[Big Breaking] Mumbai Court summons Municipal Commissioner Iqbal Chahal, Suresh Kakani & Former Chief Secretary Sitaram Kunte as accused in criminal offences of causing death of citizen by forceful vaccination, cheating and others.
- Mumbai Court found Iqbal Chahal, Suresh Kakani & Sitaram Kunte prima facie guilty of criminal offences under Section 52, 166, 167, 304-A, 420, 34 and 120(B) of IPC & Section 51(b), 54,55 of Disaster Management Act, 2005 for bringing unlawful vaccine mandates for various places including travelling in local train with ulterior motive to give wrongful profit to vaccine companies and being responsible for vaccine deaths of people like Hitesh Kadwe and others and also responsible for violating citizens fundamental rights. The data proved that the vaccines are having death causing side effects and many vaccinated young people are dying due to heart attacks.
- Due to the first appearance the court did not issued non-bailable arrest warrant and ordered under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. and directed the registry to issue summons to the accused.
- Similar action under offences of extortion will be initiated for mask mandates.
- If convicted all the three may be sentenced to maximum punishment of seven years rigorous imprisonment.
- Recently Supreme Court & various High Courts in India have taken cognizance of vaccine deaths and issued notice/directions to the government regarding granting compensations to the victim and their family members. Dr. Snehal Lunawat’s father had claimed Rs. 1000 Crore and Hitesh Kadwe’s mother claimed Rs.100 Crores compensation from state which later to be recovered from accused vaccine manufactures Adhar Poonawalla & Bill Gates. [Rachana Gangu v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1125, Sayeeda K.A. v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine Ker 4531, Sayeeda K.A. v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine Ker 4514, Dilip Lunawat v. Serum Institute of India (P) Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1773.]
- Now all the accused has to apply for bail but the complainant is going to oppose their bail and it will be very difficult for accused to get bail because of the subsequent judgments of the Supreme Court & Bombay High Court where such mandates are held to be unconstitutional & illegal.
- The complainant is going to file a Writ Petition for adding section 409, 115 etc. of IPC against the accused.
- The Complainant actually prayed for issuance of non-bailable arrest warrant against the three but court said as a first instance summons will be issued.
- The complaint is filed by Shri Ambar Koiri, National Steering Committee member of Awaken India Movement (AIM).
- Adv. Ishwarlal Agarwal and other advocates represented the complainant.
There
are also cases of side effects of diabetes, paralysis, neurological problems,
kidney failure where cases of dialysis are increasing.
The
recent study from Harvard University proved that the vaccines are 98 times more
dangerous and deadly than the covid vaccines.
This case was earlier
reported by Times of India on Dec
23, 2021
Link:- https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/mumbai-plea-in-court-seeks-nbw-against-civic-chief-2-others/articleshow/88441058.cms
 |
| Adv. Ishwarlal S. Agarwal |
The summary of charge levelled in the complaint against the accused is as under;
“5.2. That
as per Article 14, 19, 21 of
Constitution of India and more particularly as per law laid down in the case of
(i) Registrar General Vs. State of
Meghalaya 2021 SCC OnLine Megh 130, (ii) Re Dinthar Incident Vs.
State of Mizoram 2021 SCC OnLine Gau 1313
and other various landmark judgments it is clear that, there is no difference
between vaccinated and non-vaccinated people. The vaccinated people can get
corona, they can spread infection and they can die due to corona. Vaccinated
people can also be a super spreader.
5.3. Thereafter, Honourable High Court has made it
clear that no discrimination can be made on the basis of vaccination status of
a person.
5.6. That, Shri. Satyendra Kumar
Singh, Under Secretary of Health Ministry of India in his affidavit dated
08.10.2021 filed before Honourable Bombay High Court at Goa in Writ
Petition No. 1820 of 2021, had clarified the Government of India’s
policy decision as under;
“9. That, it is further humbly submitted that the directions
and guidelines released by Government of India and Ministry of Health and
family Welfare, do not entail compulsory or forcible vaccination against
COVID-19 disease implying that COVID-19 vaccination is completely voluntary for
all citizens of India. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government
of India has not formulated or suggested any policies for discrimination
between citizens of India on the basis of their vaccination status.
11. That, as per the existing guidelines, there is no provisions
for forcing any citizen to book appointment for Covid Vaccination on Co-WIN or
visiting Covid Vaccination Centre for vaccination […….]
