M A I N   N E W S

Rizvi admits to mafia links

MUMBAI, Dec 15 (PTI) — Nazim Rizvi, producer of the film “Chori Chori Chupke Chupke”, arrested for his alleged nexus with the mafia “has confessed being in touch with underworld don Chhota Shakeel”, the Joint Commissioner of the Mumbai police, Mr D. Sivanandan, said today.

As the probe into the alleged links between Bollywood and the underworld continued, the police questioned the financer of the movie, Bharat Shah, and said the film’s star cast, including Salman Khan and Rani Mukherjee, would be summoned in connection with the case.

Mr Sivanandan claimed that Rizvi, who was remanded in police custody till December 27 by a special court yesterday, had admitted to using Shakeel’s influence to see his movie through and being in touch with him during the making of the film.

On the questioning of Shah, who appeared before the crime branch of the police, he told reporters here that “we have handed over a questionnaire to Shah and expect him to come up with the answers soon”.

The crew connected with the film would also be summoned he said, adding that two more film celebrities were expected to be questioned in this connection tomorrow.

“However, we do not expect any more arrests in the matter”, Mr Sivanandan said.

He denied reports about the alleged links of the underworld with union and state ministers as mentioned in a section of the Press.

Earlier, the Police Commissioner, Mr M.N. Singh, told reporters that several persons would be questioned in this regard. “We are trying to gauge the ramifications of the underworld nexus with the film industry.” 

Lawyer gets 6-month jail for contempt
From Our Legal Correspondent

NEW DELHI, Dec 15 — A two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Mr Justice K. T. Thomas and Mr Justice R. P. Sethi today convicted a Chennai-based lawyer, S. K. Sundaram, for gross criminal contempt of court and sentenced him to 6 months’ imprisonment, in the suo motu contempt proceedings over a telegram sent by him threatening the Chief Justice, Dr A.S. Anand, in view of the latter’s age controversy.

The judges held that the impugned action constituting gross contempt of court was “a serious matter for this court because vilification of the high personage of the Chief Justice of India would undermine the majesty of the court and dignity of this institution”.

Delivering the judgement for the court, Justice Thomas reiterated an earlier ruling of the court that the contempt jurisdiction was not “exercised to protect the dignity of an individual judge, but to protect the administration of justice from being maligned”.

The court, however, suspended the sentence of six-month’s imprisonment for one month in view of the contemner being a heart patient and suffering from ill-health. “If the contemnor would give an undertaking in this court, in the form of an affidavit, to the effect that he would not commit or even attempt to commit any act of criminal contempt, then the sentence now imposed by us would remain suspended for a further period of five years”, the court ordered.

“But if the contemnor commits any act of criminal contempt during the said period of five years, the suspension of the sentence will stand revoked and then he will have to undergo the sentence of imprisonment for six months. Otherwise, the question of revival of the sentence would depend upon the order which this court would pass on the expiry of five years”, the court added.

The judges ruled that once the age of Dr Justice A.S. Anand had been determined in 1991 by the President in exercise of his constitutional authority, in whom alone is vested the power to determine the question of the age of a High Court judge, it was not open to the contemnor to raise this question over and over again.

The suo motu contempt proceedings were initiated by the court following a telegram sent by Mr Sundaram on November 3 calling upon Chief Justice to step down as he had already attained the age of superannuation failing which a criminal complaint would be filed for the offences of cheating, forgery and falsification of records.

The advocate in his telegram also threatened to file a writ petition for the recovery of Rs 3 crore for usurping the office of the CJI even after the age of superannuation.