PANAJI
The Goa government has been pushed into an awkward situation following the acquittal of Minister Mauvin Godinho and others in the decades-old power rebate scam case. While the Court of Special Judge, North Goa, came down heavily on the manner in which the case was weakened, the larger question now is whether the State will risk an appeal.
Legal experts are divided, with some urging caution and others questioning whether the prosecution had any case to begin with.
Former Judicial Magistrate and practicing senior lawyer Cleofato Coutinho was forthright in cautioning against filing appeals for political reasons. “The Public Prosecutor shall scrutinise the evidence to find if a case is made out. Let him apply his mind. No matter must be filed for political expediency or to keep someone on the leash,” he said.
He further reminded that the original complainant itself had suggested that the matter is an attempt to scam. “Judicial time is also precious,” the counsel said.
On the other hand, Advocate Sahil Sardesai said the trial court’s verdict was consistent with the prosecution’s failure to build a solid case.
“Obviously, the prosecution didn’t have a perfect case. The court has rightly observed discrepancies in evidence. There is no proper material evidence and the judgment has substantiated this,” he explained. Yet, he did not rule out the possibility of an appeal.
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. While stating that the prosecution failed to establish criminal conspiracy or misconduct against the accused, Judge Irshad Agha interpreted this omission as a deliberate move to suppress crucial facts, weakening the case.
Offering a more cautious view, Advocate Nitin Sardesai said the decision to appeal could not rest on a superficial reading of the judgment. “There is a power to appeal; however, one cannot decide based on the order alone. A judge bases his decision on certain aspects, but may ignore others. Only by revisiting the evidence produced before the court can we know whether all aspects were considered or misinterpreted,” he said, adding, “Merely on reading the judgment, one cannot opine.”
Another senior counsel, speaking on condition of anonymity, described the acquittal as “bound to happen.” He revealed that the prosecution’s case collapsed because of missing witnesses and a flawed strategy. “If the star witness was present for examination, the acquittal would have come at great cost to the government,” he said.
Having closely followed the trial, the counsel stated that former Power Secretary, Pachu, had earlier stated during the investigation that “there is no criminality, at the most it is a procedural lapse.” But Pachu was never traced for examination in the Court, despite efforts by the prosecution and the Ministry of Home Affairs.
“There was no supplementary statement recorded. Moreover, statements of the former Chief Secretary, Finance Secretary and other crucial witnesses were not even recorded. During the trial, cross-examination revealed an even deeper problem because the power rebate notification not just benefitted the two companies identified as accused, but a total of around 200 companies. However, they were not named as accused,” he added.
The senior counsel revealed that there was no quid pro quo, no conspiracy. “It was a major flaw on the part of the government to press this case without the required evidence and witnesses,” he said.
