Dismisses wife Jennifer’s plea; says exemption to Minister till Sept 30, presence required incase of identification purpose
MARGAO
Revenue Minister Atanasio Monserrate was on Friday granted permanent exemption from appearing before the South Goa Sessions Court in the Panaji police station attack case.
The Court, however, dismissed the application for permanent exemption filed by wife and Taleigao MLA Jennifer Monserrate.
The Central Bureau of Investigations (CBI) had opposed the plea filed by the Monserrate couple for permanent exemption from appearing before the Special Judge Irshad Agha in the Panaji police station case.
Disposing of the application filed by the Revenue Minister for permanent exemption, Judge Agha granted permanent exemption for Atanasio Monserrate till September 30. The Judge, however, said the accused Minister will have to remain present before the Court if his presence is required for the purpose of identification.
“Number of witnesses has been cited in the chargesheet. Presently, cross-examination of Pw2 has to commence. The presence of the accused will be required for the purpose of identification because identity of the accused no one is disputed. Presently, accused number one is MLA and Minister. Possibly, he may be busy with official work. Considering this fact, permanent exemption could be granted to the accused number one, but for a limited period so that proceedings of the case are not disturbed,” Judge Agha observed while granting the application for permanent exemption.
He added: “Section 205 of CrPC empowers the Magistrate to dispense with personal attendance of the accused. Further, under Section 317 of CrPC, at any stage of an inquiry or trial under the CrPC, if the Judge or Magistrate is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded, that the personal attendance of the accused before the Court is not necessary, may grant exemption and proceed with the matter. While granting such an exemption, the fact that the accused is represented by an Advocate can also be considered.”
The Minister has filed the plea for permanent exemption on the ground that on account of exigencies of work and the distance involved, the accused finds it difficult to remain physically present before this Court for the dates of hearing. He had further contended that he is represented by an Advocate and hence the proceedings will not be delayed, while undertaking to remain present as and when required by this Court.
The CBI, however, had opposed the application on the ground that recording of the evidence of the witnesses is regularly going on and since identity of the accused is disputed, presence of the accused no. 1 would be required. In case exemption is granted, the proceedings will be delayed.
