MARGAO
An interesting question came up during the hearing of the Power rebate scam case when Additional Sessions Judge Vincent D’Silva posed a pointed query to the prosecution and the defence “ whether there’s any provision in law wherein an accused can seek discharge when charges are already framed and the evidence has commenced in the case?
In fact, the Judge has asked both the prosecution as well as the defence to submit their replies to the query at the next date of hearing on June 18.
In another development, doubts and confusion about whether the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panjim had ordered re-investigation or further investigation in the case was finally capped when the prosecution and the defence submitted in the open courtroom that the JMFC had ordered further investigation in the matter.
Former Power Minister Mauvin Godinho, former Chief Electrical Engineer T Nagarajan and other accused persons had sought discharge in the alleged power scam case, insisting that the Crime Branch had re-investigated the case when the Criminal Procedure Code only empowers the Judicial Magistrate to order further investigation.
As the question of re-investigation and further investigation was finally capped on Tuesday, the Judge sought to know whether there’s any provision in law wherein an accused can seek discharge when the charge is already framed by the Judicial Magistrate.
“I feel the discharge of an accused is out of the question when the charge is already framed. It is either acquittal or conviction of an accused after the charge is framed," the Judge said.
When a defence lawyer sought to argue that though the JMFC had ordered further investigations, the Crime Branch had carried out re-investigation, the Judge observed this question ought to have been brought to the notice of the IO by the accused.
The Judge later sought to know from the public prosecutor whether there’s any provision in law where the accused can be given a discharge after the charges are framed against him. For clarity on the question, the Judge later fixed the hearing of the matter on June 18 while asking the prosecution and the defence to produce before the court any provision or order where an accused can be discharged after charges stand framed against him.
Ex-CEE says govt didn’t take sanction to prosecute him
MARGAO:
Former Chief Electrical Engineer, T Nagarajan on Tuesday sought his discharge and termination of his trial in the Power rebate scam case on the ground that the government did not take the sanction to prosecute him in the case.
Additional Sessions Judge Vincent D’Silva, however, sought to know from the former CEE whether an accused can raise the issue of sanction at a stage when he has already been charged in the case.
In his application moved before the court, Nagarajan submitted that Section 56(2)(b) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 is clear in stating that no court shall take cognizance of an offence under the Act by a public officer except with the sanction of the State government.
He contended that since no sanction of the State government has been taken under the Act by the prosecution to prosecute him, the court cannot take cognizance of the alleged offence done or purported to have been done by him, the charge sheet filed against him should be quashed.
“The trial should be terminated and I should be discharged from this frivolous and vexatious long-pending criminal cases forthwith,” he said adding “The sanction required under the Act is more relevant and important than the sanctions required under the CrPC and the PC Act, 1988."
