Bombay High Court
Ameet Savant vs The State Of Goa Through Public ... on 30 September, 2025
2025:BHC-GOA:1990
2025:BHC-GOA:1990
901 WPCR 69-2025
Jose
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.69 OF 2025
Mr. Ameet Savant
47 years, Indian National,
R/o H.No. 1066, Alto Torda,
Near SBI Bank, Alto Porvorim,
Bardez, Goa. ... Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Goa
Through Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Bombay at Goa
Porvorim Goa.
2. The Economic Offences Cell, Panaji
Through its Police Inspector
Panaji Goa.
3. Shyamalee Roy
R/o Flat no. B-6, Landscape city
Chogum road, Porvorim Goa
4. Shelly Madden
R/o H.no. 67/54 G-2/E block 2
Paithana Salvador Do Mundo
Parra Goa 403510
5. Anita Elizabeth Matthew
R/o H.no 986 Aldo Torda
P.O. Alto Porvorim- Goa ... Respondents.
Mr. Gaurish Agni with Mr. Yash Naik, Mr. Madhav
Cuncoliencar, Mr. Kishan Kavlekar, Ms. Ruchika Mishra and
Page 1 of 20
30th September, 2025
::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2025 23:26:07 :::
901 WPCR 69-2025
Ms. Leandra Lorreia, Advocates for the Petitioner.
Mr. S.G. Bhobe, Public Prosecutor for the State.
Mr. Neelesh Takkekar with Ms. Tanvi Naik, Advocates for
Respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5.
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.68 OF 2025
Mr. Ameet Savant
47 years, Indian National,
R/o H.No. 1066, Alto Torda,
Near SBI Bank, Alto Porvorim,
Bardez, Goa. ... Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Goa
Through Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Bombay at Goa
Porvorim Goa.
2. The Economic Offences Cell, Panaji
Through its Police Inspector
Panaji Goa.
3. Mrs. Zena De'Souza
R/o H.no. 1345 Lane 10
Behind central bank,
Housing board Colony
Alto Porvorim Goa
4. Mr. Aldrin De'Souza
R/o H.no. 1345 Lane 10
Behind central bank,
Housing board Colony
Alto Porvorim Goa
Page 2 of 20
30th September, 2025
::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2025 23:26:07 :::
901 WPCR 69-2025
5. Ms. Altertina A. Mendes
R/o H.no. 110/1 Mendes Waddo
Nagoa Bardez Goa ... Respondents.
Mr. Gaurish Agni with Mr. Yash Naik, Mr. Madhav
Cuncoliencar, Mr. Kishan Kavlekar, Ms. Ruchika Mishra and
Ms. Leandra Lorreia, Advocates for the Petitioner.
Mr. Somnath Karpe, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.
Mr. Neelesh Takkekar with Ms. Tanvi Naik, Advocates for
Respondent Nos.3 and 4.
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.70 OF 2025
Mr. Ameet Savant
47 years, Indian National,
R/o H.No. 1066, Alto Torda,
Near SBI Bank, Alto Porvorim,
Bardez, Goa. ... Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Goa
Through Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Bombay at Goa
Porvorim Goa.
2. The Economic Offences Cell, Panaji
Through its Police Inspector
Panaji Goa.
3. Carl pinto De Andrade
R/o H.no. G203, 204
Devashri Pinto ville
Behind SBI Varsha colony
Alto Porvorim- Goa 403501
Page 3 of 20
30th September, 2025
::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2025 23:26:07 :::
901 WPCR 69-2025
4. Cynthia Pinto De Andrade
R/o H.no. G203, 204
Devashri Pinto ville
Behind SBI Varsha colony
Alto Porvorim- Goa 403501
5. Shreya Pinto De Andrade
R/o H.no. G203, 204
Devashri Pinto ville
Behind SBI Varsha colony
Alto Porvorim- Goa 403501 ... Respondents.
Mr. Gaurish Agni with Mr. Yash Naik, Mr. Madhav
Cuncoliencar, Mr. Kishan Kavlekar, Ms. Ruchika Mishra and
Ms. Leandra Lorreia, Advocates for the Petitioner.
Mr. Somnath Karpe, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.
Mr. Kiran Pai, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 and 5.
CORAM: VALMIKI MENEZES, J.
DATED: 30th September, 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1. Registry to waive office objections and register the matter.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the
parties, all three petitions are disposed of finally.
