Re: [IAC#RG] Shanti Bhushan in Sanjay Dutt's Defence !

There lies the answer.   V.S.Sardesai --- On Sat, 30/3/13, devinder.thakur@btopenworld.com <devinder.thakur@btopenworld.com> wrote: From: devinder.thakur@btopenworld.com <devinder.thakur@btopenworld.com> Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] Shanti Bhushan in Sanjay Dutt's Defence ! To: "vasant sardesai" <vasant_sardesai@yahoo.co.in>, "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net" <indiaresists@lists.riseup.net>, "shadikatyalsearch" <shadikatyal@yahoo.com>, "VinodKumar" <kv08535@yahoo.com>, "jeevkulkarni@yahoo.com" <jeevkulkarni@yahoo.com>, "SatbirSingh" <ssbedi1945@yahoo.com> Date: Saturday, 30 March, 2013, 2:38 PM The usual wepons of self defence for a citizen under threat shoud not be AK47 rifle. but a smaller weapon. Devinder From: vasant sardesai <vasant_sardesai@yahoo.co.in> To: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net" <indiaresists@lists.riseup.net>; shadikatyalsearch <shadikatyal@yahoo.com>; VinodKumar <kv08535@yahoo.com>; "jeevkulkarni@yahoo.com" <jeevkulkarni@yahoo.com>; SatbirSingh <ssbedi1945@yahoo.com>; devinder.thakur@btopenworld.com Sent: Saturday, 30 March 2013, 7:47 Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] Shanti Bhushan in Sanjay Dutt's Defence ! Doyou mean to say AK 47 and hand granades?   V.S.Sardesai --- On Fri, 29/3/13, devinder.thakur@btopenworld.com <devinder.thakur@btopenworld.com> wrote: From: devinder.thakur@btopenworld.com <devinder.thakur@btopenworld.com> Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] Shanti Bhushan in Sanjay Dutt's Defence ! To: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net" <indiaresists@lists.riseup.net>, "shadikatyalsearch" <shadikatyal@yahoo.com>, "VinodKumar" <kv08535@yahoo.com>, "jeevkulkarni@yahoo.com" <jeevkulkarni@yahoo.com>, "SatbirSingh" <ssbedi1945@yahoo.com> Date: Friday, 29 March, 2013, 8:41 PM There does not have to be a physical attack for someone to retaliate in self defence. The threats (by Shive Sainaks???) and its fear would be taken as real and any measures to counter would be treated as taken in self defence. One does not see any doubt in this due to his parents social and political activities. Sanjay is convicted for having weapons illegally and also from a dubious source. If he had gone to the local police authority for a licence to have weapons and got them through a licence weapon supplier, there would have been no case to answer. Devinder From: vasant sardesai <vasant_sardesai@yahoo.co.in> To: indiaresists@lists.riseup.net Sent: Friday, 29 March 2013, 14:02 Subject: RE: [IAC#RG] Shanti Bhushan in Sanjay Dutt's Defence ! As regards the right of self defenceraised by Shanti Bhushan, the question is how does it come to play when  there is absolutely no evidence of any attack on Sanjay Dutt? Or does he want to say that everyone has got the right to have AK47 for self defence?   V.S.Sardesai   --- On Fri, 29/3/13, Kumar Arun <kumar2786@hotmail.com> wrote: From: Kumar Arun <kumar2786@hotmail.com> Subject: RE: [IAC#RG] Shanti Bhushan in Sanjay Dutt's Defence ! To: "IAC Sarabjit" <indiaresists@lists.riseup.net> Date: Friday, 29 March, 2013, 5:47 PM Millions of Indian born in and around 1970 have very little idea how did Sanjay behave in his own family. His father did what a typical father had been taught by the ancestors. The fact of the matter is that even many parents are not applying common sense in parenting even today. Having said that the arguments presented by Mr. Tewari on behalf of Shanti Bhushan, a strong pillar of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), are like opening another pandora box. If every one start doing what Mr. Shanti Bhushan have suggested, there will be no law & order at all. Was there any Hindu caught defending like Sanjay? And, if a Hindu alleged by law officers, every one knows the out come. Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 11:16:49 +0530 From: wide.aware@gmail.com To: indiaresists@lists.riseup.net Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] Shanti Bhushan in Sanjay Dutt's Defence ! 1. had the state failed to protect Sanjay Dutt? 2. How come he has been safe all through in spite of being accused of terrorism and being out of jail most of the time? 3. What about the hand grenades, witness testimonies that he asked a gangster to "do something" about the riots, providing support for the arms haul to be unpacked from concealed compartment and repacked into bags? He provided tools, safe location as well as bags. 4. A full seven years after the fact, he was still intercepted courting a gangster and introducting "fans" 5. What happened of the 2 AK-56s and hand grenades he had taken - in the sense of how did he get exonerated of that and his sole "mistake" seems to be one assault weapon for self-defense? That said, why were others who got weapons from that haul not prosecuted? Sharad Pawar says they chose not to. Why? The role of Shiv Sena, Sanjay Dutt and the gangsters is highly incestuous. They go around rioting, but Sarpotdar has WITH HIM a top hitman of the same