Judge S D Deshpande, after hearing arguments, also reserved order till September 24 on two applications filed by activist Santosh Daundkar. (Agencies)
One application pleaded that Daundkar be allowed to intervene in the case to help the prosecution. The other prayed for transfer of his complaint from magistrate court to sessions court about action against Salman and police for perjury (giving false evidence) by producing wrong witnesses in this case, as a result of which the trial was delayed.
Salman's lawyer Shrikant Shivade argued that the media was biased against the actor and was not reporting correctly the court proceedings. He also said that media should be directed to report true and fair proceedings of the case.
Daundkar's lawyers Aditya Pratap and Abha Singh argued that their client wanted to intervene in this case in public interest, to help the prosecution. They said section 301(1) of CrPc allowed Daundkar to intervene in the matter to help the prosecution. The lawyers cited three Supreme Court judgements to support their arguments.
On the other hand, Salman's lawyer argued that Daundkar was a third party and could not intervene in the case. He cited nine judgements to argue his case. The prosecutor said that he had no objection if Daundkar and his lawyers helped the prosecution. However, they had no right to examine the witnesses, he said.
As regards Daundkar's plea for perjury action against Salman and police, his lawyers said that the Magistrate's court at Bandra was inquiring into the matter.
The lawyers argued that the inquiry should now be conducted by the sessions court because the hit-and-run case has been transferred from Magistrate's court to sessions court after it was held that the charge of culpable homicide was made out against the actor.
Judge S D Deshpande, after hearing arguments, also reserved order till September 24 on two applications filed by activist Santosh Daundkar.