[The
Copy of the said Affidavit dated 08.10.2021 is herewith Annexed and marked as Exhibit - “B” ]
5.7
But
the Accused acted in utter disregard and defiance of the above said legal
mandate and passed the following SOP, Orders, directions to discriminate the
vaccinated people. The SOP dated 11.08.2021 issued by Accused No. 01 Sh.
Sitaram Kunte has following clauses; […………….]
5.8.
Hence all the Accused acted in conspiracy with each
other and violated the fundamental rights of the Complainant and many other
citizen.
5.9. That the only intention in bringing such mandate was to give benefits to the vaccine manufacturing company and thereby enable the vaccine manufacturing company make profit at the cost of citizen’s health and wellbeing.”
Further
grievance of the complainant in his complaint dated 11th November
2021 which is exhibited at Exhibit – A to the complaint it is mentioned
as under;
“11. Shri Iqbal Chahal, Municipal Commissioner,
Mumbai, and Suresh Kakani, Additional Municipal Commissioner are also involved
in bringing such unlawful mandates in violation of National Authorities
directives.
12. That, due to such unlawful rules many
poor people were compelled to take vaccines and many people suffered a loss of
life due to side effect of vaccines, A 23 years old Young boy Shri
Hitesh Kadwe died within 3 hours of getting a CoviShield vaccine. His
mother Smt. Kiran Yadar have filed a Complaint against accused you officials
under section 302, 409, 420, 52, 120(B),
34, 109 of Indian Penal Code and section
51(b), 55 of Disaster Management Act, 2005.
13. That the AEFI Committee of the
Government has admitted that the death of Dr. Snehal Lunawat was due to side
effects of Covishield vaccine.
Link:- https://www.lokmat.com/nashik/death-female-doctor-after-vaccination-a587/
14. That as per law it
is the duty of all the officers to publish the side effects of the vaccines
before giving it to any person. [Montgomery’s
Case [2015] UKSC 11, Airdale NHS Trust Vs. Bland (1993) 1 All ER 821, Common
Cause Vs. Union of India (2018) 5 SCC 1]
15. That other recent
data is available at following link.
The
prayers in the complaint reads thus;
a)
To
take cognizance of the offences under Section 52, 409, 420, 120(B), 34, 109,
167 of IPC and under Section 51(b), 55 of Disaster Management Act, 2005 against
Accused Shri. Sitaram Kunte, Shri. Iqbal Chahal and Shri. Suresh Kakani.
b) Issue
process under Section 204(i)(b) of Cr. P.C. and direct registrar to issue
non-baillable arrest warrants against the Accused;
c)
Try and punish the Accused as per law;
The
relevant sections of the IPC reads thus;
Section 166 of IPC Reads thus;
166. Public servant disobeying law, with intent
to cause injury to any person.—Whoever, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of
the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant,
intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will, by such
disobedience, cause injury to any person, shall be punished with simple
imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with
both.
Section 167 of IPC Reads thus;
167. Procedure when investigation cannot be
completed in twenty four hours.
(1) Whenever
any person is arrested and detained in custody and it appears that the
investigation cannot be completed within the period of twenty- four hours fixed
by section 57, and there are grounds for believing that the accusation or
information is well- founded, the officer in charge of the police station or
the police officer making the investigation, if he is not below the rank of sub-
inspector, shall forthwith transmit to the nearest Judicial Magistrate a copy
of the entries in the diary hereinafter prescribed relating to the case, and
shall at the same time forward the accused to such Magistrate.
(2) The
Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may,
whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time,
authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate
thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole; and if he has
no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further
detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate
having such jurisdiction: Provided that-
(a) 1 the
Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in
the custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days; if he is
satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall
authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this paragraph
for a total period exceeding,-
(i) ninety
days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death,
imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years;
1. subs. by Act 45 of 1978, s,
13, for paragraph (a) (w, e, f, 18- 12- 1978 ).