3. This is a common order disposing of three Criminal Writ
Petitions Nos. 69/2025, 68/2025 and 70/2025, all against similar
impugned orders dated 08.08.2025 passed by the Sessions Judge,
30th September, 2025
901 WPCR 69-2025
North Goa at Panaji.
4. WPCR No. 69/2025 pertains to Special Criminal Case
No.2/2025, WPCR No. 68/2025 to Special Criminal Case No.
5/2025 and WPCR No. 70/2025 to Special Criminal Case No.
6/2025. The impugned orders reject an application dated 16.07.2025
filed in all three cases, seek an order from the Sessions Court dealing
with the aforementioned three cases, and with certain other cases
which are connected with similar transactions where the Accused in
all these cases is the Petitioner; the application seeks a
direction/order to hold and declare that these three proceedings are
not maintainable in view of the bifurcation of the charge-sheet arising
out of the same transaction. These applications were rejected by the
Sessions Court holding that bifurcated charge-sheets arise from one
original FIR, and one original charge-sheet filed (Crime No.9/2019
dated 21.08.2019).
5. The entire transaction in this petition relates back to an FIR
dated 21.08.2019 registered at the behest of a complaint made by six
depositors, which was registered as Crime No.9/2019 by the
Economic Offences Cell of the Goa Police. In this case, the main
Complainant is one Rohit Chopra. This FIR, on investigation,
culminated in the filing of a charge-sheet/final report before the
Sessions Court bearing Special Case No.13/2019 (Charge-sheet
No.1). Immediately thereafter, 35 more depositors alleged a similar
30th September, 2025
901 WPCR 69-2025
crime which was registered as Crime No.11/2019 on 12.12.2019
before the Economic Offences Cell which culminated in filing of a
Final Report which was registered by the Sessions Court as Special
Case No.6/2022 (Charge-sheet No.2). During the course of hearing
of these matters, on the oral directions of the Sessions Court, which
are recorded in the Roznama, the Investigating Officer bifurcated
Charge-sheet No.2 (Special Case No.6/2022) into three more
charge-sheets and the same came to be registered by the Sessions
Court as SPCC No.2/2025 (Charge-sheet No.3), SPCC No.5/2025
(Charge-sheet No.4) and SPCC No.6/2025 (Charge-sheet No.5). In
all, therefore, there are five charge-sheets pending before the Special
Court, which are actually offshoots of Charge-sheet No.1 under
Special Case No.13/2019. In all these cases, there are four Accused
(the Petitioners herein), of which Accused No.4 is a Company. In all
these charge-sheets, the Accused have been charged for committing
offences under Section 406, 409, 468, 420 r/w Section 34 IPC and
Sections 3 and 5 of the Goa Protection of Interests of Depositors (in
Financial Establishments) Act, 1999.
6. For easy reference, the details of various charge-sheets now
pending before the Sessions Court/Special Court, under the Goa
Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments)
Act, 1999, at Merces are tabulated below:
LIST OF CASES AND DETAILS
30th September, 2025
901 WPCR 69-2025
No.
of
Co
mp
Sr District OFFENCE ACCUSE lai
No Case no. FIR no. Date Court S D nts
1. Ameet
1-Principal Savant
District
Judge And IPC 406, 2. D P
Sessions 409, Singh 3.
Judge - 468,420 & Hemant
1 SPCC/13/2019 09/2019 21/08/2019 North Goa GPID 3,5 Majetia 6
1.Ameet
Savant
Jeevendra
Poddar
3. Shipra
Singh
1-Principal IPC 406,
District 409, 4. Crefin
Judge And 468,420 India
Sessions R/W 120 B Managem
Judge - & GPID ent Pvt
2 SPCC/6/2022 11/2019 12/12/2019 North Goa 3,5 Ltd 35
1.Ameet
Savant 2.
Jeevendra
Poddar 3.
Shipra
1-Principal IPC 406, Singh 4.
District 409, Crefin
Judge And 468,420 India
Sessions R/W 120 B Managem
Judge - & GPID ent Pvt
3 SPCC/2/2025 11/2019 12/12/2019 North Goa 3,5 Ltd 3
4 SPCC/5/2025 11/2019 12/12/2019
1-Principal IPC 406, 1.Ameet
30th September, 2025
901 WPCR 69-2025
District 409, Savant
Judge And 468,420
Sessions R/W 120 B 2.
