HC adjourns SIT\'s revision plea in Poachgate case

HYDERABAD: The Telangana High Court on Wednesday was puzzled by incidental remarks of the ACB court while rejecting the memo filed by SIT, proposing to name BJP leader B.L. Santosh, Tushar Velapally, Kottilil Narayanan Jaggu and Bhusarapu Srinivas, an advocate from Karimnagar as accused in the alleged poaching case of four TRS MLAs.

Justice D. Nagarjun opined that the ACB court has gone very extensively in
its orders and it looked like the trial court was deciding the case on
merits, while examining the memo filed by SIT. The ACB court orders dated
December 6, indicated quashing the case, the judge commented.

Justice Nagarjun was dealing with a criminal revision petition filed by SIT,
which moved a lunch motion criminal revision case, seeking suspension of the
orders of 1st additional special judge for trial of SPE & ACB cases, which
rejected the memo.

In its orders on Monday, the ACB court made several observations like
stating that law and order police or SIT was not a competent authority to
investigate into the case registered as the provisions of Prevention of
Corruption Act. The trial court faulted the registration of the case under
several sections of IPC and PC Act.

Challenging the rejection of the memo, SIT approached the High Court, which
was heard on Wednesday afternoon by Justice D. Nagarjun.

Senior counsel and BJP leader N. Ramchander Rao, appearing for Srinivas,
took objection that copies of the criminal revision case were not served on
him, though he had argued for Srinivas in the ACB court. It thereby deprived
his client an opportunity to look at the contents of the petition, which was
tantamount to violation of principles of natural justice.  Justice D.
Nagarjun agreed with the submission of the senior counsel and said that when
SIT filed a memo, the proposed accused should be duly informed.

Advocate general B.S. Prasad informed that the order of the ACB court does
not stand because there is apparent illegality and the order requires it to
be suspended or quashed immediately at the threshold itself.  He said that
when the entire issue has been seized by the High Court and the Supreme
Court, how the ACB court could reject SIT’s memo filed by the SIT. Even the
apex court had asked the High Court to only decide the issue of transferring
the case to CBI, the advocate general said.

Justice Nagarjun asked the advocate general why SIT had sought permission
from ACB to array the proposed accused, when the investigation agency can
name any persons as accused by filing memo or additional charge sheet after
getting evidence.

While intervening, public prosecutor C. Pratap Reddy informed that SIT went
by the procedure under section of 172 Cr.P.C. It is the prerogative of the
police to come to the conclusion as to who should be arrayed as accused.

The judge agreed with the contentions of the advocate general and the public
prosecutor but was not inclined to suspend the order of ACB court. Stating
that the decision will be given only after hearing contentions of both
sides, Justice Nagarjun adjourned the case to Thursday