Herald News

Shetye raises objections to Home Dept’s SIT order

14 Nov 2017 06:09am IST

Report by
Team Herald

Leave a comment
14 Nov 2017 06:09am IST

Report by
Team Herald

PANJIM: Kashinath Shetye, petitioner in the matka case, has raised objections in the High Court of Bombay at Goa over the order issued by the Home Department constituting a SIT to probe the matka cases and demanded a clarification over the role of retired Justice A P Lawande in the SIT.

PANJIM: Kashinath Shetye, petitioner in the matka case, has raised objections in the High Court of Bombay at Goa over the order issued by the Home Department constituting a SIT to probe the matka cases and demanded a clarification over the role of retired Justice A P Lawande in the SIT. 

Shetye said that the entire investigation shall be monitored by retired Justice Lawande and the HC, but the Home Department order doesn’t reflect this. Shetye, in his objection, again said that if the State is not interested in probing the case as per the HC order, then the investigation may be handed over to a Central agency. 

The State has sought two weeks to clarify on Shetye’s objection and the order issued by Home Dept last month.  Shetye objected as the order mentioned ‘retired Justice Lawande appointed to monitor the investigation for the purpose of guiding and advising the SIT in the investigation process in accordance with law as and when required by the SIT’. 

The State constituted a SIT to probe matka gambling cases headed by SP Bossuet Silva following directions from the High Court. 

Shetye had approached the High Court contending that Crime Branch, after registering the FIR in matka case, was reluctant to investigate the root of matka, and had pressed for the case to be transferred to Central Bureau of Investigation.

He had filed a PIL alleging that police and politicians were conniving with matka agents operating in Goa. 

Following the court’s direction, Crime Branch had registered an FIR against police, politicians and others, the case that was monitored by the High Court.

Leave a comment


Comments
Leave a comment

Advertise     |     Contact Us     |     About Us     |     Terms of Use     |     Privacy Policy     |     Disclaimer     |     Designed by Team Inertia Technologies

       

Designed by Team Inertia Technologies