For now, casino case anxiety ends for Mickky

THE GOAN NETWORK | DECEMBER 08, 2015, 12:00 AM IST

Photo Credits: MICKKY

MARGAO: Nuvem MLA Mickky Pacheco got a big relief ahead of the 2017 Assembly election when he was discharged by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kalpana Gauns in the Majorda casino case on Monday.

Mickky and co-accused Mathew Diniz came out of the court room all smiles as the CJM pronounced her order on Monday morning. The duo along with Mickky’s lawyer Adv Srikant Nayak maintained that the CJM had passed a just and proper order since there was no prima facie case filed against them by manager of casino Capt Gerard Fernandes.

“There was no case at all. The prosecution could not at all show my involvement in the case,” Mickky told the media after the court order, as his body language showed that the court order discharging him from the case has given him the relief at the right time as he was preparing to kick start his campaign for the 2017 Assembly election.

The lawyers representing Mickky and Mathew, Adv Srikant Nayak and Adv Anacleto Viegas had argued before the court that the sections invoked by the police were non-cognnizable in nature, adding that the police had conducted further investigations into the case without permission of the court.

The Crime branch had filed a charge sheet against Mickky and Mathew for allegedly assaulting and threatening to kill the manager of the Majorda casino in 2009. The investigating agency had charged the duo under Sections 326 for causing grievous hurt, 341 for wrongful restraint and 506 (II) for criminal intimidation of the Indian Penal Code.

The duo were accused for entering into the casino at about 1.45 am and having an altercation with the casino staff regarding restrictions on timing and limits. The investigating agency accused the duo of allegedly assaulting and threatening to kill the casino manager Capt Gerard Fernandes.

Meanwhile, Adv Aires Rodrigues told the media that he would challenge in public interest the order passed by the CJM, Margao in the High Court since the order was contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court and the High Court on investigations in non-cognizance and cognizable cases.

Share this