CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY AT GOA, while deciding on 27.3.2008 the Criminal appeal no. 39 of 2006 in re: ASST. COMMR. OF CUSTOMS [PREV.], GOA vs ANTHONY SEBASTIAN L D’SOUZA, it was observed as follows:-
QUOTE: A peruslal of the judgement clearly supports the contention of the appellant that there is no discussion of the evidence of investigating officer. The learned Trial Judge has merely stated : “P.W. 5 has investigated the case.” in the judgement in para 11. The learned Trial Judge is the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Margao. It is difficult to understand how the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate could have made a statement like that and rested, though he was bound by his duty as a Magistrate trying the offence, to consider the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Indeed the credibility of criminal Courts trying an offence rests on discussion of the evidence brought by the prosecution and the reasonings of the Court thereon. There is complete dereliction of duty by the Magistrate in discussing material evidence adduced by the prosecution in a case which requires serious consideration. This dreliction of duty has resulted in an acquittal of the respondent which PRIMA FACIE appears to be unjustified. UNQUOTE
[for full text of the judgement please visit http://www.taxesinindia.com and click on the citation taxind_2008_hc_bom_cra_39]
HIGH COURT DECISION.
VENKATRAMAN RAGGHUPATHY, Web admin.