Judge - & GPID Jeevendra
North Goa 3,5 Poddar
3. Shipra
Singh
4. Crefin
India
Managem
ent Pvt
Ltd
1.Ameet
Savant
Jeevendra
Poddar
3. Shipra
Singh
1-Principal IPC 406,
District 409, 4. Crefin
Judge And 468,420 India
Sessions R/W 120 B Managem
Judge - & GPID ent Pvt
5 SPCC/6/2025 11/2019 12/12/2019 North Goa 3,5 Ltd 3
1.Ameet
Savant
Jeevendra
Poddar
3. Shipra
Singh
1-Principal
District 4. Crefin
Judge And India
Sessions Managem
FIR no Judge - PMLA Act ent Pvt
6 PMLA/5/2023 09/2019 21/08/2019 North Goa 45,3,4 Ltd 41
30th September, 2025
901 WPCR 69-2025
& FIRno
11/2019 12/12/2010
7. The main contention raised by the Petitioner in these three
petitions is that, considering the provisions of Section 220 of the
Cr.P.C., there was no question of bifurcation of the charge-sheets
when the accusation in the original charge-sheet, i.e. Charge-sheet
No.1, was of offences under Section 406, 409, 468, 420 r/w Section
34 IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the Goa Protection of Interests of
Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999; that though
these arise from multiple transactions of different investors, they
relate to the same offences. It has been contended by learned
Advocate Mr. Agni for the Petitioners that in cases, especially where
multiple charge-sheets or FIRs are filed, where multiple investment
transactions are made under State legislations dealing with Goa
Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments)
Act, 1999, the Supreme Court has consistently opined that the first
charge-sheet is to be treated as the main charge-sheet, to be dealt by
the Special Court, and all subsequent charge-sheets or complaints
made are either to be treated as FIRs or supplementary charge-sheets,
as the case may be, which are to be tagged or clubbed along with the
first charge-sheet.
8. It was further submitted that based upon the case law rendered
by the Supreme Court, the Special Court was obliged to try all the
30th September, 2025
901 WPCR 69-2025
charge-sheets together through one trial, where witnesses across the
original charge-sheet and the supplementary charge-sheets are to be
examined in a single trial. Reference is made specifically to the
following case law:
a) Abhishek Singh Chauhan v. Union of India and Others,
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1936.
b) Radhey Shyam v. State of Haryana and Ors., 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 1935.
c) Ravinder Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab and Ors., 2025
SCC OnLine SC 1164.
d) Satinder Singh Bhasin v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.,
(2023) 14 SCC 805.
9. The learned Advocate appearing respectively for Respondent
for Respondent Nos. 3 and 5 and Mr. S.G. Bhobe appearing for
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 State, support this contention, since the case
law submitted is directly on the point and supports the Petitioners
submissions.
10. It would be relevant, for the decision of these petitions, to refer
to the afore-stated case law.
In Abhishek Singh Chauhan v. Union of India and Others,
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1936, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was
30th September, 2025
901 WPCR 69-2025
considering multiple cases against the same Accused across various
States, where they were charged of similar offences, and considered
the course to be followed on such facts, and has held as under:
"4. The cases in the concerned States, to be tried by the Special
Court can be conveniently clubbed, for being tried together as has
been directed in the case of Radhey Shyam v. State of Haryana
in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 75/2020 vide Order dated
12.05.2022
5. Following the exposition of this Court in mish Devgan v.
Union of India, we deem it appropriate in exercise of power under
rticle 142 of the Constitution of India, to direct clubbing of all
the FIRs State-wise, which can proceed together for one trial as
far as possible, as we are of the opinion that multiplicity of the
proceedings will not be in the larger public interest. We may
hasten to add that the concerned States have no abjection for
abiding with such dispensation.
6. In other words, the offence registered in the State of West
engal being RC/40/5/2014 dated 05.06.2015 registered with
C I/SC /SIT, Kolkata, will proceed before the concerned
Court in the State of West engal independently. Similarly, the
FIR registered at Pindwara, Sirohi, State of Rajasthan being
FIR No. 338/2018 dated 12.09.2018 shall proceed before the
concerned jurisdictional Court in that State itself being the only
case registered in connection with the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)
offences in that State and cannot be clubbed with the cases
pending in other States, as the same will have to proceed under
the special enactments of the concerned State.
