THE GOAN NETWORK
MARGAO
Asserting that the Assistant Public Prosecutor had acted as a “post office” in the Velim Church attack case, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Judge Ram Prabhudesai has clearly opined that boosting the morale of the state’s police force would certainly prevail over maintaining peace and communal harmony in the small village of Velim.
A perusal of the 15Â-page order dismissing the Prosecution’s application for withdrawal of the Velim Church case indicated that Judge Ram was categorical in saying that morale of the police would have been certainly affected in case the application for withdrawal of the case was allowed.
“Even if it is considered that there was likelihood of disturbance of peace on account of present case being filed against the religious head of the village, in my view the judge said ground has to be tested as against the morale of the police force of the entire State. After the cursory look at the material on record, the present chargesheet pertains to offences allegedly committed against the members of the police force and there is even an alleged attempt to murder”, Judge Ram said.
The Judge further said that every crime is an offence against the society and if the accused has
committed an offence, society demands that they should be punished. Punishing the person who perpetrated the crime is an essential requirement for the maintenance of law and order and peace
in the society. Therefore, the withdrawal of the prosecution cannot be permitted on grounds casually stated in the present application”, he added.
Asserting that the APP had not at all followed the dictum of the Supreme Court on withdrawal of the state from prosecution, Judge Ram said there was total nonÂ-application of mind on the part of the APP. “The APP has acted only after receiving a letter from the Director of Prosecution and not earlier. The first hearing in the present matter was fixed on August 24, 2015. In case there was any problem with regards to peace and maintenance of communal harmony, the APP ought to have filed the present application immediately and not waited till receiving the directions from Director of Prosecution. The cumulative inference that can be safely drawn is that the APP has acted as a post office, which is not mandate of the law”, Judge Ram added.
Saying that the DoP’s letter dated January 14, 2016 was received by the APP office on February 9, 2016, Judge Ram said there is no other material on record to suggest that APP has applied her independent mind over the issue to support her contention that present application is justified for the purpose of restoring peace and communal harmony in the society. “Resultantly, it can be safely inferred that the present application is filed pursuant to the direction given by DoP in the letter dated January 14, 2016. Hence, there is grave suspicion that the APP had acted on the pressure from her superiors”, he said
“No doubt the APP could have very well filed the present application for restoring the peace and communal harmony in the society. However, this ground ought to have been clearly spelt out from the material placed before her prior to arriving at the said opinion. It is not the case of the prosecution that there was breach of peace or disturbance of communal harmony on account of filing of the present chargesheet and pendency of the present case. The manner in which she had arrived at the finding that the present proceedings are required to be withdrawn to restore
peace and communal harmony are conspicuously missing”, Judge Ram added.
The Judge observed that it clearly appears that instead of suggesting withdrawal of prosecution, the Director of Prosecution has compelled the APP to apply for withdrawal of prosecution, which is impermissible under the law. “In view of clear cut directions received from her superior, the APP had to surrender her discretion, while applying for withdrawal from prosecution”, the Judge added.
The Judge also dismissed the application for case withdrawal for want of jurisdiction, saying the offence of Section 307 of the IPC for attempt to murder is exclusively triable by the court of session.
“Since the present case is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, this Court lacks the power either to discharge the accused or to acquit them. In case the present application is allowed, it shall amount to usurpation of the powers of the Higher Court, which is totally illegal and impermissible”, the judge said.
