PSI Gudlar acquitted for want of evidence in graft case

The court acquitted the PSI giving benefit of doubt

Team Herald

PANJIM: In a major setback to the Central Bureau of Investigation, that probed corruption charges against a Police Sub Inspector of Goa Police in a high profile drugs nexus case, the Special Court has acquitted PSI Sunil Gudlar for want of evidence. 

- Advertisement -

Add as preferred source on Google

If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.

The Anti Corruption Branch (ACB) of the CBI had filed a charge sheet before the court under the Prevention of Corruption Act on the allegation that the accused while functioning as Sub Inspector of Police, Anti Narcotic Cell, from September 18, 2009 to January 5, 2011 demanded and accepted illegal gratification and valuables from Ayala Driham, sister of one of the accused David Driham alias Dudu who was caught by the police official for allegedly possessing drugs. 

During the case trial, Advocate Galileo Teles, appearing for the PSI alleged that the investigating agency (CBI) acted in unfair manner and with an intention to project that Dudu and his associates were innocent, though they were found with drugs while PSI Gudlar was the main culprit. 

The prosecution examined 25 witnesses to prove the charges levelled against the police official. The PSI, during the trial denied the contentions regarding demand and acceptance of bribe and valuables claiming that being a police officer of ANC he conducted the raid and arrested Dudu with the contraband. 

On instructions of his superiors, Gudlar said he was keeping a watch on the accused and his associates. 

- Advertisement -

The court acquitted the PSI giving a benefit of doubt. 

“Therefore, when the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the demand of any illegal gratification or valuables by the accused from PW2 Ayala, the charge leveled against the accused in connection with Section 7 and 11 falls flat. As far as Section 13 1(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act is concerned, no material is placed on record to show that accused conducted any misconduct by using his official position or abusing his position as a public servant,” reads the order.

Share This Article