1983-2011 Posted March 26, 2013 Posted March 26, 2013 This is not about whether either of them were innocent. Both Kazi and Dutt have basically been convicted of the same crime – hoarding illegal weapons. Both have received the same sentence – five years. Like Dutt, she’s already spent time in jail – 8 months in her case. But here’s the critical difference between the two. Dutt was acquitted by the TADA court. He has the satisfaction of having heard the judge say “I have not found him to be a terrorist.†Kazi was convicted by the same TADA court that exonerated the film star. “If Sanjay Dutt is eligible for mercy, why not Zaibunissa Anwar Kazi?†http://www.firstpost.com/india/the-fate-of-zaibunissa-anwar-kazi-or-the-cost-of-not-being-sanjay-dutt-675550.html
DomainK Posted March 26, 2013 Posted March 26, 2013 A part of the article challenges the TADA court's decision, but does not mention why. The court found that Sanjay Dutt had no knowledge of the conspiracy and hence he was not counted as a terrorist. May be the court found direct or indirect evidence that Quazi knew that something sinister was afoot. To suggest that the TADA court was soft of Dutt because of his stardom is ridiculous. At the end of the day, the cases can not be compared. They are vastly different because of the TADA court's decision mentioned above.
seedhi Posted March 26, 2013 Posted March 26, 2013 A part of the article challenges the TADA court's decision, but does not mention why. The court found that Sanjay Dutt had no knowledge of the conspiracy and hence he was not counted as a terrorist. May be the court found direct or indirect evidence that Quazi knew that something sinister was afoot. To suggest that the TADA court was soft of Dutt because of his stardom is ridiculous. At the end of the day, the cases can not be compared. They are vastly different because of the TADA court's decision mentioned above.Actually, as far as I am aware, the TADA law is very strict. It does not take into consideration the intent of a person. The presence of illegal weapons in a notified area is enough for conviction. Whether Dutt was aware or not aware of any conspiracy should not make any difference at all. The fact that Dutt accepted those weapons is enough for conviction under TADA.
ravishingravi Posted March 26, 2013 Posted March 26, 2013 A part of the article challenges the TADA court's decision' date=' but does not mention why. The court found that Sanjay Dutt had no knowledge of the conspiracy and hence he was not counted as a terrorist. May be the court found direct or indirect evidence that Quazi knew that something sinister was afoot. [b']To suggest that the TADA court was soft of Dutt because of his stardom is ridiculous. At the end of the day, the cases can not be compared. They are vastly different because of the TADA court's decision mentioned above. To not believe that is naivety.
urbestfriend Posted March 26, 2013 Posted March 26, 2013 Come on, Dutt must have spent millions to pay off different levels of government, public prosecutors, judges etc to move his case out of TADA, how can this old woman expect same treatment without spending a penny. Ridiculous.
game_changerr Posted March 26, 2013 Posted March 26, 2013 ridiculous...everyone is jumping on'' mercy' 'bandwagon,,,,,,who's next ,,may be ,nirabhya case's culprits
Recommended Posts