Power handover scam: No legal respite for Godinho, others | Goa News


Colva: Special Judge Vincent D’Silva on Saturday rejected the requests filed by the Minister of Transport Mauvin Godinho and others for their discharge in the alleged Rs 4.5 crore power discount scam.
Godinho along with the then chief electrical engineer, T Nagarajan, and the other defendants were charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Godinho, along with KVS Krishnakumar, then General Manager of the Fiberglass Division of Binani Zinc Ltd, and the Fiberglass Division of Binani Zinc Ltd had filed a request for discharge from the case and stated that although further investigation investigation is permitted under section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, re-investigation is prohibited.
They said the state did not conduct a further investigation pursuant to Section 173(8) of the 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure, but instead conducted a new investigation. The request stated that this was not permitted by law and that the investigation could only be ordered by the High Court or the Supreme Court.
One of the defendants, Nagarajan, also filed a similar request on the grounds that no prior sanction had been taken from the government by the investigative agency to prosecute him, as he was a government official.
The prosecution argued that the court, after considering all the material in the case, reached the conclusion to charge all defendants under the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.
Judge D’Silva, in his order, observed: “In any event, the question whether the order made by the magistrate was for a new investigation or a further investigation, or whether the investigation carried out in this case amounts to a new inquest, as the accused contends, cannot be tried and it is not open to the accused to dispute the said assertion, at this stage, more particularly when, the Honorable High court together with the Honorable Apex Court considered the sufficiency of the evidence against the accused and ordered that the charges be brought under the above Act.
In the Nagarajan case, the judge observed: “Sanction by the competent authority to prosecute the accused under section 19(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 is not a precondition for the court to take cognizance of the alleged facts. offense committed by a public official, because article 19 of the prevention of corruption rests on another basis. Therefore, Shri Nagarajan’s submission cannot be accepted.


FacebookTwitterinstagramKOO APPYOUTUBE

Source link


Comments are closed.