10 In each of the States, where directions for clubbing of FIRs is
being passed, the subsequently registered FIRs shall be treated as
statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(Cr.P.C.) The Investigating officer in criminal case arising from
30th September, 2025
901 WPCR 69-2025
the first FIR in the concerned State, as referred to above, will be
free to file supplementary chargesheet after collation of all the
records concerning other FIRs in the respective States, which are
clubbed in terms of this order (In the event, the investigating
officer in other FIRs had already filed the police report under
Section 173 of the Cr. P.C. before the concerned Court and the
concerned Court had taken cognizance thereof, the said FIRS
and criminal cases would also stand transferred and
merged/clubbed alongwith the first criminal case registered in the
respective State, as referred to above, to be proceeded with in
accordance with law. The investigating officer in the stated case
which the subsequent FIRS would stand (principal case to
merged/clubbed), will be free to file supplementary chargesheet on
thebasis of material collated during investigation of other FIR's.
11. Needless to observe that the other offences not part of the
special enactments can also be tried by the special Court under
the concerned State legislation.
12. It is clarified that this direction is limited to general offences,
the offences under the IPC and the offences under the special
State legislations, and not offences concerning the Prevention of
Money Laundering ct (PML ), 2002, which have to proceed
under a separate legislation and of which the investigation is done
by a separate investigating agency
(13) In other words, all cases in the State of Maharashtra will
stand clubbed with FIR No. 552/2016 dated 15.04.2016,
registered with Police Station Ramnagar, Chandrapur, and to be
tried by Special Court at Chandrapur ( Maharashtra).
Similarly, all criminal cases arising from the FIRs filed at the
different point of time in the State of Madhya Pradesh will stand
clubbed with FIR No 915/2016 dated 09.11.2016, registered with
Police Station Kotwali, Sehore- to be tried by Special Court,
Sehore (Madhya Pradesh); and in the State of Chhattisgarh on
the same lines will stand clubbed with FIR No. 146/2017 dated
to be tried by 04.04.2017 registered with Police Station Surajpur-
30th September, 2025
901 WPCR 69-2025
to be tried by Special Court at Surajpur (Chhattisgarh)
14. If the accused has been granted bail in connection with the
prineſpal FIR or criminal case arising therefrom, in which the
other FIRs/criminal cases will stand clubbed/merged in terms of
this order, the bail so granted must enure in his favour until the
Court of competent jurisdiction cancels the same owing to
supervening circumstances including breach of bail conditions. In
case, no bail has been granted in the principal FIR (case), the
appellant may apply for the same before the jurisdictional court
competent to try the principal crime. That be decided on its own
merits."
In Ravinder Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab and Ors., 2025
SCC OnLine SC 1164, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered
a similar situation, where Accused across many States were charged,
both under provisions of the IPC and under State enactments for the
protection of the interest of depositors, and held as under:
"10. Heard learned Senior Counsel/Counsel for the parties. The
law in this issue is now fairly well settled. It has been held by this
Court that multiplicity of proceedings will not be in larger public
interest, Further, since many States have invoked local cts,
particularly the ct dealing with the Protection of Interest of
Depositors, transferring them out of the State also will not serve
the ends of justice. Hence, the correct course of action would be to
merge the FIR's with the earliest FIR in the State concerned. It
is clarified that if the first FIR in the respective 1 States of
Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh,
Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand is
registered in respect of offence under the general law and not the
special enactment, but if the S subsequent FIR's now clubbed are
registered in connection with the special law or registered also in
connection with the special law, the same after clubbing must be
30th September, 2025
901 WPCR 69-2025
tried under the special law by the Special Court(s) [See Radhey
Shyam v. State of Haryana, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1935 and
bhishek Singh Chauhan v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine
SC 1936].
19. The writ petition stands allowed in the above terms. We
further direct while the first FIR will be treated as the First
Information Report (hereinafter for convenience called the
'principal FIR'), the subsequent FIR's in each State shall be
treated as Statements under Section 161 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) The Investigating Officer in the
criminal case arising out of the principal FIR in the concerned
State will be free to file supplementary charge-sheets after the
collation of all records concerning other FIR's in the concerned
State which are clubbed in terms of this order. We further direct
that if Police Report under Section 173 of CrPC stands already
filed in the clubbed FIRs and the concerned Courts have taken
cognizance thereof, the said FIRs and criminal cases would also
stand transferred and merged/clubbed along with the principal
FIR to be proceeded with in accordance with law.
