Fwd: Notice of hearing in CRIMINAL APPEAL D. NO. 10342 OF 2016

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 8:47 AM
Subject: Notice of hearing in CRIMINAL APPEAL D. NO. 10342 OF 2016
To: sg.rmaithani@sci.nic.in, reg.subhashmalik@sci.nic.in, reg.rajpalarora@sci.nic.in, reg.rnnijhawan@sci.nic.in, dyreg.meenasarin@sci.nic.in, bo.anitabhatia@sci.nic.in, "Section-1B, Branch Officer" <sec.ib@sci.nic.in>, "rg.dhc@nic.in" <rg.dhc@nic.in>, "Cc: Seema Sapra" <seema.sapra@gmail.com>, sec.ii@sci.nic.in
Cc: Seema Sapra <seemasapra@hotmail.com>

I have received the attached notice of hearing by email yesterday. 

I spoke to Mr Rawat in Branch 2C and he promised to send me the office report by email yesterday. I have not received the same. Please email it to me ASAP. 

Also, I have already requested that all communications and notices regarding this matter be sent to me by email. 

Seema Sapra 

Advocate and petitioner in person 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 8:41 AM
Subject: Fwd: defect diary no. 10342/16
To: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 5:44 PM
Subject: Re: defect diary no. 10342/16
To: sg.rmaithani@sci.nic.in, reg.subhashmalik@sci.nic.in, reg.rajpalarora@sci.nic.in, reg.rnnijhawan@sci.nic.in, dyreg.meenasarin@sci.nic.in, bo.anitabhatia@sci.nic.in, "Section-1B, Branch Officer" <sec.ib@sci.nic.in>, "rg.dhc@nic.in" <rg.dhc@nic.in>
Cc: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@gmail.com>

Sir/Madam, 

In objection 7 you say prayers are "not proper". What does this mean? Please elaborate. According to me the prayers are proper. See them reproduced below.

The defects list is not properly compiled and it is vague. Please provide me with a proper defect list after taking my comments into consideration and after reviewing the entire criminal appeal carefully. As you are aware the appeal seeks urgent relief. It is therefore on;y appropriate that the registry check the appeal carefully in one go and not do this exercise piece-meal. 

Please let me know how I can assist. 

Seema Sapra 

"PRAYER

In the above facts and premises, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased:

(i) To allow the application for condonation of delay in filing this appeal; 

(ii) To set aside the conviction of the appellant for contempt of court;

(iii) To set aside the impugned judgment dated 17.12.2015 of the Delhi High Court in CONT. CAS(CRL) 2/2014; 

(iv) To accept the unconditional and unqualified apology offered by the appellant and to discharge the contempt notice issued to her by the Delhi High Court on 6.5.2014; 

(v) To stay the operation of the impugned judgment pending hearing and decision in this appeal; 

(vi) To pass such other orders and further orders as may be deemed necessary on the facts and in the circumstances of the case."

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com> wrote:

Sir/ Madam, I have looked at pages 23, 52, 47,53,57 mentioned in objection 9 as containing objectionable statements. 

Pages 32 to 62 of the appeal merely reproduces an email that I had sent on 6.5.2014. Copies of this email were filed by me on the court record in Contempt Case Crl 2/2014 and in Writ Petition Civil 1280/2012 before the Delhi High Court. This email is therefore relevant for the appeal and part of the lower court record but unfortunately I cannot modify the language of the email. A copy of the electronic court record containing this email is attached. 

Also page 23 of the appeal is reproduced below. It does not contain any objectionable statement against the Court or a Judge but merely states that the writ petition was wrongly dismissed and this resulted in a cover-up of corruption and targeting. This is the factual result of the dismissal and no motive is attributed to the Delhi High Court Bench in the language. This factual result is later on demonstrated and established in the appeal. There is therefore no objectionable statement on page 23, 

Seema Sapra 

General Electric Company whistleblower. 

