Fabindia’s CEO and Managing Director, who were summoned by Goa Police in connection with the voyeurism case, on Tuesday failed to appear before the investigating officer, even as police summoned 11 employees of the outlet for questioning.
The voyeurism case was filed against the outlet’s staff after Union HRD Minister Smriti Irani, who visited the Fabindia store at Candolim last week, alleged that it had a CCTV camera pointed towards the trial room.
The Goa crime branch had summoned the company’s Chief Executive Officer Subrata Dutta and Managing Director William Bissel to appear before it at 10 AM on Tuesday.
The company officials have failed to appear. Their lawyer has sought more time for them to appear. We will have to see what time is given to them. They had sent their representative on Monday who was quizzed by the investigating officer.
- Sunil Garg, Inspector General of Police
“We are waiting to study the order given by district court while granting anticipatory bail to Fabindia’s store manager,” said lawyer Raju Paulekar who is representing Fabindia.
The district court had yesterday granted anticipatory bail to store manager Chaitrali Sawant.
Meanwhile, police have summoned 11 employees of the outlet for quizzing on Tuesday.
However, All India Congress Committee General Secretary Digvijay Singh on Tuesday came to the defence of Fabindia management saying the top officials should not be harassed if it is someone else’s mischief.
Singh’s comments come a day after Goa Chief Minister Laxmikant Parsekar said the top management (of Fabindia) should not be blamed for the incident.
Fabindia is a reputed company. But I personally feel that it must not be company’s fault but mischief played by the staff members. Some womanisers must have done that.
- Laxmikant Parsekar, Goa Chief Minister
After an FIR was lodged, four employees of the store were arrested and booked under IPC sections 354C (voyeurism), 509 (intrusion into privacy) and IT Act’s section 66E (capturing, publishing image of private area of any person without his/her consent).
However, they were later granted bail.
Fabindia also denied that it had placed hidden cameras in any of its stores. According to a statement issued by the company earlier, the camera in question at Candolim store was part of the surveillance system and was installed in the shopping area.
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)