the actual demolition, along with the offences of snatching of cameras and assault on mediapersons, should be tried in case 197.The CBI contended that the bifurcation of the case attempted by the trial court and approved by the High Court was completely erroneous in law.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div>'
$lang = 'English'
$SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/'
$site_title = 'im4change'
$adminprix = 'admin'

include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51

Babri Case: Final hearing on conspiracy charge on March 27 by J Venkatesan

The Supreme Court on Monday posted for final hearing on March 27 a CBI special leave petition against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which upheld the dropping of the conspiracy charge by a special court against BJP leaders L. K. Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharti and 18 others in the Babri Masjid demolition case. Senior counsel Ravi Shankar Prasad drew the court's attention to the fact that the appeal was time-barred. However, a Bench of Justices H.L. Dattu and C.K. Prasad said it would post the matter for final disposal. ‘Just an incident' When Additional Solicitor-General Vivek Tanka described the matter as the famous Babri Masjid demolition case, Justice Dattu retorted, “It is neither famous nor infamous, just an incident that had happened.” The High Court had on May 20, 2010 upheld the special court's order of May 4, 2001 and dismissed the CBI's revision petition for a direction to proceed with the conspiracy charge against Mr. Advani and others. The CBI filed the appeal nearly nine months after the High Court verdict, with an application for condonation of the delay. Mr. Advani and others, in their response, said the accused in crime no 198/1992 had already appeared before the special court, Rae Bareli, pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them, and claimed trial. Already 12 witnesses were examined. They said the entire exercise of the CBI in filing a consolidated charge sheet before the special court in Lucknow and challenging the proceedings up to the level of the Supreme Court was nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It also raised serious doubts about the bona fides of the CBI especially when the issue that the Lucknow special court had no jurisdiction to try the case had attained finality for, the special leave petition, the review petition and the curative petition had all been dismissed. Mr. Advani said the trial court had rightly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to try the case, and therefore there was no illegality in the impugned order dropping the conspiracy charge. This order was rightly upheld by the High Court. Two FIRs Mr. Advani and 20 others faced charges in two cases arising out of two separate First Information Reports. The first FIR, in which conspiracy was alleged against “lakhs of unknown kar sevaks,” was for the offence of demolition (case 197). The second FIR specifically charged Mr. Advani and other leaders with making inflammatory speeches leading to the demolition, and this case (198) was tried in the special court in Rae Bareli. The two cases were later merged and handed over to the CBI, which filed a composite charge sheet on October 5, 1993. However, due to a technical flaw, the two cases were revived by an order of the High Court on February 12, 2001. On May 4, 2001, the sessions judge dropped the conspiracy charge against Mr. Advani and others, on the ground that case 197 related only to kar sevaks. This ruling was upheld by the High Court last year. Assailing this order of the High Court order, the CBI said the trial court had erroneously concluded that the three BJP leaders and 18 others should be tried in case 198 and not 197. This distinction was made on the ground that those against whom only instigation and allied offences were made out should be relegated to case 198. Those who had indulged in the actual demolition, along with the offences of snatching of cameras and assault on mediapersons, should be tried in case 197.The CBI contended that the bifurcation of the case attempted by the trial court and approved by the High Court was completely erroneous in law.