COLVA: Particular choose Vincent D’Silva on Saturday dismissed the purposes filed by transport minister Mauvin Godinho and others for his or her discharge within the alleged Rs 4.5 crore energy rebate rip-off.
Godinho together with then chief electrical engineer T Nagarajan and the opposite accused have been charged beneath the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Godinho, together with then common supervisor of Binani Zinc Ltd’s glass fibre division Okay V S Krishnakumar, and Binani Zinc Ltd’s glass fibre division had moved an utility in search of discharge from the case and acknowledged that although additional investigation is permissible beneath Part 173(8) of the Code of Legal Process, 1973, re-investigation is prohibited .
They acknowledged that the state has not carried out an additional investigation preserving in phrases with Part 173(8) of the Code of Legal Process, 1973, however has as an alternative carried out a re-investigation. The appliance acknowledged that this isn’t permissible by legislation and that the investigation can solely be ordered by the excessive court docket or Supreme Courtroom.
One of many accused, Nagarajan, additionally moved an identical utility on grounds that no prior sanction had been taken from the federal government by the investigating company to prosecute him, with him being a authorities officer.
The prosecution submitted that the court docket, after contemplating all materials on report, has come to a conclusion to border expenses towards all accused beneath related provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Choose D’Silva, in his order noticed, “In any occasion, the query whether or not the order handed by the Justice of the Peace was for reinvestigation or additional investigation, or whether or not the investigation carried out within the current case quantities to re-investigation, as contended by the accused, can’t be adjudicated nor it’s open to the accused to problem the stated competition, at this stage, extra notably when, the honourable excessive court docket in addition to the honourable Apex Courtroom have thought of the sufficiency of supplies towards the accused and directed to border the costs beneath the aforesaid Act.”
Within the case of Nagarajan, the choose noticed, “The sanction by the competent authority to prosecute the accused beneath part 19(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, isn’t a situation precedent for the court docket to take cognizance of the alleged offence to have been dedicated by a public servant as part 19 of Prevention of Corruption stands on a distinct footing. Subsequently, the submission of Shri Nagarajan can’t be accepted.”
FbTwitterInstagramKOO APPYOUTUBE