Para 6 at page 23 of the appeal states: 

"This appeal will establish that the appellant is a whistleblower, a lawyer who worked in 2010 for General Electric Company in India and who was compelled to make whistleblower complaints when her legal services were sought to be used for corrupt practices including fraud, forgery, bribery, illegal lobbying etc. in connection with Indian Railway tenders for rail locomotive factories at Marhowra and Madhepura. This appeal will establish that attempts were made to eliminate the appellant with State authorities including the Police and intelligence agencies being used to target and silence the appellant. The appellant managed to file an Article 226 petition in the Delhi High Court. This appeal will establish that this petition languished unheard in the Delhi High Court for 3 years while the appellant continued to be destroyed, physically harmed, attacked, intimidated, harassed, targeted and threatened. This Appeal will establish that a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court wrongfully dismissed that Petition by a judgment dated 2.3.2015 without hearing the appellant who was the petitioner in that matter in complete violation of the principles of natural justice. This appeal will establish that the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court wrongfully dismissed the whistleblower corruption case against General Electric Company in complete disregard of the material on record before it, in complete disregard of the law and in complete disregard of the appellant's right to life. This appeal will establish that this unsustainable and wrongful dismissal of the writ petition resulted in a cover-up of very serious complaints and evidence of corruption by and favouring General Electric Company facilitated by then Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh and his close aide and then Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission Mr Montek Singh Ahluwalia. This appeal will establish that the wrongful dismissal of the Writ Petition and the denial of a hearing to the appellant in that matter resulted in gross injustice, and a cover up of attempts to murder the appellant, a cover-up of the fact that the appellant was poisoned, a cover-up of State and police participation in the conspiracy and attempts to silence and eliminate the appellant, a cover-up of the severe targeting that the appellant was subjected to and a cover up of the gross violation of the appellant's right to life. This appeal will establish that the wrongful dismissal of the Writ Petition has resulted in the appellant continuing to be poisoned for the last one year since 2.3.2015, and continuing to be targeted, harassed, intimidated, threatened, defamed and destroyed.  This appeal will further establish that a mind-boggling fraud was perpetrated on the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil 1280/ 2012 where an unauthorized person effectively impersonated as the authorised signatory of General Electric Company and two of its subsidiaries and filed patently false and unauthorized affidavits and that the wrongful dismissal of the Writ Petition results in a cover up of this massive fraud on the Court. This appeal will further establish that affidavits filed for the Railway Ministry in the Writ Petition contained multiple instances of perjury and included documents fabricated expressly for the purpose of covering up the corruption by General Electric. Further this appeal will establish that affidavits and status reports filed for the Delhi Police in the Writ petition also contained multiple instances of perjury, and that these affidavits and status reports themselves establish that the police was targeting the appellant and besides actively facilitating her being physically harmed, the police covered up her complaints and fabricated and procured false complaints against her." 

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com> wrote:

Sir/ Madam, I have received the following defect list. I will address this but some of the defects appear to have been pointed out without basis and without application of mind.

There is no FIR in this matter so how does one file the FIR format.

Copy of impugned order as filed is downloaded directly from Delhi High Court website and has been attested as true copy.

Appeal is in proper format. It is not an SLP.  The length of the appeal is reasonable according to the facts of the case. The prayers are proper. What is the objection of the Registry? Is a separate stay application needed? Why do you say appeal will be checked later? Why this piece-meal checking?

I have been very careful not to make any objectionable statements. Please indicate exactly what they are because I have been very careful to not use any objectionable statements. The email of 6.5.2014 reproduced in the appeal is part of the Delhi High Court record and I cannot change the language in that now.

Objection no. 10 says certificate not filed. Which certificate?

The defect list emailed to me looks incomplete.

A copy of the appeal in word format is attached. 

 

Seema Sapra

General Electric Company whistleblower

DIARY NO. 10342/2016

PETITIONER IN PERSON 

SEEMS SAPRA Versus COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION 

1. Full cause title of CCN 2/2014 is not given in slp and to be corrected accordingly everywhere

2. FIR format is not filed

3. Appendix is not filed

4. Neither certified copy of the impugned order nor for exemption from filing certified copy has been filed

5. Rule, act etc not specifically given in listing proforma,  column 7 to be filed

6. Email address of petitioner is not given

7. Crl. appeal is not filed on proper format as per new notification with full cause title annx are to be mentioned in appeal. Slp is too lengthy, prayers are not proper, crl. appeal to be checked later on

8. Order dt. 6.5.14 , 26.5.14, 2.3.15 and 30.10.15 are required

9. Objectionable statements are appearing on page 23, 52, 47,53,57 etc

10. Certificate is not filed

11. Days of delay differ from limitation report

12. Application for permission to appear and argue in person is not filed

13. Annexure are not filed

14. In view of above defects matter needs to be rechecked

15. Neither certified copy nor exemption application has been filed

16. In matters involving conviction whether separate proof of surrender in respect of all convicts or application for exemption from surrendering has been filed (Please see judgment dated 16.6.2006 in Crl. Appeal no.