gang as well as illegal weapons provided by a gangster network led by a Muslim. Said Gang later bombs innocents in "retaliation" for the riots in which their member too had armed and hobnobbed with perpetrators. Then, Sanjay Dutt gets into trouble motivated by the same riots and Shiv Sena saves his skin for  fee, though obviously they had to be among the top intended recipients of any action said assault weapon got. Sanjay Dutt's relations with gangsters continue, including saving Vidhu Vinod Chopra from an extortion racket by telling Anees Ibrahim to lay off because he was among the few who supported him when he went to prison. Now, hearing the news of his sentencing, Shiv Sena went into default "save Sanjay Dutt" mode, but find their outrage and change loyalties on a dime at some point. The only thing I accept about Sanjay Dutt was that he was a fool and got into it for exactly the reasons he claimed. The others Shiv Sena in the riots as well as the Gand retaliating on "behalf of Muslims" were strategically in bed with each other while outwardly claiming outrage for "their" side of the line and killing unrelated innocents - largely to radicalize people and consolidate power. That said, Sanjay Dutt was stupid, but most definitely illegal in his actions. Vidyut On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 1:55 AM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Naveen Shri Shanti Bhushan has laid down the LAW. You can argue with Mr. Bhushan but you cannot argue with the LAW. If the State fails to protect a person, he is in his rights to acquire ALL MEANS REQUIRED TO DEFEND HIS LIFE Mr,. Bhushan ECHOES IAC when we stand for right to bear arms freely and defend ourselves. Mr. Bhushan's legal basis is IDENTICAL with IAC's because IPC is a 150 year old law almost as old as IAC (or Mr. Bhushan) Sarbajit On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 7:36 PM, naveen tewari <nct.lko@gmail.com> wrote: Dear All, Shanti Bhushan has certainly gone beyond senility and is showing signs of Dementia. His long article in the Hindu of 26th march is the latest example of that. Here he is with all his remnant legal acumen misplaced to the hilt, arguing for a summary reprieve for Sanjay Dutt. In this venture mr. Bhushan quoted the judgment of the supreme court wherein the court has mentioned that Sanjay Dutt's reason for possessing those prohibited guns and arsenal was self defence. Mr. Bhushan argues that it is not a crime to defend oneself even if the ammunition possessed by one is without licence.  What a wonderful logic by this legal luminary who was once our Law Minister. I can only feel ashamed as an Indian that people of such calibre find there way to top positions in the country where they can play with the destiny of the people of this country. I am also deeply distressed that such people still manage to find a place in the public discourse no matter what level of atrophy their brain has reached.  The Hindu, my most favourite newspaper, is also springing surprises like these every now and then. I request you all to read this article by Shanti Bhushan and react to it. regards naveen tewari Post: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net" Exit: "indiaresists-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net" Quit: "https://lists.riseup.net/www/signoff/indiaresists" Help: https://help.riseup.net/en/list-user WWW : http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in/ Post: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net" Exit: "indiaresists-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net" Quit: "https://lists.riseup.net/www/signoff/indiaresists" Help: https://help.riseup.net/en/list-user WWW : http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in -----Inline Attachment Follows----- Post: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net" Exit: "indiaresists-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net" Quit: "https://lists.riseup.net/www/signoff/indiaresists" Help: https://help.riseup.net/en/list-user WWW : http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in/ Post: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net" Exit: "indiaresists-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net" Quit: "https://lists.riseup.net/www/signoff/indiaresists" Help: https://help.riseup.net/en/list-user WWW : http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in/ -----Inline Attachment Follows----- Post: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net" Exit: "indiaresists-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net" Quit: "https://lists.riseup.net/www/signoff/indiaresists" Help: https://help.riseup.net/en/list-user WWW : http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in/ -----Inline Attachment Follows----- Post: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net" Exit: "indiaresists-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net" Quit: "https://lists.riseup.net/www/signoff/indiaresists" Help: https://help.riseup.net/en/list-user WWW : http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in