Panaji: Strict action against CBI for surprise probe, a Panaji Court acquits Sunil, former Sub-Inspector of Police, Anti-Drug Cell Panaji yelpa goodlery, for allegations of corruption in the case of the notorious Israeli drug dealer Dudu.
“On perusal of cross-examination, it shows that the investigation was conducted in the most casual manner and without following due process of law. There are lot of lapses, discrepancies in respect of attachment memos, panchnama and attachment of pen drives, CDs etc,” the court said.
Mohan Naik received the complaint while working as DYSP Crime Branch Dona Paula Kashinath Shetye and 12 others informed in writing that the present accused, who works as a police sub-inspector, was caught on camera selling drugs to foreign national girls. In the said camera footage, one of the girls was seen holding a charas, which was broadcast by the media on a local cable network news channel in Goa in January 2011. Later the case was transferred to CBI.
The allegation was that Goodler had solicited and accepted illegal bribes and valuables from Ayala Dryhan, the sister of David Drihan alias Dudu, who was arrested for allegedly carrying drugs.
The court found that the original recording of the sting operation remained in niloof the camera, which had gone to Israel, and was subsequently not contacted by the investigating agency.
“…Therefore, such procedure adopted by the IO for the purpose of proving the electronic record/documents is clearly unacceptable. No attempt was made to trace Neil’s whereabouts from his camera which allegedly involved the sting. The operation was recorded.
“…Similarly, Ayala’s laptop, to which she had allegedly transferred the video recordings, is also not attached. The discrepancies are many and counting. Hence, the procedure followed by her in conducting such investigations is also not attached. It is difficult to believe the argument raised by the Investigating Officer in this regard,” Justice BP Deshpande said.
The court observed that the attached pen drives and CDs are copies made by different persons on different occasions by modifying earlier documents, and said that unless such copies are made on the basis of a certificate provided under section 65-B of the Act. are not attached with them, they have no evidence value. ,
Advocate G Telles, representing Goodler, submitted that the video clipping or audio clipping submitted to the CBI cannot be treated as evidence as it is not primary evidence and has been treated as secondary evidence by the investigating agency under the Evidence Act. No certificate to prove the same has been produced. ,
The court found that as far as the video clip is concerned, Driham’s statements show that it was “modified, tampered with and subtitles added so that it could be broadcast on Israeli media. Such clip cannot be considered as the original electronic documents as the witness admitted that these are periodic copies. The court found that there is no material on record to show why the said clip featured subtitles and title in the Israeli language giving and who put it.
“On perusal of cross-examination, it shows that the investigation was conducted in the most casual manner and without following due process of law. There are lot of lapses, discrepancies in respect of attachment memos, panchnama and attachment of pen drives, CDs etc,” the court said.
Mohan Naik received the complaint while working as DYSP Crime Branch Dona Paula Kashinath Shetye and 12 others informed in writing that the present accused, who works as a police sub-inspector, was caught on camera selling drugs to foreign national girls. In the said camera footage, one of the girls was seen holding a charas, which was broadcast by the media on a local cable network news channel in Goa in January 2011. Later the case was transferred to CBI.
The allegation was that Goodler had solicited and accepted illegal bribes and valuables from Ayala Dryhan, the sister of David Drihan alias Dudu, who was arrested for allegedly carrying drugs.
The court found that the original recording of the sting operation remained in niloof the camera, which had gone to Israel, and was subsequently not contacted by the investigating agency.
“…Therefore, such procedure adopted by the IO for the purpose of proving the electronic record/documents is clearly unacceptable. No attempt was made to trace Neil’s whereabouts from his camera which allegedly involved the sting. The operation was recorded.
“…Similarly, Ayala’s laptop, to which she had allegedly transferred the video recordings, is also not attached. The discrepancies are many and counting. Hence, the procedure followed by her in conducting such investigations is also not attached. It is difficult to believe the argument raised by the Investigating Officer in this regard,” Justice BP Deshpande said.
The court observed that the attached pen drives and CDs are copies made by different persons on different occasions by modifying earlier documents, and said that unless such copies are made on the basis of a certificate provided under section 65-B of the Act. are not attached with them, they have no evidence value. ,
Advocate G Telles, representing Goodler, submitted that the video clipping or audio clipping submitted to the CBI cannot be treated as evidence as it is not primary evidence and has been treated as secondary evidence by the investigating agency under the Evidence Act. No certificate to prove the same has been produced. ,
The court found that as far as the video clip is concerned, Driham’s statements show that it was “modified, tampered with and subtitles added so that it could be broadcast on Israeli media. Such clip cannot be considered as the original electronic documents as the witness admitted that these are periodic copies. The court found that there is no material on record to show why the said clip featured subtitles and title in the Israeli language giving and who put it.
,