Poachgate: Endeavour of BJP is to drag the case, says Senior Counsel
The petitioners were filing multiple applications in different names before the High Court only to evade the investigation process, he said.
Hyderabad: Justice B Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court on Tuesday inconclusively heard the batch of cases pertaining to MLA poach gate investigation. The Court is also yet to examine whether notice can be issued to the Chief Minister K. ChandraShekhar Rao, who is been made a party to the case filed by Tushar Vellampally. The Additional Advocate General J Ramachandra Rao requested the Court to decide the matter after taking on record their preliminary objections. Today advancing argument on behalf of the state senior counsel, Dushant Dave summed up arguments stating that the endeavour of BJP was to drag the case and hamper investigation.
The petitioners were filing multiple applications in different names before the High Court only to evade the investigation process, he said. He argued, that the accused had no choice of choosing the investigation agency by referring to various judgment of supreme court including Arnab Goswami. He said there was no mala fide intention in the investigation process and moreover the investigation cannot be scuttled at the initial stage, he added. Only in the rarest of the rare cases the Court could interfere with the investigation and it is only to the extent of calling for the records, Dave argued.
Pointing out at the low conviction rate in India, Dave said if investigations are questioned like this there would be no proper adjudication of justice. He said this case involved serious offences including encourating defection of MLAs in an attempt to dethrone state government and that the ramifications were considerable on the democratic functioning as purchasing of MLAs would affect lakhs of people who have elected them.
Arguing of behalf of Srinivas, one of the accused persons, senior counsel Uday Holla said that the investigation was unfair as the witnesses, the investigation agency and the prosecutors were one and the same i.e., the police officers who were acting in favour of the state government. He said, “we are not challenging the FIR, we are only saying investigation should be transferred to CBI. The basis for implicating Srinivas was his photograph with union minister and for offering legal help to one of the accused”, Holla argued. The police pasted a notice at the residence of Srinivas and leaked it to media damaging his reputation. Srinivas was pressurised to name the BJP President in this case, therefore the investigation agency had flouted the law, he said.
In the meanwhile when the Judge reminded the counsels about the supreme court direction to conclude the hearing within a month, Dave said it was not required for the Court to hear all the batch of cases at once as the supreme court order was specific to the case filed by the three main accused Nand Kumar, Simhyaji, and Ramachandra Bharati. The Judge granted permission to senior counsel Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani appearing on behalf of the three main accused to argue virtually through video conference. The Judge will continue hearing the matter on Wednesday.
PIL on Dharnani portel taken on file
The two judge panel of the Telangana High Court comprising Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy on Tuesday took on file a suo moto Public Interest Litigation case pertaining to discrepancies in the Dharani Portal. Based on a Letter submitted by advocate Rapolu Bhaskar the court has taken up the suo moto case. The grievance was that government has illegally uploaded about 8 Lakhs acres of patta land in Dharani Portal as prohibited lands. The farmers and common people are suffering in the hands of revenue officers unable to get their title rectified as the officials are demanding lakhs of rupees for rectification. Having acquired patta land from their ancestors and valid sale transactions the citizens across the state are awaiting Dharani entries and issuance of ePassbook for their respective lands according to the letter. The Panel sought the response of the state government on the same and adjourned the case for further hearing.
