The Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Rouse Avenue is hearing former Union Minister MJ Akbar's criminal defamation case against the journalist, Priya Ramani for her allegations of sexual harassment against Akbar.Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Ravindra Kumar Pandey is hearing the matter. Since a new judge has taken over, the parties are making final submissions afresh.After Senior Advocate Rebecca John concluded her submissions on behalf of Priya Ramani, Senior Advocate Geetha Luthra is making submissions for MJ Akbar.At the last hearing, Senior Advocate Luthra contended that Ramani's allegations came for the first time after the former Minister joined the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in 2014 and became a Member of Parliament..Read an account of the last hearing:.Allegations made against MJ Akbar for the first time after he joined BJP: Geeta Luthra argues against Priya Ramani in Delhi Court [LIVE UPDATES].Live updates from the hearing today feature here..Senior Advocate Geeta Luthra appears for MJ Akbar..Senior Advocate Luthra reads a judgment on journalists having no special privileges. .Press council says you have to be responsible. There are judgements that say you cannot have a parallel trial: Luthra..Here is there is just a trial..by a person on social media. It is unacceptable in a country ruled by rule of law: Luthra.Luthra continues to read the judgement..Fair comment does not extend to defamatory comments .. : Luthra reads.This is with regard to TG Goswami. I want to show what is bad faith.. removing the tweet when the matter was sub judice was bad faith: Luthra.Saying that my client MJ Akbar had resigned when he hasn't shows it was motivated.. calling him media's biggest predator shows bad faith: Luthra.You were trying to play to social media is in bad taste.. spitting the article without putting to my witness or theirs is an artificial defence: Luthra.Luthra argues that Priya Ramani's conduct shows nothing but bad faith. .Not one word of truth has been shown as defense..none of the defense are available and onus is on her: Luthra.It is not in public interest. There was no interest in publication. Each and every act including the removal of Twitter, not allowing me to show some of the Twitter comments.. everyone understands Vogue article as one.. is completely malafide: Luthra.She said I was intentionally misreading the Vogue article. You are creating an artificial fiction that doesn't exist: Luthra.She says the onus (to prove Hotel meeting) is on me.. it is completely, completely incorrect: Luthra.Luthra reiterates that it was Nilofer, Ramani's friend, who was an interested witness..With regards Ghazala Wahab, I want to say what is the connection? I filed the defamation case against Priya Ramani. She has to show the truth of the Vogue article: Luthra.Nothing has been put to Wahab.. she has just given a version, story which is unconnected to this case: Luthra .I missed a line in TG Goswami that it doesn't matter what any other person is saying: Luthra.Luthra reads TG Goswami judgement..For the accused to say or prove that accusation was one which he generally heard from others is no justification: Luthra.This answers each and every point of theirs: Luthra.I am now reading section 6 Evidence Act (on Res Gestae). How my friend has relied on it?: Luthra.Luthra reads the section..The period is 1993 according to her..she says Nilofer message to her in 2018..25 years later is part of Res Gestae.. how is this relevant? You are two friends who talk to each other every day: Luthra.These are unconnected 25 years. These are hearsay. They don't say she's a witness. You can't do violence to the definition of Res Gestae: Luthra.When I read further cross, I will show that her version which in any case is unbelievable and unsupported by contemporaneous evidence.. is trying to say that I called up Nilofer after two hours of the incident. It is not Res Gestae: Luthra.Luthra reads a judgement of principle of Res Gestae. .It us an exception to the general rule on inadmissibility of hearsay.. but there is no spontaneity in this case. No one has ever interpreted section 6 in this manner: Luthra.It is necessary that such statement must be a part of the same transaction or have been made contemporaneous with the action .. if there is an interval, however slight, sufficient enough for fabrication then the statement is not part of Res Gestae: Luthra.They have two witness. Ghazala Wahab came and said a story unconnected with the case. Nilofer have a hearsay statement. She is an interested witness. The WhatsApp conversation is neither primary nor secondary evidence: Luthra.With regards DW1 (Priya Ramani), there is no proof of truth or credibility.. contradictory and destroying evidence.. : Luthra.Court breaks for five minutes..Hearing resumes..In the present case, I have shown witness after witness to whom no questions were on MJ Akbar reputation not being impeccable: Luthra.Reputation is not questioned.. but in the arguments this defense is taken .. it not laid down in chief. Many of their defense are ill founded: