IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AT GOA BENCH
C.V. Bhadang, J.
Dilip Parulekar - Appellant
Versus
Advocate Airesh Rodrigues - Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 127 of 2017, 106 and 107 of 2017
Decided On : 22-06-2018
The petitioners, public servants, were accused of criminal conspiracy and misuse of official position in obtaining prime property belonging to the Communidade for a paltry sum. The court examined the requirement of sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. and Section 19 of the PC Act. The court found that the acts alleged did not have a reasonable nexus with the discharge of official duties and therefore, the protection under these sections was not available. The court also considered the legal position in relation to the complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and the powers of the Court to direct investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The court held that a prima facie case for issuance of process was made out and the matter would be decided while recording evidence before charge. The court confirmed the order taking cognizance but set aside the order issuing process under the PC Act for want of sanction. The case was transferred to the Judicial Magistrate First Class for further proceedings.
JUDGMENT
C.V. Bhadang, J -Rule made returnable forthwith. Respondent no. 1, who appears in person, waives service. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, waives service for the respondent nos. 2 and 3. Heard finally by consent of parties.
2. All these petitions arise out of order dated 09.12.2016 and 01.06.2017, passed by the learned Sessions Judge at Panaji. They involve common and connected questions of law and fact and as such, they are being disposed by this common judgment.
3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the petitions may be stated thus:
The petitioner, Dilip Parulekar (accused no. 1) was a member of the Goa Legislative Assembly from the year 2007 to 2012. He was a Minister for Tourism, Government of Goa from March 2012 till February 2017 and thus, was a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short).
The petitioner, Peter Martins (accused no. 2) was an Attorney of the Communidade of Serula for the triennium 2010-13. An Attorney is an elected officer for a period of three years.
The petitioner, Mrs. Irene Sequeira (accused no. 3) is Administrator of Communidade, who is also a Public Servant under Section 21 of the IPC.
4. The respondent no. 1 (complainant), filed a complaint with P.S. Porvorim, against the petitioners and others, alleging commission of offences under Section 119, 120, 420 r/w Section 120B of IPC. The gravamen of allegations are that the petitioners and others, had hatched a conspiracy, in which, prime property belonging to the Communidade of Serula (Communidade, for short) bearing Survey No. 376/6 of village Soccoro, Bardez Goa, was given away to the accused no. 1 for a paltry sum, thereby causing wrongful loss to the Communidade and wrongful gain to the accused. It appears that the learned Magistrate directed investigation into the complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C. for short), on the basis of which, an offence at Crime No. 8/2014 was registered on 17.01.2014, against eight accused, including the petitioners for the aforesaid offences with P.S. Porvorim. The matter was subsequently transferred to the CID Crime Branch in April 2014 and the investigation was being monitored by the learned Magistrate. It further appears that as the officers of the Communidade and the Administrator, were found to be public servants, an offence under Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act, for short) was invoked and accordingly, the matter was taken over by the learned Sessions Judge, under the said Act and was registered as Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 66/2014. The investigating agency was submitting periodical reports before the learned Sessions Judge. The respondent no. 1 claimed that the investigating agency was intentionally dragging its feet as the accused no. 1 was a Minister in the State Government. Be that as it may the investigating agency, ultimately, on 01.08.2016 filed a ''C'' final summary on the ground that the complaint is neither true nor false and that no material was found to proceed against the accused.
5. The respondent no. 1 filed a protest petition, opposing the final summary report. The learned Sessions Judge by an order dated 01.06.2017, rejected the final summary report and took cognizance of the matter under Section 190(1) (a) of Cr.P.C. i.e. on the basis of the complaint filed by the respondent no. 1, which came to be registered as Private Criminal Case No. 2/2016.
6. The learned Sessions Judge then recorded the statement of the respondent no. 1 along with three witnesses, namely, AW-1, Agnelo Lobo, who was the Attorney of the Communidade in the year 1994, AW-2, Srinet Kenawade, who was appointed as an enquiry officer on 24th March 2017, by the Government to inquire into various irregularities pertaining to the Communidade and AW-3, Mohan Narvekar, a Clerk of the Communidade from the year 2008. The learned Sessions Judge by an order dated 1st June 2017 h
Anil Kumar & Others Vs. M.K. Aiyappa & Another
H.S. Bains Vs. The State (Union Territory of Chandigarh)
Kalicharan Mahapatra Vs. State of Orissa
L.K. Advani Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Mukesh Kacker Vs. Special Police Establishment
P.K. Choudhury Vs. Commander, 48 Brtf (Gref)
Parkash Singh Badal & Another Vs. State of Punjab
Punjab State Ware Housing Corporation Vs. Bhushan Chander & Another
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.