Hearing in defamation case against Aires adjourned

NT NETWORK
Posted on 2008-11-01
PANAJI - The defamation case filed by Mr Subodh Kantak against Mr Aires Rodrigues came up for hearing before the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Panaji on Friday.
Mr Kantak deposed that he has been practicing as an advocate since 1987 and that now most of his practice has been in the Bombay High Court at Panaji. He further said that as a practicing advocate, he has earned a good reputation. The matter was adjourned for further cross-examination of Mr Kantak.
Mr Kantak explained that he has appeared for various authorities including prominent personalities like Mr Dayanand Narvekar, Mr Somnath Zuwarkar, Mr Mauvin Godhino and Mr Churchill Alemao among others.
The complainant stated that the accused, Mr Aires Rodrigues had made per se defamatory statements of excessive and double billings before the print and the electronic media.
Mr Kanatk explained the court the detailed procedure for the approval of bills towards appearance in the matters before the High court. He has denied the allegations that there is excessive billing.
During the deposition the court disallowed certain statements under section 54 of the Indian Evidence Act on the ground that in criminal proceedings, the fact that the accused person has a bad character is irrelevant.
Various newspapers produced by the complainant were also marked as exhibits and a compact disc was played in the court showing relevant portions of interview given by the Mr Rodrigues.
The complainant was later cross-examined by Mr Rodrigues. He was questioned whether he was aware about the criminal case filed against Mr Somnath Zuwarkar involving bank and customs case against Mr Churchill Alemao, as also charge-sheet filed against Mr Dayanand Narvekar in
the Ticket scam case. He was also questioned whether he was aware about criminal cases against Mauvin Godhino.
In his cross-examination question was asked to the complainant as to why a senior counsel was appointed in the SEZ matters.
The complainant deposed that since the matters were of public importance and involved complicated constitutional questions, the government has appointed senior counsel. He further added that this practice was also followed earlier. The complainant has denied the suggestion that the government appointed counsel because he was incompetent to appear in the SEZ matters.