2. Ins. by act 10 of 1990, s.
2 (w. e. f 19- 2- 1990 )
(ii) sixty
days, where the investigation relates to any other offence, and, on the expiry
of the said period of ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may be, the accused
person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail,
and every person released on bail under this sub- section shall be deemed to be
so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the purposes of that
Chapter;]
(b) no
Magistrate shall authorise detention in any custody under this section unless
the accused is produced before him;
(c) no
Magistrate of the second class, not specially empowered in this behalf by the
High Court, shall authorise detention in the custody of the police. 1 Explanation
I.- For the avoidance of doubts, it is hereby declared that, notwithstanding
the expiry of the period specified in paragraph (a), the accused shall be
detained in custody so long as he does not furnish bail;]. 2 Explanation
II.- If any question arises whether an accused person was produced before the
Magistrate as required under paragraph (b), the production of the accused person
may be proved by his signature on the order authorising detention.]
(2A) 1 Notwithstanding
anything contained in sub- section (1) or sub- section (2), the officer in
charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, if
he is not below the rank of a sub- inspector, may, where a Judicial Magistrate
is not available, transmit to the nearest Executive Magistrate, on whom the
powers of a Judicial Magistrate or Metropolitan Magistrate have been conferred,
a copy of the entry in the diary hereinafter prescribed relating to the case,
and shall, at the same time, forward the accused to such Executive Magistrate,
and thereupon such Executive Magistrate, may, for reasons to be recorded in
writing, authorise the detention of the accused person in such custody as he
may think fit for a term not exceeding seven days in the aggregate; and, on the
expiry of the period of detention so authorised, the accused person shall be
released on bail except where an order for further detention of the accused
person has been made by a Magistrate competent to make such order; and, where
an order for such further detention is made, the period during which the
accused person was detained in custody under the orders made by an Executive
Magistrate under this sub- section,
Section 304-A of IPC Reads thus;
304A. Causing death by negligence.—Whoever causes the death of any person by doing
any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two
years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 420 of IPC Reads thus;
420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery
of property.—Whoever
cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any
property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a
valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of
being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall
also be liable to fine.
Section 120(B) of IPC Reads thus;
120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.—
(1) Whoever
is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death,
2[imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or
upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the
punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had
abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever
is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit
an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with
both.
Section 51(B) of Disaster Management Act Reads thus;
“51. Punishment for obstruction, etc.—
(1) Whoever,
without reasonable cause— —(1) Whoever, without reasonable cause—"
(b) refuses to comply with any direction given by or on behalf of the Central Government or the State Government or the National Executive Committee or the State Executive Committee or the District Authority under this Act, shall on conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine, or with both, and if such obstruction or refusal to comply with directions results in loss of lives or imminent danger thereof, shall on conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years. notes on clauses Clauses 51 to 58 (Secs. 51 to 58) seeks to lay down what will constitute an offence in terms of obstruction of the functions under the Act, false claim for relief, misappropriation of relief material or funds, issuance of false warning, failure of an officer to perform the duty imposed on him under the Act without due permission or lawful excuse, or his connivance at contravention of the provisions of the Act. The clauses also provide for penalties for these offences.”
Section 55 of Disaster Management Act Reads thus;
55. Offences by Departments of the Government.—
(1) Where
an offence under this Act has been committed by any Department of the
Government, the head of the Department shall be deemed to be guilty of the
offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly
unless he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that
he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. (1)
Where an offence under this Act has been committed by any Department of the
Government, the head of the Department shall be deemed to be guilty of the
offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly
unless he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that
he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence."
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where an offence under this Act has been committed by a Department of the Government and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any officer, other than the head of the Department, such officer shall be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
Section 54 of Disaster Management
Act Reads thus;
54. Punishment for false warning.—Whoever makes or circulates a false alarm or warning as to disaster or its severity or magnitude, leading to panic, shall on conviction, be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year or with fine. —Whoever makes or circulates a false alarm or warning as to disaster or its severity or magnitude, leading to panic, shall on conviction, be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year or with fine."
Adv. Ishwarlal
Agarwal represented the complainant and he was assisted by following advocates;
Adv. Meena Thakur, Adv. Sohan Agate, Adv. Pratik Jain Saklecha, Adv. Abhishek Mishra, Adv. Deepika Jaiswal, Adv. Shiv Mishra, Adv. Snehal Surve, Adv. Saurav Khanna, Adv. Vikas Pawar.
You
can download a copy of the complaint Here
You can also download a copy of Mumbai Court (Issues Process) Here
.jpg)
Classic case to adduce the fact that no one above the law.
ReplyDeleteGud job
ReplyDelete