Hyderabad: The TS ACB on Monday told the High Court that the Criminal Procedure Code does not permit a third party to intervene in a criminal case pending for investigation.
Mr V. Ravikiran Rao, ACB special public prosecutor, told Justice T. Sunil Chowdary, that AP YSRC legislator Alla Ramakrishna Reddy had no ground to move the complaint before the ACB court.
The judge was hearing a criminal petition filed by Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu, challenging an order passed by the ACB court ordering a probe into the role of other alleged accused in the cash-for-vote scam. The ACB court had passed its order on Mr Ramakrishna Reddy’s petition.
Stating that it was a high profile case which must be investigated meticulously with the help of scientific and forensic aid, he told the court that it would take time to complete the investigation. The prosecutor said that if anyone had information or evidence with regard to a pending investigation he had to approach the investigation agency and not the court.
Even if a person approached the trial court, it was the duty of the court to check whether such a person had bonafide relations with the case or not. He said as soon as the trial court issued order under Section 156 (3) of the CrPC to probe the role of the other accused in the case, the ACB immediately filed a memo stating that it had not intended to issue a second FIR in this case as the apex court bars the issuance of second FIR in the same offence.
He brought to the notice of the court that the complainant had failed to show the public interest involved in his complaint. He submitted that the Supreme Court said that courts should be cautious in granting orders in PILs and courts have to consider the locus standi of the petitioner and his antecedents and also the public interest involved.
HC seeks stand on prez order
The High Court asked the TS Public Service Commission to file an affidavit justifying its stand on continuation of Article 317D and the zonal system, and also about notifying the Group II vacancies under the zonal system.
A division bench comprising acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan and Justice A. Shankar Narayana was dealing with a petition by Mr D. Anil Reddy and another, challenging the notification issued on December 30, 2015 and a supplementary notification on September 1, 2016 for recruitment of Group II posts.
Mr J. Sudheer, counsel for the petitioner, said that after bifurcation, the TS government had neither adapted Article 371D nor had the President issued any notification in this regard.
Stating that only two zones remained in Telangana state, he said that without the notification of the President, making recruitments, treating 31 districts of the state as two zones, was illegal.
Advocate general K. Ramakrishna submitted that the government had formatted the 31 districts for administrative convenience and the recruitment could be made as per the old rules. While adjourning the case for two weeks, the Bench asked the AG to justify the stand of the commission in notifying the vacancies under the zonal system.
Hyderabad HC issues notice to YSRC MLAs
The Hyderabad HC on Monday issued notices to 20 MLAs of YSRC who joined TD. The notice came in four petitions moved by YSRC MLAs seeking to declare the action of the AP Speaker not to consider the complaints for disqualification as illegal. Y. Visweswar Reddy, B Rajendranath Reddy, D Tippa Reddy and Chevireddy Bhaskar Reddy moved the petitions.
