As the debate over conflict of interest in the Assembly ruckus case rages, counsels for the accused argued that no such questions were involved in the case.
While considering the discharge petition, the prosecutor can argue that there is either deficiency of evidence and the accused may be discharged or ample evidence is available to prosecute them. The prosecutor is an agency independent of the government, who is supposed to do justice to the case and the court and hence no question of conflict of interest, said lawyers of Rajagopal and Associates, the firm which represented the LDF leaders.
Discharge petition in Kerala Assembly ruckus case smacks of conflict of interest
Since the case was booked by the State, the prosecutor may argue that there was enough evidence to reject the discharge petition moved by the accused. Even if the State government gives consent to withdraw prosecution in a case, the prosecutor need not blindly follow it. Instead, he shall apply his mind freely to decide on the application, they said.
While considering the petition, the court needs to ascertain whether the prosecutor moved the application under any extraneous influence or acted without bonafide intentions, the lawyers observed.
The Supreme Court, in a few landmark judgments, had laid down that the State could withdraw prosecution in political interest even though it might have suffered pecuniary loss. Despite suffering loss following the destruction of public property in the Assembly, the State could withdraw prosecution, they contended.
