Vijayawada: The Andhra Pradesh High Court quashed the first information report (FIR) registered against former advocate general (AG) Dammalapati Srinivas and others by the anti-corruption bureau (ACB) on charges of resorting to insider trading in land transactions in the Amaravati region.
A single judge bench headed by Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy pronounced the verdict on Thursday to quash the FIR registered for offences punishable under various sections of Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC in ACB police station in Guntur.
The court observed that the then additional advocate general Srinivas had no authority to discharge any constitutional or statutory duties and functions and had no role to play in decision making in locating the area where the capital to be established and to bring in APCRDA Act, 2014 into force. He was not privy to any information relating to the exact location of the capital city and had no role to play in identification of location to set up the capital city. The question of the accused no. 1 Srinivas disclosing the said information to the other accused and that all the accused had purchased lands based on such information, did not arise and there was no truth in such allegation, the court observed.
It said, “The information relating to location of capital is not confidential information and it is very much in public domain from June, 2014 itself. Right to acquire property is a constitutional right and legal right of the petitioners as citizens of the country. As they purchased lands and acquired property from the owners/sellers of the lands, who willingly and voluntarily sold them to the petitioners for valid sale consideration under registered sale deeds, the said private sale transactions cannot be criminalised and no criminal liability can be attributed to the petitioners.”
“The concept of offence of insider trading which is essentially an offence in the stock market relating to selling and buying of securities and bonds cannot be applied to the offences under IPC. It is totally alien to IPC and is unknown to our criminal jurisprudence under IPC. There is no dishonest concealment of fact in respect of the sale transaction in question. So, it does not amount to any deception constituting an offence under section 420 of IPC. The sellers did not sustain any loss on account of said sale transactions. So, no element of criminal liability is involved in sale transactions and no offence of conspiracy to do any illegal act or to commit an offence is made out from the facts of the case. Therefore, the prosecution of the petitioners is unjustified. It amounts to sheer abuse of process of court warranting its interference in exercise of its inherent powers under section 482 CrPC to quash the same.”
The court said as the accused no. 1 claimed compensation for intimidating him and harassing him, the court deemed it appropriate and to leave it open to the A-1 by granting liberty to him to claim compensation or damages against the complainant K. Srinivasa Swamy from Ongole for launching criminal proceedings against him.
