PANAJI
The matter has been posted on Monday for order.
In its say to the bail application moved by Shetgaonkar before the Special Court, SIT has said that following the inspection of illegal mining leases, Shetgaonkar ignored the illegalities and intentionally failed to propose criminal proceedings and thus, he is responsible for the illegal process of the renewal application and illegal extraction of iron ore.
Arguing before the Court, Shetgaonkar's defence counsel Nitin Sardessai questioned whether alleged facilitation and failure to initiate criminal proceedings amount to an offence or to obtaining of pecuniary advantage.
Speaking to the media after the hearing, Adv Sardessai said, "The position of law is that it is not within my client's powers to lodge prosecution. He could put up his notings before the higher ups and it is for them to decide whether to lodge a case or to recover money. My client's role was very limited."
The prosecution also argued that Shetgaonkar has hidden certain inspection files from the SIT. Commenting on this, Adv Sardessai said, "They know that Shetgaonkar recommended only recovery in those files. If the mines director Prasanna Acharya wanted, he could have lodged a case instead of accepting Shetgaonkar's recommendations. So, it was never my client's decision to make. Getting the files is an ancillary thing."
