Panaji: past the stricture of the CBI for casual investigations, the Panaji Court has buried former police sub-inspectors, anti-narcotics cells Panaji, Sunil Yellapa Gudwar, for allegations of corruption in the case of the famous Israeli drug dudu.
“Carefully crossing, it shows that investigations are carried out in the most casual and without participating in the legal process.
There are so many weaknesses, differences relating to memo seizures, Panphanamas and Penrives attachments, CDS etc.,” the court was held.
Mohan went up, while working as a branch of DYSP crime, Dona Paula, received complaints from Kashinath Shetye and 12 others in writing who demanded that the defendant at this time, who worked as a police sub-inspector, was caught on camera selling drugs to national girls.
One of the girls was seen holding Charas on the camera’s footage, which was broadcast by the media on the local cable network news channel in Goa in January 2011.
The case was then transferred to the CBI.
The accusation was that Gudlar had demanded and received illegal satisfaction and valuables from Ayala Driham, David Drihan’s sister aka Dudu who was caught for allegedly bringing drugs.
The court found that the original record of a sting surgery remained on the Neil camera, who went to Israel, and after that there was no contact with the agent of the investigator.
“…
Therefore, such a procedure followed by an investigative officer is clearly unacceptable for the purpose of proving electronic recordings / documents.
There is no effort done to determine the existence of Neil along with the camera where the sting operation is expected to be recorded.” …
Also a Ayala laptop, where he allegedly transferred video recordings, also not installed.
Many differences and counting.
Therefore, it is difficult to believe the income submitted by an investigative officer in connection with the procedure adopted by it in conducting such an investigation, “said Justice B PN.
The court found that the pendrives and attached CDs were copies made by different people on the occasion which is different from modifying the previous documents, and states that unless the copy is attached to the certificate given based on the Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, they do not have proof value.
Audio submitted to the CBI cannot be seen as evidence because it is not the main evidence and no certificate produced by the investigation institution that proves it as secondary evidence that proves it as secondary evidence.
The court found that Driham’s statement was by the extent that it concerned a video clip, indicating that ” Modified, damaged and subtitles added in it to air on Israeli media.
Such clips cannot be considered as original electronic documents when the witness recognizes that this is a copy made from time to time.
There is absolutely no matter in the notes to show why there are subtitles and titles in the Israeli language that appears in the clip and who put it, the court found.