In the ongoing legal saga of the "Dok-1 Max" case, the Tashkent city court's criminal trial panel, after nearly four months of consideration, has taken a dramatic turn. On November 22, during the latest court session, the panel requested the opening of criminal cases against key witnesses involved in the proceedings.
Temur Rahmatov, the lawyer representing the former head of the Pharmaceutical Agency, S.K., introduced three motions based on Article 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The first motion sought the initiation of a criminal case against Ulugbek Egamov, a significant witness in the trial and the former head of the Pharmaceutical Agency.
Rahmatov stated,
"If signs of a crime are detected in the actions of the witness questioned in the court, it is envisaged that the court will give a notification about this and make a decision."
The lawyer pointed to discrepancies in Egamov's instructions during the preliminary investigation and testimonies given by other individuals.
Rahmatov asserted,
"For some reason, the preliminary investigation did not cancel part of the criminal case against Egamov. We believe that this is a gross violation of criminal procedural law."
The lawyer emphasized the need to inform the prosecutor's office about this alleged violation.
Continuing his petition, Rahmatov urged the court to open a criminal case against another witness, Umid Temirov, who had served as an assistant to S.K., the former head of the Pharmaceutical Agency. He cited Article 84 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stating,
"Regarding the cancellation of the preliminary investigation, there is an application that he has committed a crime under Article 209, Part 1."
Rahmatov highlighted discrepancies in Temirov's statements during the investigation and the court session, calling for an assessment of his actions.
In a third petition, Rahmatov drew attention to the case of Farrukh Tolipov, another witness in the trial. He disclosed,
"In the preliminary investigation, S.R.P. (the Indian defendant) testified directly and said that he paid $1,000 to forge a certificate issued by another country."
However, when questioned in court, Tolipov denied knowing S.R.P. The lawyer raised concerns about Tolipov's alleged involvement in forging a certificate related to medicine registered in Tajikistan.
Rahmatov argued,
"Tolipov is still working. And we still use medicine. This should be avoided. It is necessary to put a check."
The lawyer urged an investigation into Tolipov's actions and requested the court to scrutinize the circumstances surrounding the case.
While the requests made by Rahmatov were supported by other lawyers representing S.K., Davron Akhmadov, the lawyer of the Indian defendant S.R.P., sought the rejection of the petitions. Some lawyers and defendants either used the petition for their arguments, while others deferred the decision to the court.
The court session is set to continue on Friday, November 24, where the panel will discuss and potentially make a decision based on the clarified circumstances.
Comments (0)