Bombay High Court
NEIL MONTEIROversusSTATE OF GOA THR THE OFFICER IN CHARGE AND ANR
- Disposal
- Disposed of
Holding
The trial court may allow the investigating officer to testify again, subject to a strict deadline, and may close his evidence if he fails to appear.
Summary
Neil Monteiro filed a criminal revision challenging an order that allowed the prosecution to re‑examine the Investigating Officer despite his earlier non‑appearance. The Judicial Magistrate First Class had closed the officer’s evidence because he failed to appear when his testimony was listed. The State argued that the officer’s appointment as an Integrity Officer after retirement justified his absence. The High Court noted the trial had been pending since 2011, the officer’s repeated absences were unexplained, and the magistrate’s closure was proper, but since all other witnesses had been examined, the court permitted a limited opportunity for the officer to testify, setting a strict deadline and ordering closure of his evidence if he failed to appear. Both parties were directed to cooperate for speedy disposal, and the petition was disposed with these terms.
Issues considered
- Whether the trial court can reopen the evidence of a prosecution witness after it was closed by the magistrate.
- Whether the investigating officer’s appointment as an Integrity Officer justifies his failure to appear in court.
- Whether the trial must be expedited under procedural law given the prolonged delay.
Subjects
- criminal revision
- evidence closure
- investigating officer
- trial delay
- procedural fairness
- expeditious disposal
Judgment
2026:BHC-GOA:2009
4 CRIR.143 OF 2026
Siddhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 143 OF 2026
NEIL MONTEIRO ... APPLICANT
VERSUS
STATE OF GOA THR. THE
OFFICER IN CHARGE
AND ANR. ..RESPONDENTS
Ms. Pallavi Betkekar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Somnath Karpe, Additional Public Prosecutor with Mr.
Anand Shirodkar, Advocate for the State.
CORAM:-AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR , J.
DATED :- 07th October, 2026
P.C.
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner.
2. By the present Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the
order dated 26.07.2026 passed by the learned Ad hoc Sessions
Judge-2, (FTC), Merces, North Goa, in the appeal filed by the
State against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate First
Page 1 of 5
October 05, 2026.
4 CRIR.143 OF 2026
Class at ‘B’ Court Bicholim in Criminal Case No.
IPC/89/2011/B.
3. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class was pleased to
close the evidence of the prosecution witness i.e. the
Investigating Officer. The order was passed because the
Investigating Officer did not appear when the matter was
listed for recording his evidence.
4. The State challenged this order on various grounds, including
that after the retirement of the Investigating Officer, the State
Government had appointed him as an Integrity Officer, and
he was investigating the football match-fixing undertaken by
the Goa Football Association. On the date when the matter
was listed on the cause list, he was deputed for the said
investigation as an Integrity Officer.
5. Considering the prosecution’s statements and the
Investigating Officer's affidavit, the learned Ad hoc Sessions
Judge was pleased to allow the prosecution to examine the
Investigating Officer in the trial.
Page 2 of 5
October 05, 2026.
4 CRIR.143 OF 2026
6. However, the record indicates that even after the liberty was
granted, the Investigating Officer did not appear before the
trial court on two occasions.
7. I have heard the rival submissions.
8. The trial has been going on since 2011. There is no
justification at all for not completing the trial, which has been
prolonged for so many years. I do not see any reason why the
Investigating Officer did not remain present during the trial.
Although he explained that he was appointed as an Integrity
Officer after retirement, that explanation pertains to only one
or two days. The Investigating Officer has been absent from
the proceedings on several occasions.
9. The Judicial Magistrate First Class was absolutely right to
close the Investigating Officer's evidence.
10. However, considering the fact that all the other witnesses
have already been examined and it is the Investigating Officer
who is in the witness box and has been partially examined by
Page 3 of 5
October 05, 2026.
4 CRIR.143 OF 2026
the prosecution, I am inclined to allow the present Petition
on the following terms:
(i) The Investigating Officer shall appear before
the trial court on 12.10.2026. The trial court
shall examine the Investigating Officer and
allow his cross-examination. The recording of
the Investigating Officer's evidence shall be
completed on or before 23.10.2026. If the
Investigating Officer fails to appear on
12.10.2026 or any date given by the trial court
thereafter before 23.10.2026, the trial court
shall close the evidence of the Investigating
Officer.
11. Both the parties shall cooperate for the expeditious disposal
of the pending case.
12. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
13. This order will be digitally signed by the Private
Secretary/Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will
Page 4 of 5
October 05, 2026.
4 CRIR.143 OF 2026
act on the production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy
of this order.
AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J.
Signed by: SHAKUNTALA ZALMI Page 5 of 5
Designation: Personal Assistant October 05, 2026.
Date: 09/10/2026 10:35:50
Checking your session…