PANAJI: The high court of Bombay at Goa stayed the order of a North Goa court directing the anti-corruption branch (ACB) of the directorate of vigilance to register a first information report (FIR) in connection with allegations of fraud related to land allotment at EDC, Patto. Initially, the trial court had directed the CBI to register the FIR but later assigned the task to the ACB.
S Karpe, additional public prosecutor said that the order passed by the sessions court judge at Panaji in the criminal case did not take into consideration the consent as contemplated under Section 17(A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as amended in 2018.
According to the counsel, there was no reason given by the trial court for arriving at the conclusion that the FIR needs to be registered within 24 hours in accordance with the complaint.
Subsequently, an application was filed for an extension of time, which was granted by the sessions court on June 19, extending the same by 48 hours.
“Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on July 11, 2025. Notice be issued by all the available modes of service. In the meantime, the effect and operation of the order dated June 9, 2025, shall be stayed till the next date,” Justice Nivedita Mehta observed.
Activists had moved the court alleging that govt property was allotted to EDC to house certain offices, but they allegedly leased and sold land without obtaining permission from the govt, causing a loss of Rs 300 crore to the state exchequer. Even if permission was obtained, they ought to have deposited 50% of the amount with the govt or the EDC, which has not been done, the activists had alleged.
“In the present case, the FIR ought to have been registered. There is nothing exceptional in the present case that warrants a delay in the registration of an FIR on the ground of a preliminary inquiry. Even if there were exceptional circumstances in the case, any preliminary inquiry could not have, under any circumstances, exceeded two days,” the sessions court Judge Irshad Agha had stated.
“In the present case, the FIR ought to have been registered and a preliminary inquiry ought to have been carried out by the investigating agency. However, there is enough material to directly register the FIR,” the judge had said.