20. The investigating officer in the principal proceedings will be
free to file supplementary charge-sheet on the basis of the material
collated during investigation of other FIR's. We also make it
cleart that the other offences not part of the special enactments
can also be tried by the Special Court under the concerned State
legislation. We also further direct that in case the petitioner has
been granted bail in connection with the principal
proceeding /criminal case to which the other cases have been
clubbed, the bail so granted must enure to the petitioner's favour
in the other Fir's now clubbed as well. We further clarify that if
the principal FIR is limited to offence under the general
law/Penal Code but the subsequent FIRs contain allegations
attracting offences under granted is only for some offences under
the general law, the Special Court is entitled to insist for a fresh
bail application to be filed by the petitioner in relation to those
offences including under the Special ct The said bail
30th September, 2025
901 WPCR 69-2025
application(s) shall be decided on its own merits in accordance
with law."
In Satinder Singh Bhasin v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.,
(2023) 14 SCC 805, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered, in
such cases, what is the course to be followed in conducting a single
trial, and held as under:
"15. Further, it will be open to the investigating officer in the case
registered as PIR No. 206/2019, to file a supplementary charge-
sheet which will be composite charge-sheet to deal with all the
statements collated during the investigation in the other cases,
including the statement of complainant in the respective FIR as
being statement under Section 161 CrPC. The supplementary
charge-sheet to be filed on the basis of the entire record so collected
during the investigation in the respective cases will be then made
the basis to proceed for trial against the petitioner(s) and named
accused therein
16. Furthermore, the trial shall proceed as per law from the stage
of filing of the supplementary charge-sheet. In case the courts
have already taken cognizance on the basis of charge-sheet(s) filed
in respective cases, those cases in terms of this order shall stand
transferred and merged with the trial of the case arising from FIR
No. 206/2019.
26. ccordingly, following the principle enunciated by this Court
in mish a Devgan v. Union of India, as also in the peculiar facts
of the present case, we, in exercise of power under rticle 142 of
the Constitution of India, accede to the relief claimed in terms of
the Prayer clause (b) of consolidation of all FIRs, including
registered in New Delhi with FIR No. 353/2015 as the principal
FIR and for being proceeded with in accordance with law, as we
are of the opinion that multiplicity of the proceedings will not be
in the larger public interest as well
30th September, 2025
901 WPCR 69-2025
27. It is brought to our notice that investigation in respect of some
FIRS has been completed and even charge-sheet(s) have been filed
by the Special Investigation Team (SIT), constituted by the State
of Uttar Pradesh in respect of all these cases. In terms of this
order, the charge-sheet(s) filed in other cases shall stand merged
with the charge-sheet filed in criminal case arising out of FIR
No.353/2015.
28. Further, it will be open to the investigating officer in the case
registered as No. 353/2015, to fife a supplementary charge-sheet,
which will be a composite charge-sheet to deal with all the
statements collated during the investigation in the other cases,
including the statement of the complainant in the respective FIR
as being statement under Section 161 CrPC. The supplementary
charge-sheet to be filed on the basis of the entire record so collected
during the investigation in the respective cases will be then made
the basis to proceed for trial against the petitioner and named
accused therein.
29. Furthermore, the trial shall proceed as per law from the stage
of filing of the supplementary charge-sheet In case, the courts
have already taken cognizance on the basis of the charge-sheet(s)
filed in respective cases, those cases in terms of this order shall
stand transferred and merged with the trial of e the case arising
from FIR No. 353/2015."
11. The upshot of the discussion in the aforementioned Judgments
would be that the provisions of Section 220 and more specifically
Sub-Sections 1 and 2 thereof would specifically apply to cases covered
by Charge-sheet Nos.1 to 5 referred above; this is more so because in
all these charge-sheets, the offence alleged is exactly the same, against
a common set of Accused whose details are found in paragraph 6
above. For some unknown reason, the Sessions Court has chosen, at
30th September, 2025
901 WPCR 69-2025
one point of time, to bifurcate Charge-sheet No.2 into three more
charge-sheets ending up with five charge-sheets before it, and has
held in the impugned order, perhaps attempting to record five
separate trials, which is diametrically opposed to what is held in
bhishek Singh Chauhan (supra), Radhey Shyam (supra), Ravinder
Singh Sidhu (supra) and Satinder Singh hasin (supra) by the Supreme
Court.
12. Further, from the record, it now transpires that the Economic
Offences Cell has now filed a complaint under Section 3, 4 and 45 of
the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) against the
very same Accused, and this case is also pending and registered as
Special Case PMLA No.5/2023 before the very same Sessions Court.
