2002 riots: Order on Jafri's petition deferred to December 26

Zakia Jafri petitionOn September 30, the magistrate had said he would pronounce the order on October 28, but then he deferred the pronouncement till today. PTI

A local court Monday once again deferred the pronouncement of order on Zakia Jafri's petition against SIT's closure report that gave clean chit to Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi and others in the 2002 post- Godhra riots case.

Metropolitan Magistrate B J Ganatra, who was on leave

Monday, came to the court for a short time and informed the lawyers that he would pronounce the order on December 26.

Arguments on Jafri's petition lasted five months, till september this year. On September 30, the magistrate had said he would pronounce the order on October 28, but then he deferred the pronouncement till today.

Jafri's husband and former Congress MP Ehsan Jafri was among 69 people killed in the Gulbarg Society massacre here during the 2002 riots.

The Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigation Team, which probed Jafri's complaint naming Modi and others as being party to the conspiracy behind riots, said in its final report last February that whatever evidence it could gather was not sufficient to prosecute anybody.

Against this report, Jafri filed a petition in April this year, seeking its rejection and an order to police to file chargesheet against Modi and others.

Please read our terms of use before posting comments
TERMS OF USE: The views, opinions and comments posted are your, and are not endorsed by this website. You shall be solely responsible for the comment posted here. The website reserves the right to delete, reject, or otherwise remove any views, opinions and comments posted or part thereof. You shall ensure that the comment is not inflammatory, abusive, derogatory, defamatory &/or obscene, or contain pornographic matter and/or does not constitute hate mail, or violate privacy of any person (s) or breach confidentiality or otherwise is illegal, immoral or contrary to public policy. Nor should it contain anything infringing copyright &/or intellectual property rights of any person(s).
comments powered by Disqus