KTR fails to get SC relief in Formula E case
Hyderabad: In a setback to BRS working president and former minister K.T. Rama Rao, the Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to interfere with a First Information Report (FIR) filed against him by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) on the charges of his misconduct in the case relating to the misappropriation of funds on the pretext of organising the Formula E races in Hyderabad.
The Supreme Court, at the beginning of the hearing itself, made it clear that it was not inclined to intervene in the dismissal orders issued by the Telangana High Court in the quash petition filed by Rama Rao. With no option left, the counsel for Rama Rao had chosen to withdraw the petition with a liberty to approach the apex court as and when required.
The Bench comprising Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Prasanna B. Varale shot down the request to grant liberty and only allowed to withdraw the petition.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi appeared before the apex court on behalf of the state government, while senior advocate Aryama Sundaram and Siddartha Dave represented Rama Rao.
Rama Rao’s counsel argued that the case was registered due to political vendetta and his client did not benefit even a single penny, in the money transactions done in favour of Formula E race company.
He argued that Section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be invoked as there is no whisper in the complaint that Rama Rao had gained from the agreement. If there were lapses, irregularities, violations and not obtaining permissions, those can be charged with other sections, but it cannot be said as the breach of public trust or misappropriation of funds, the counsel argued.
He further argued that ACB had registered the FIR within 24 hours of the complaint received, whereas the Supreme Court had made it clear that proper inquiry was required, if the complaint received after three months of alleged crime had happened. The Formula E Race company, which got money with the agreement, had not been made as the accused, the counsel argued.
The Bench, putting a stop to the arguments of Rama Rao`s counsel on invoking Section 13(1)(a) of PC Act, observed that it is not grounds for quashing the FIR.
Mukul Rohatgi, representing the state government, argued that Rama Rao had filed a quash petition within 24 hours of registration of the FIR and it was nothing but to stop the proceedings. He requested that Rama Rao does not deserve to get any interim relief or liberty in the case.
As the court was not inclined, within the minutes of commencement of hearing, the counsel requested to withdraw the petition and it was allowed to be dismissed as withdrawn.
