Cocaine bust case: Police probe under scanner

MARGAO

Less than a year after the Crime Branch effected the biggest-ever Rs 43 crore cocaine haul at Mormugao in April 2025, with alleged international links, the case has returned to the spotlight after four of the five accused were discharged by the Court even before the commencement of trial for want of evidence.

Reason: While the Court found prima facie evidence against Accused No. 1 sufficient to frame the charge, the discharge of the remaining four accused has raised serious questions regarding the police investigation, as the material produced by the investigating agency failed to satisfy the Court of the South Goa Additional Sessions Judge, Ram Prabhudesai.

Judge Prabhudesai observed that the entire material produced by the prosecution to establish the alleged complicity of Accused Nos. 2 to 5 was either incomplete or wholly insufficient to frame charges. “It is based either on inadmissible evidence, namely the confession of Accused No. 1, or on irrelevant material. There is absolutely no evidence on record to indicate the specific role of each of the accused in the alleged crime. There is also no nexus between the contraband seized and the involvement of Accused Nos. 2 to 5,” the Judge noted.

A perusal of the order discharging the four accused reveals that the Court found no prima facie evidence providing reasonable grounds to believe that Accused Nos. 2 to 5 had conspired with Accused No. 1 to commit the alleged offence. “I find that there are no sufficient grounds to proceed against Accused Nos. 2 to 5. Further, there are no grounds to presume that they have committed the offences alleged in the chargesheet,” the Judge stated.

The Court further observed, “The material on record is wholly insufficient to raise even a grave suspicion against Accused Nos. 2 to 5. There is no material to justify subjecting them to trial. Even if the material and documents on record are accepted at face value, they do not disclose the essential ingredients constituting the alleged offence.”

The judge added: “No doubt that direct evidence will never be available in so far as conspiracy is concerned; however, there has to be at least prima facie material to show the nexus between the accused. The prosecution has to make a prima facie case of conspiracy, and, further, it is at least required to prima facie show that the accused not only had knowledge of the object of the conspiracy but also of the agreement. In the case at hand, the prosecution has failed to prove the above foundational facts to attract the theory of conspiracy”.

Non recording of WhatsApp 

chats in panchanama

Judge Ram Prabhudesai observed that the investigating officer ought to have conducted the panchanama of the WhatsApp chats or taken screenshots to rely on the same against the accused persons.

The Judge made the observation after the Public Prosecutor submitted that the mobile containing the WhatsApp calls of accused no. 2 and accused no. 4 was attached by the police and sent for forensic examination. The PP fairly conceded that there are neither CDR records nor CCTV footage to show that accused no 2 had travelled to or arrived in India from Delhi Airport, and that she had contacted the other accused for the purpose of perpetrating the crime”, the judge observed.

The Judge added: “The alleged WhatsApp chats between the accused no.2 and accused no.4 are not recorded in the panchanama before sending the mobile for forensic examination. The said fact has been conceded by the PP. In my opinion, the I.O. ought to have conducted the panchanama of the WhatsApp chats or taken screenshots to rely on the same against the accused persons. As rightly pointed out by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, there is also a serious doubt regarding the manner in which the mobiles were attached. The contents of the WhatsApp chat/calls are also not before this Court”.

PROSECUTION CASE

*The accused no 2-3 were arrested because they were in constant touch with accused no 1  through WhatsApp calls.

*The accused no.4 was apprehended after an amount of Rs. 20,000/- was credited to the account of the accused no.2, who disclosed that the accused no.4 had transferred the said amount to her account. 

*It is further alleged that accused no.4 had shared a picture of the flight ticket booked in the name of the accused no.2, which was shared by him to the accused no.2. 

*The charge sheet further states that the investigation revealed that the accused no.4 was requested by one of his Foreign National friend to transfer the money in the account of the accused no.2.

*Upon verification of the account details through the UPI transaction, it was found that the amount was transferred from the account of the accused no.5, who was Zimbabwe National.

*Further, the prosecution stated that the accused nos. 4 and 5 conspired with the accused no.2, and in furtherance of the said conspiracy, the accused no.2 agreed to travel abroad and procured the contraband. 

*It was alleged that thereafter, money was transferred and travel tickets were arranged; accordingly, the accused no.2 travelled abroad and procured the said contraband with the help of her husband, i.e., accused no.3, which the accused no.1 tried to dispose of/sell to prospective customers.

*It is the case of the prosecution that the accused no.5 transferred money through the accused no.4 to the accused no.2 to travel abroad

DEFENCE ARGUMENTS

*Adv. S. Desai submitted that the drugs were not recovered from the accused no.2 and that she has been roped in merely on the statement of the co-accused, i.e. accused no.1. He would further submit that the bank statements of the accused no.2 are not relied on and that there are serious lacunae in the inventory conducted by the I.O. in the present case. 

*He further submitted that there is no CCTV footage of the Airport showing that the accused travelled on that day and was carrying contraband. 

*Moreover, he submitted that the accused no. 2, carrying a huge quantity of contraband substance and safely passing through all security checks without being apprehended by the authorities at the International Airports or at Delhi Airport, is highly improbable.