Daijiworld Media Network - Panaji

Panaji, Aug 31: The Goa government finds itself in a tricky position following the acquittal of Minister Mauvin Godinho and others in the decades-old power rebate scam case. The Court of Special Judge, North Goa, sharply criticised the prosecution for weakening the case, raising questions over whether the State will risk an appeal.

Legal experts are divided on the next move. Former Judicial Magistrate and senior lawyer Cleofato Coutinho advised caution, stressing that appeals should not be filed for political reasons. “The Public Prosecutor shall scrutinise the evidence to find if a case is made out. No matter must be filed for political expediency or to keep someone on the leash,” he said, reminding that the original complainant had flagged the matter as a potential scam.

Advocate Sahil Sardesai pointed out that the trial court’s verdict reflected the prosecution’s failure to build a solid case. “There is no proper material evidence, and the judgment substantiates this,” he said, while not entirely ruling out an appeal.

In a detailed 175-page order, Judge Irshad Agha criticised the prosecution for not examining key witnesses, including the late Manohar Parrikar and former Chief Minister Pratapsing Rane, interpreting it as an attempt to suppress crucial facts. Advocate Nitin Sardesai advised that the decision to appeal must go beyond a superficial reading of the judgment, urging a thorough review of the evidence.

A senior counsel, speaking anonymously, said the acquittal was “bound to happen” due to missing witnesses and a flawed prosecution strategy. He revealed that former Power Secretary Pachu had earlier indicated there was “no criminality, at the most it is a procedural lapse,” but crucial witnesses, including former Chief Secretary and Finance Secretary, were not examined. Cross-examination also revealed that the power rebate benefited around 200 companies, not just the accused two, further weakening the case.

“The prosecution pressed the case without the required evidence and witnesses. There was no quid pro quo, no conspiracy,” the counsel added, highlighting major flaws in the government’s approach.