The unexpected move by social activist, Adv Aires Rodrigues, who picked holes in the government’s decision to withdraw the Velim Church attack case, has stirred up a hornet’s nest. His claim, that the government has flouted the laid down procedure for withdrawal from prosecution, has raised apprehension within many quarters that the 2012 case may drag on, thus causing further delay in the process of withdrawal and closure of the sensational case. Director of Prosecution, Shiral Monteiro, however, has told The Goan that the government will defend its decision for withdrawal of the case at the next date of hearing on February 5, reports Guilherme Almeida
****
Smiles had returned on the faces of the 22 persons named as accused in the Velim Church attack case, and the Velim villagers in general, when the Assistant Public Prosecutor, Shilpa Nagvenkar, submitted before Judge Pooja Kavlekar about the government decision to withdraw the case. In fact, hopes were raised that the curtains will finally fall on the four-year old case at the next hearing on February 5. However, the claim made by social activist, Adv Aires Rodrigues, that the government did not comply with the laid down procedure for withdrawal of cases has left everyone confused on the fate of the government’s decision.
Says Savio D’Silva, a Velim resident, who is named as an accused in the case: “We all fail to understand how Aires has suddenly come into the picture. This case has ruined the lives of young boys who have been waiting to go abroad since the past four years. When the government had finally agreed to honour its commitment, Aires has pointed out these flaws. Let us wait and see what unfolds on February 5, the day when we all were expecting the case to come to a close.”
Velim MLA Benjamin D’Silva hoped that the government has compiled with the laid down procedure while moving the court for withdrawal of the case.
“The Criminal Procedure code provides for withdrawal of the State from prosecution with the consent of the court. I am confident that the government has followed the due process of law,” Benjamin said.
Aires kicked up a row after he claimed at a media briefing that Director of Prosecution, Shiral Monteiro, has sought to withdraw the case on a mere oral direction from South Goa MP Narendra Sawaikar.
“Section 321 of the CrPC empowers the government to withdraw a case, but only after complying with the due procedure. But in this instance, no procedure was followed by the Prosecution Director, who himself has stated in an information under RTI that there’s no file noting in respect of the decision to withdraw the case. Secondly, the Prosecution Director is expected to hear the complainant and the victim before moving the court for withdrawal. Let the prosecution put forth its explanation before the court on these two aspects,” he said.
Aires made it categorically clear that he would file an intervening application in the Margao Court in the matter, a move which may bring him face-to-face with city-based lawyer, Adv Rajeev Gomes, after having locking horns earlier in the Calvert case and the Remo Fernandes case.
“I would file the intervening application so that I am made a party in the matter only for a limited purpose of submitting all documents before the court. Let the court take a call on the matter,” Aires said.
Defence lawyer, Adv Gomes, who is representing 19 out of the 22 accused persons, on the other hand, says the claim made by Adv Aires will only lead to further delay in the case.
“From day one, I have been insisting that we will fight out the case in the court of law. However, we all felt that since the government had assured the villagers of withdrawing the case, let the case get withdrawn from the prosecution. If the government has taken a decision to withdraw the case, I am confident the government will honour its commitment. But, by raising procedural errors, it may only cause further delay,” Adv Gomes said.
In the spotlight over the claim made by Adv Aires Rodrigues that the government did not follow the procedure in the Velim Church case withdrawal, Director of Prosecution, Shiral Monteiro, however, said that the government will defend its decision in favour of withdrawal of the case in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Margao on February 5.
Monteiro has declined to shed light on the allegations made by Aires that the government has moved for withdrawal of the case based on a phone call from South Goa MP Narendra Sawaikar.
“I have nothing to say on these allegations. But, one thing is clear, that the government will defend in the court the decision to withdraw the case from prosecution,” Monteiro told The Goan.
Sources in the know informed that Assistant Public Prosecutor, Shilpa Nagvenkar, is expected to follow the instructions received from the Prosecution Director by setting in motion the process for the withdrawal of the case. Shilpa has received instructions to get the Velim case withdrawn after obtaining undertakings from the 22 accused persons that they will not initiate counter cases against the government.
*
South Goa MP Narendra Sawaikar has denied that he had called Director of Prosecutor, Shiral Monteiro, over the telephone to withdraw the Velim Church attack case from the prosecution.
“As a lawyer, people from Velim must have also approached me on the withdrawal of the case. But, even assuming that I or anyone else had called up the Prosecution Director with a request to withdraw a case, it is purely for the Director to comply with the laid down procedure before moving the court for withdrawal,” Sawaikar told The Goan on Tuesday.
Moreover, the former chairman of the Goa Law Commission, said that ultimately the ball lies in the court of the judge on whether to accept the government’s decision for withdrawal of not. “Government’s decision to withdraw from the prosecution does not automatically result in the withdrawal of the case. The judge takes the final call on the government’s request,” he said.
The Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of a case may, with the consent of the Court, at any time before the judgment is pronounced, withdraw from the prosecution of any person either generally or in respect of any one or more of the offences for which he is tried; and, upon such withdrawal -
(a) if it is made before a charge has been framed, the accused shall be discharged in respect of such offence or offences.