Obviously, the trial in the PMLA case would be taken separately from
the trial in the five charge-sheets. The PMLA case is based on the
predicate offence, which is found in Charge-sheet Nos. 1 to 5 which
were filed prior in point of time.
13. Applying the principle laid down by the Supreme Court where
trials are to be conducted in cases where multiple charge-sheets are
filed on similar transactions, and considering the fact that out of the
five charge-sheets and the PMLA case filed, the Accused are all the
same, it would be appropriate, that in all such cases, the first charge-
sheet shall be treated as the principle charge-sheet and all subsequent
charge-sheets shall be treated as supplementary charge-sheets to the
30th September, 2025
901 WPCR 69-2025
first charge-sheet. All these charge-sheets would necessarily have to
be tried under one trial at which witnesses arraigned in each of the
supplementary charge-sheets and the witnesses in the main charge-
sheet are to be examined, in one single trial. In the present case,
Charge-sheet No.1 (Special Case No.13/2019) shall be treated as the
principle charge-sheet, whilst Charge-sheet Nos. 2 to 5, which are
Special Case No.6/2022, Special Case No.2/2025, Special Case
No.5/2025 and Special Case No.6/2025, shall be treated as
supplementary charge-sheets to Charge-sheet No.1 in Special Case
No.13/2019. The Sessions Court shall try all five charge-sheets under
one trial at which witnesses arraigned in all five charge-sheets shall be
examined in a single trial under Special Case No.13/2019.
Considering that there are five registered cases to be tried together,
the Director of Prosecution shall ensure that in all five cases, a single
Public Prosecutor shall be assigned, who shall control the trial and
submit a single trial program which is common to all five cases.
14. The PMLA case, being founded upon a predicate offence which
is found in the aforementioned five charge-sheets, the trial in this case
would be conducted as far as possible, immediately trailing the trial in
Special Case No.13/2019.
15. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that the Accused
would be arguing for discharge of the Accused. The hearing in this
matter is in progress. The Sessions Court is requested to complete
30th September, 2025
901 WPCR 69-2025
the arguments on whether charge is to be framed against the Accused,
hear and pass orders, preferably by 30.11.2025. A single order shall be
passed at this hearing and shall be considered to be an order in Special
Case No.13/2019, though the Advocates assisting the Prosecution
may be multiple, and though the Public Prosecutor may be heard in
answer to the arguments led by the Accused in respect of all five
cases.
16. It is made clear, that in the event the Sessions Court rejects the
application for discharge of the Accused, and decides to frame charge,
a single charge shall be framed, as being held in the aforementioned
Judgments, though the cases have been registered as multiple cases.
17. The Principal District Judges of North and South Goa Districts
are requested to circulate this Judgment to all Courts within their
District so as to enable the Judicial Officers to follow the principles
laid down by the Supreme Court in the Judgments referred above i.e.
bhishek Singh Chauhan (supra), Radhey Shyam (supra), Ravinder
Singh Sidhu (supra) and Satinder Singh hasin (supra).
18. Similarly, this Judgment may be circulated to the Director of
Prosecution for further circulation to all the Public Prosecutors and
Additional/Assistant Public Prosecutors, who shall assist the
respective Courts to which they are assigned in ensuring the
principles laid down in bhishek Singh Chauhan (supra), Radhey
Shyam (supra), Ravinder Singh Sidhu (supra) and Satinder Singh
30th September, 2025
901 WPCR 69-2025
hasin (supra) are followed.
19. In the light of the above discussion, the impugned orders dated
Correction Special Case Nos.2/2025,
carried out as 08.08.2025 passed by the Sessions Court in WPCR Nos. 69/2025,
per order dated 5/2025 and 6/2025
30.09.2025 68/2025 and 70/2025 are quashed and set aside. The Session Court
sd/-
shall now follow the directions specifically laid down in paragraph 10
Correction above and shall treat Special Case No.13/2019 (Charge-sheet No.1)
carried out as four
per order dated as the principal case/charge-sheet and the five other charge-sheets
30.09.2025
sd/- under Special Case No.6/2022, 2/2025, 5/2025 and 6/2025, as
supplementary charge-sheets, and shall hold a single trial in all these
cases, in the manner detailed in the preceding paragraphs.
20. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.
VALMIKI MENEZES, J.
30th September, 2025
