PANAJI
Amid silence from both the government and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) over the acquittal of Minister Mauvin Godinho and others in the power rebate scam, the Court of Special Judge (North Goa) has come down heavily on the prosecution, stating it failed to establish criminal conspiracy or misconduct against the accused.
In a detailed 175-page order, the Court criticised the prosecution for also not examining key witnesses including the late Manohar Parrikar and former chief minister Pratapsing Rane. The Court interpreted this omission as a deliberate move to suppress crucial facts, weakening the case.
“Examination of the complainant late Manohar Parrikar, the acting Chief Minister at the relevant time Pratap Singh Rane and Pachau are not examined by the prosecution. The inference is that the witnesses did not wish to enter the witness box deliberately to conceal material facts. Therefore, applying the said principle the prosecution case weakens to a great extent,” an extract of the order by Judge Irshad Agha stated.
The Court noted that although there may have been procedural lapses and irregularities in the official handling of the rebate requests, there was no evidence of dishonest intent or pecuniary gain -- the main components required to establish corruption charges.
“The prosecution has therefore failed to prove that any criminal conspiracy was hatched by accused No 1 (Godinho), 2 (then Chief Electrical Engineer T Nagarajan), 3 (Vithal Bhandary, who passed away during the trial), 4 (Radhakrishna) and 5 (Katreddi Venkata Sahaye Krishnakumar) for the benefit of accused No. 6 (M/s Marmagoa Steel Ltd) and 7 (M/s Glass Fibre Division (A Division of Binani Zinc Ltd) at the cost of government exchequer,” the judgment stated.
The Court elaborated that offences under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act require clear evidence of criminal misconduct. However, the records presented failed to show any dishonest action or benefit gained by the accused.
“The accused No. 1 & 2 may have committed mistakes while dealing with request for rebate. However, they cannot be said to have done it deliberately with any criminal intent to benefit accused No. 6 & 7. There are no allegations made in the charge sheet that the accused No. 1 & 2 obtained for themselves or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. Therefore, on a plain reading of clause (d) of sub-section 1 of section 13 of PC Act will not be attracted. That means, the act of criminal misconduct as provided in section 13(1) would not be attracted,” it further stated.
The Court reinforced that while actions by the accused may appear irregular, they did not constitute criminal misconduct under the law. It emphasized that dishonest intent is central to establishing guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
“Further observing, the Court stated that while dishonest intention is the crux of the offence u/s 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, since there is no material to show that any amount has gone to the benefit of accused No. 1 & 2, the charges under the Corruption Act would not be attracted. The act of accused No. 1 & 2 may be irregular but it will not amount to criminal misconduct.”
The Court also criticised the investigation process, pointing out that a claimed further investigation report was neither included in the chargesheet nor produced in court. “This shows that investigation was malafidely conducted,” the order said.
Advocate T Shirodkar, appearing for accused No 5, during the hearing argued that government had already recovered the rebate amount from accused No. 6 & 7. While acknowledging that recovery does not negate criminal liability, the Court concluded there was no evidence of conspiracy or misuse of official position.
“Mere recovery of the said amount would not absolve any party from a criminal liability. However, I find that the material brought on record do not point out that the accused persons had entered into any conspiracy and that accused No. 1 & 2 misused their position as public servant. At the most the act of accused No. 1 & 2 in discharging official functions can be considered as irregularity not amounting to criminal misconduct,” the Court said.
All accused were acquitted and released on fresh bail bonds of Rs 50,000 with one surety of like amount, valid for three months, to enable the prosecution to file an appeal if it chooses to do so.
