No breather for state MPs

 

Hyderabad: The AP High Court on Tuesday indicated that it intended to modify the memo issued by the state government to constitute an advisory committee to review cases of corruption against public representatives.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta and Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar was dealing with two PILs by O.M. Debara, a resident of the city, and P.V. Krishnaiah, an advocate of the High Court, against the liquor syndicate scam.

Referring to the memo of the government, the bench said that prima facie, the court was of the opinion that review of corruption cases against MLAs, MPs and other elected representatives by an advisory committee might not be proper under law.

The bench said that when there was no immunity for the elected representatives under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the question of reviewing such cases by a committee, after the preliminary inquiry by the Anti Corruption Bureau, did not arise. The bench said that Section 154 of the CrPC mandated that registration of FIR was mandatory if the information given to the police under the Section disclosed the commission of a cognisable offence.

Counsel for the government, K. Srikanth, said that allowing registration of cases against the elected representatives would lead to abuse of power under the Section and anyone could throw allegations against public representatives either for political rivalry or some other reason.

Citing a recent judgment of the Constitution bench of the apex court in the Lalita Kumari versus Govt. of U.P. and others case, the counsel said that the Supreme Court had held that in certain exceptional case like matrimonial disputes or family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases and cases where there was abnormal delay in initiating criminal prosecution, a preliminary investigation had to be conducted within seven days to ascertain whether the information revealed any cognisable offence.

Gandra Mohan Rao, counsel for one of the petitioners, brought to the notice of the court that the ACB had been practising an “illegal” method by seeking explanations from the persons against whom the charges of corruption were leveled. The bench will examine this point on Wednesday.