Luthra.... you can't make allegations on social media without any care and caution or responsibility after 20-30 years.. after having said that for the first time that it was a fictitious piece of article and MJ Akbar didn't do anything, you call him media's biggest predator: Luthra.Luthra reads Ramani's cross examination..Witnesses don't say it is two articles in one: Luthra .Luthra continues to read the cross examination..It shows scant regard for truth, due care and caution ..: Luthra on premature tweet on Akbar's resignation..I haven't said that there is a legal requirement ..I said there is a norm..ethics of journalism: Luthra on verification prior to publication.How honest is your mistake when you don't issue a corrigendum?: Luthra.What kind of integrity, honesty and credit worthiness is this?: Luthra.Luthra continues to read Ramani's cross examination..Luthra argues that Ramani has raised contradictory defense. .She said it was from another article then says it is my own writing: Luthra on the second half of the Vogue article which Ramani said referred to Harvey Weinstein..Luthra continues to read..Luthra reiterates that no call record are given by Ramani to prove her case. .Nilofer has been her friend for 30 years and she says my witnesses are interested: Luthra.There is lack of truth..deliberate! These people in this day and age are WhatsApping: Luthra on Ramani's statement that she didn't know if screenshots came with the text box..Your secondary evidence is false. No amount of Sec 65B evidence can cure it. It is fabricated and tampered. Primary is not on record: Luthra..The screenshot in question is the WhatsApp conversation between Ramani and Nilofer on the night of the October 8, 2018 tweet.Luthra reiterates that Ramani lacks complete probity. .She has still not activated her Twitter account: Luthra.If we go by TG Goswami, if it is defamatory, it is defamatory. In TG Goswami, they had said there was no reputation: Luthra.Here there was no such whisper: Luthra.This is act of falsifying things.. you know the difference between norms and legal requirements. Normally we do an investigation but you didn't. You plagiarised. You don't attribute: Luthra.The consistent thread in the Vogue article is "you". You say in first sentence that "you" is MJ Akbar .. it can't be referring to Mr B in second and Mr Lincoln in third.. : Luthra.Luthra shows a sample WhatsApp screenshot to Court. ./Your Honor can see the text box in the end: Luthra.Luthra urges the Court to see the WhatsApp screenshot given by Ramani..Yes..it starts with OMG OMG: Court .This image doens't have a text box : Luthra .Got it : Court.Luthra reads Nilofer's statament before Court..Luthra points out that Ramani had provided the link of the Vogue article. .What do we know what she was thinking?: Luthra as she reads Nilofer's statement saying that she was thinking about when Ramani would speak up about.Luthra points out that while earlier the incident was said to be from November-December 1993, Nilofer said it was December 1993. .There is improvement: Luthra.Both people have photographic memory but don't remember the day: Luthra.I don't know what is the Res Gestae.. I don't know what they are saying: Luthra as she reads Nilofer's statement..Now there is an improvement, fabrication and manipulation.. they don't remember the date because they know that they can't prove : Luthra.It is an alleged fabricated incident. They are only creating defense as friends who have each other's back: Luthra.No requirement of evidence of landline record, hotel, petrol receipt, CCTV ..: Luthra.When she's not active on Twitter, how did she read it ? She's (Nilofer) inactive expect on that day (of the defamatory tweet): Luthra.Luthra continues to read Nilofer's cross examination..You have to say when you took the photo/screenshot. None of which (producing primary or secondary evidence) is done: Luthra.It is complete hearsay, fabricated and false: Luthra. She points out that Nilofer was not an eyewitness..She deliberately said that she didn't read the Vogue article because it is a piece of fiction. They tried to create a defense: Luthra.I don't see anywhere where Ghazala tries to link her story to Ramani's: Luthra.We're approaching at 4 pm: Court .I'll finish by 4.15 pm: Luthra .You can do it on the next date: Court.January 27 is for their submissions..: Luthra .We will give you 15 mins: Court.Luthra refers to the cases she wants to read to the Court. .Can we get time on January 25? : Luthra.We'll do it on January 27th only : Court.We'll do it 15 mins before their time on January 27: Luthra .Ms Luthra may argue in the morning session. Ms John can continue post lunch: Advocate Bhavook Chauhan for Priya Ramani.Ms John intends to complete in one session. We don't want it to spill over to another date: Chauhan.Hearing adjourned till January 27. Matter to be taken up at 10.30 am. .I will finish between 10.30- 11 am. Accused side can argue post-lunch: Court.Judge takes feedback from lawyers on the quality of audio video. .This was a hybrid hearing. I was sitting in courtroom for the hearing: Judge .It was very clear: Counsel.Hearing over.