HYDERABAD: Justice Chillakuri Sumalatha of Telangana High Court on Monday extended time for cross-examining Karimnagar MP Bandi Sanjay Kumar in the election petition filed by him against civil supplies minister Gangula Kamalakar on the 2018 election from the Karimnagar Assembly segment.
Sanjay was supposed to appear in person before the advocate commission on July 21 and 31 to submit his witness and face cross- examination but was away in Delhi to attend the Parliament session. When Sanjay’s counsel sought extension of time for appearance, the judge directed the BJP leader to attend before the advocate commission between August 12 and 17.
Sanjay lost to Kamalakar in Karimnagar in the 2018 polls by about 14,000 votes. He challenged the election alleging that Kamalakar had spent more than the amount fixed by the election commision.
He requested the court to give a direction stating that the returning officer’s declaration was invalid, and to declare him (Sanjay) as the winner. Sanjay also requested the court to call for the video shoot that was captured by the Election Commission’s ‘shadow teams’.
On an earlier occasion, counsel for Kamalakar had urged the court to record Sanjay’s witness in open court in order to observe the demeanour of the witness. Justice Sumalata rejected it on the ground that the amendment brought to the Telangana Representation of the People Act enabled the court to appoint an advocate commission to record the cross-examination of the witness.
Justice Sumalatha had on July 10 appointed retired district judge K. Shailaja as the advocate commission. As Sanjay could not attend during the earlier fixed time, it was extended to July 31, which also he could not attend.
Meanwhile, with regard to another election petition filed by Ponnam Prabhakar, the High Court directed K. Jamuna Rani, senior inspector in the co-operative department of Karimnagar collectorate to appear before it. Jamuna Rani had maintained and supervised the election expenditure of Kamalakar during the Assembly elections.
She was supposed to attend on July 28. However, as the summons was not served upon her, the court adjourned the case to August 11 by summoning her.
