MARIO FRANCISCO LOBO Vs. THE STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Ryan Menezes, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Shri Mahesh Amonkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent no.1.

(2.) Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive service.

(3.) Shri Menezes, learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that certain persons were named in the complaint lodged by the complainant with the respondent no.3 who had allegedly committed the offences with the others after forming a mob of 30 to 40 persons in the property of the complainant. However in the chargesheet filed by the respondent no.3 certain named persons were not arrayed as the accused and there was also no reason or justification for their non -impleadment. The statement of the nephew too was not recorded who was present at the site at the time of the offence and could have shed light on the incident and the persons involved therein. There were statements on record which indicated that such persons could be identified who had indulged in the offences and therefore the petitioner who had no other remedy was constrained to approach this Court for a direction to the respondents to conduct a fresh and proper investigation and in the alternative to carry out proper investigation in accordance with law and pending the same, the proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mapusa be kept in abeyance and finally for a direction to hold an enquiry and/or disciplinary action against the concerned Officials of Goa Police who had made a deliberate attempt to sabotage/scuttle the investigation.