PANJIM: Nearly 100 cases relating to violations of Covid lockdown rules by individuals have been dismissed by the JMFC courts across the State in January alone and the number is increasing.
While police were eager to book individuals who had violated lockdown rules, especially in the earlier months of pandemic, surprisingly all the charge-sheets contained two significant errors.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
The first is the absence of a written complaint from the public servant (district magistrate) whose curfew order was violated and secondly, the lack of evidence to show that the accused had indulged in behaviour that led to the spread of the virus.
Take the case against A Vales from St Cruz who, in April last year was apparently roaming near Taleigao market without a mask or valid reason and was charged with “acting in a negligent manner which is likely to spread infectious disease”.
The prosecution argued that the JMFC court could take cognizance of the charge-sheet as the police had powers to investigate under Section 188 of the IPC.
The case is all okay up till here. However, there is another law, Section 195 (1) of the CrPC which states that no court shall take cognizance of offences under Section 188 unless a complaint is lodged in writing by, in this case, the district magistrate.
Since written complaints were not lodged against the accused in practically all the cases, prosecution under Section 188 flew out of the court window.
Now as far as Section 269 of the IPC goes there must be evidence to show that the accused committed an act which he knows is likely to spread infection. Since there was no evidence on record, proceedings under Section 269 were also dismissed.
The case against A Vales is not unique. All charge-sheets against accused for violating lockdown orders follow the same pattern and hence all were dismissed by JMFC courts in the State.
