http://oheraldo.in/pagedetails.asp?nid=14025&cid=26
Govt order allowing PP to defend PI's case quashed HERALD REPORTER PANJIM, DEC 14 Can the Government ask its public prosecutor to plead the case of a Government employee or officer against whom there are allegations of commission or omission? In an interesting order passed by the Additional Sessions Court, here, the Government order allowing Adv P Kirtani to defend the case of Police Inspector Salim Shaikh before the trial case, has been quashed and set aside. The Additional Sessions Judge II, Panjim, P V Kamat, citing several High Court and Apex Court rulings allowed the criminal revision application of Dr Joe D'Souza, former head of Microbiology Department, Goa University, challenging the order of the Trial Court. The Trial Court had rejected the application made by Dr D'Souza objecting to the order issued by the Government to Adv Kirtani to defend Salim. A criminal revision application was filed in the court of additional sessions, challenging the order of the Trial Court. The Additional Sessions Court, said that it is seen that there are allegations of commission and omission constituting cognizable offences against Salim who is a police officer. Pointing out that the allegations leveled against him are of personal nature, the court felt that Salim is not entitled to be defended by the Government pleader in view of the dicta laid down in the judicial pronouncements. In fact, the Government should not have proceeded to issue memo to Adv Kirtani to defend the interest of the respondent in the proceedings, the court said. 'As such the Trial Court committed miscarriage of justice by not allowing the objections raised by the applicant to reject the memo of appearance filed by Adv P Kirtani to defend the respondent who is a Government servant in the case'. The applicant had filed a criminal miscellaneous application seeking relief for inquiry into disappearance of court file containing roznamas, orders and other important documents and to obtain the possession thereof forthwith and to report the same to the district judge at Panjim and Bombay HC at Goa in connection with the report under Section 173 of CrPC send by the Agassaim Police Station for closing the investigation. The case is that Dr D'Souza had filed his objections dated 9th January 2005 opposing the closure of investigation in the Crime No 104/2003. It was also stated further that despite handing over the court file to the respondent, under the covering letter, the respondent didn't produce the court file and hence 'there is every reason to believe that the respondent is suppressing the relevant facts and other relevant materials at the same police station'. Adv Ranjit Satardekar appeared for Dr Joe and PP S Nagvenkar represented the State. The Madras High Court indicated that they have no right to practice or take briefs to demand the accused in criminal cases.
