M A I N   N E W S

1-year jail for Zahira in Best Bakery case
Legal Correspondent

New Delhi, March 8
The Supreme Court today found Gujarat’s Best Bakery case key witness Zahira Sheikh guilty of committing contempt of court by making false statement before it that she had not filed any affidavit in the appeal for retrial in the case and sentenced her to one year’s imprisonment with a fine of Rs 50,000 on her.

Basing her conviction on the report of an Inquiry Committee, appointed by the Court under its former Registrar General (RG) B M Gupta, a Bench of Mr Justice Arijit Pasayat and Mr Justice H K Sema also directed Income Tax authorities to probe into her assets, bank deposits and investments worth Rs 5 lakh in her and her family members’ name during the year 2002.

“The (IT) proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the law…The Chief Commissioner, Vadodara is directed to take immediate steps for initiation of appropriate proceedings. It shall be open to IT Authorities to direct continuance of the attachment (of assets and bank accounts) in accordance with the law,” the Court said.

“Zahira’s role in the whole case is an eye-opener for all concerned with the administration of criminal justice… the criminal justice system is likely to be affected if person like her are to be left unpunished,” the Court observed.

Today’s punishment to Zahira was in addition to Mumbai Special Court’s order for initiation of proceedings against her for “perjury”.

The Court further said that the Income Tax authorities should also examine the role of BJP MLA from Gujarat Madhu Srivastav and his cousin Bhattoo Srivastava, accused of “winning over” Zahira with money and other allurements, if it felt so in the process of the inquiry.

The Court, however, said that it had not gone into the question whether NGO activist, Teesta Setalwad, who filed the contempt petition against Zahira, has done anything wrong in the process of filing the appeal before the apex court through Zahira or an application before the National Human Rights Commission.

“It was for Zahaira to explain whether she was either telling the truth or making false statement. Merely stating that she was acting as puppet in the hands of Teesta is not sufficient,” the Court observed.

Zahira had alleged that Teesta had taken her signature on blank papers and she had not filed any affidavit in the apex court as part of the appeal. She had contended that she had only filed a Vakalatnama.

“The Inquiry Officer in his report had found that Zahira could not explain her assets and the explanations given by her in respect of the sources of bank deposits have been found to be unacceptable. We find no reason to take a different view,” the Court observed.