Property grab case: Produce educational certificates before court, witness told

Chandigarh, February 7

Jagdeep Sood, Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, has directed witness Amit Gupta to produce his educational certificates before the court.

Gupta’s examination continued for the third consecutive hearings today in the alleged property grab case of Sector 37, Chandigarh.

The court issued the direction while allowing the application of Rajesh Sharma, counsel for accused Sanjiv Mahajan, who requested that the witness be directed to produce his educational certificates. In the application, Sharma also requested to summon the requisite record regarding the drug licence of the shop from the office of the Drug Controller, Chandigarh. Gupta was running a medical shop in Sector, 37 Chandigarh.

Gupta is the first witness in the case who alleged that accused Sanjeev Mahajan came to his shop in April 2017 and told him not to give medical treatment to Rahul Mehta, owner of the house, which was allegedly grabbed.

Gupta also alleged that he was tortured at the Sector 39 police station soon after Mehta went missing. Rajesh Sharma argued that the witness did not have the mandatory education qualifications to run the medical shop. He also alleged that the witness also did not possess the licence for running the chemist shop.

During the hearing, Gupta said he did not bring his educational qualification certificate. He also did not bring documents regarding running a chemist shop under the name and style of Goodwill Medical Store.

Gupta claimed that he had educational certificates, but did not bring them due to his ill-health.

SPS Bhullar, counsel for accused Inspector Rajdeep Singh, also confronted Gupta on his statement given before the inquiry officer on June 16, 2021. The witness said he did not remember if he had gone to the Sector 39 police station in year 2017 to lodge any complaint against any incident.

Bhullar also confronted the witness on the drug licence for running the chemist shop. During the questioning, the witness denied that he was illegally running the chemist business.