HYDERABAD: Poachgate accused Ramachandra Bharati, Kore Nandu Kumar and D.P.S.K.P.N. Simhayaji told the Telangana High Court on Friday that the appeals filed by the government, the SIT and BRS MLA P. Rohith Reddy against the transfer of the case to the CBI were not maintainable.
The reason, they said, was that the High Court had dismissed the SIT's criminal revision petition against an ACB court order, which was a criminal jurisdiction side.
Senior counsels L. Ravichander and D.V. Seetharama Murthy, representing the trio, argued that the single judge bench headed by Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy had examined all aspects before entrusting the probe to the CBI. They said the single judge had been very cautious in pointing out the lacunae in the SIT probe, though much could have been said.
Ravichander told the court that the ACB court had dismissed the SIT memo arraying BJP leader B.L. Santosh and three others as accused. When the SIT preferred a criminal revision case against that order, a single judge bench of Justice D. Nagarjun had dismissed it. This clearly established that the case was on the criminal jurisdiction side.
Ravichander pointed out that the state had filed a criminal revision case against the ACB court order but had come before the division bench with a writ appeal. When the High Court had dismissed the SIT’s criminal revision case, the state's writ appeals were not maintainable.
Questioning Rohith Reddy's appeal, Ravichander asked how the rights of the de facto complainant were violated. He said Rohith Reddy taking an anti-poaching stance was like the devil quoting the scriptures. Ravichander extended the theory to the political party, which he said had 38 MLAs in its ranks who were elected on different political party symbols.
On the issue of law, Ravichander said the division bench cannot, and should not, interfere with the order of the single judge merely because it might entertain an alternate view. As long as the findings of the single judge do not hurt the conscience of the court, it should not entertain the writ appeal.
Reading out from the findings of the single judge, Ravichander tried to show that there was nothing unconscionable that warranted interference.
He said the justice system must bend to procedural safeguards in favour of the accused, and not the complainant. He said the complainant must not be able to choose the investigating agency.
Ravichander said the point raised in the writ petition before the single judge regarding handing over of evidence to the Chief Minister by the ACP Rajendranagar had not been denied by anyone. The additional advocate-general had at one time said that he was appearing for the Chief Minister.
He pointed out that counsel A. Prabhakar Rao had appeared before the single judge on behalf of Rohith Reddy but had told the division bench that he had not been heard.
Ravichander faulted the constituting of the SIT and the wording used in the GO. He submitted that there were no parameters to select the SIT members and questioned the expertise of Rema Rajeshwari, Jagadishwara Reddy and Gangadhar on the panel. "Raiding with 30 policemen the houses of the accused and other persons, issuing of lookout circulars on them …. their expertise might be in those fields," Ravichander said sarcastically.
Seetharama Murthy, senior counsel, said the FIR was lodged at 11.30 am on October 26 and dispatched to the court after one hour, but the constable had handed it over only early the next day. This could lead to the suspicion that there might be tampering with facts.
He said there were were no panch witnesses on the documents on October 26, but the same had signatures before the magistrate.
Registering other cases on alleged fake passports and Aadhaar cards and cheating against the accused after the poachgate issue came to court showed that the SIT probe was tainted.
Advocate General B.S. Prasad sought adjournment till Tuesday so that Supreme Court senior counsel Dushyant Dave could rebut the contentions raised by the two senior counsels. The Chief Justice bench adjourned the hearing to Monday for Dave to submit his arguments through a virtual hearing.
