The bench heard criminal appeals filed by Mohammed Abdul Ahad, alias Shaik Iliyas Ahmed, and Abdul Saleem.
A Telangana High Court bench, comprising Justice K. Lakshman and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao, dismissed three criminal appeals filed by accused persons in the Nizamabad Popular Front of India (PFI) case, challenging the orders of the Special NIA Court rejecting their bail pleas under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The bench heard criminal appeals filed by Mohammed Abdul Ahad, alias Shaik Iliyas Ahmed, and Abdul Saleem. The appellants challenged the impugned orders, which rejected their bail applications. According to the NIA’s case, accused No.2 (alleged Telangana general secretary of the PFI) recruited youth and instigated them against leaders of the BJP/RSS and other Hindu organisations, sending them to terror camps for weapons training. Accused No. 3 was alleged to be a physical efficiency instructor in PFI camps, training recruits in lethal weapons. Accused No.4 was said to have recruited youths from Jagtial, sent them to training camps, and abetted assassination attempts on Hindu organisation leaders. The appellants contended that earlier the court granted bail to several co-accused on parity, that the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the NIA’s SLPs rendered those orders final, and that the investigation was complete, so continued custody violated their liberty. The NIA countered that the appellants were declared “absconding,” rewards of `2 lakh each were announced for their arrest, and that their roles and conduct were distinguishably more serious than those co-accused who got bail, making them unfit for parity. The bench applied the twin conditions under Section 43-D(5) of UAPA i.e., which provide for a hearing public prosecutor on release, and prima facie belief in the accusations. The bench held the offences grave, there were reasonable grounds to believe the accusations, and the appellants failed to make out parity with other accused. The bench observed that accused No. 4 remained absconding till March 2024, and that Nos. 2 and 3 made surrender only in January 2025. Finding no merit in the appeals, the bench dismissed them and upheld the NIA court’s orders rejecting bail. However, the bench observed that the order will not preclude the appellants from approaching the Designated Court to renew their request for bail, showing a change of circumstances.
HC takes up plea on ward delimitation
A two judge panel of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea challenging Section 6 of the Telangana Municipalities Act, which deals with the divisionof municipalities into wards for the election of members to the municipal council. A panel comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Moinuddin was hearing a writ plea filed by Syed Saleem and another challenging the action of the Hyderabad district collector and other authorities in implementing the delimitation of municipal wards. The petitioners questioned the validity of Section 6 and Section 8(b) of the Delimitation Act, 2002, relating to the readjustment of seats on the basis of census figures. They contended that the GHMC failed to comply with the mandate of the government order of November 1996, governing delimitation procedures for municipal wards. After hearing the submissions, the panel directed the state to file its counter and posted the matter to October 28.
PepsiCo India officials discharged in adulteration case
Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of the Telangana High Court quashed criminal proceedings against two officials of PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt Ltd, who faced allegations of selling unsafe packaged drinking water. The judge observed a significant delay in launching the prosecution that violated statutory time limits under the law. The judge was dealing with a criminal petition filed by Vilendra Choudhari, assurance manager and nominee of PepsiCo India Holdings. In 2017, an inspection was conducted by food safety authorities, during which over 4,000 bottles of Aquafina packaged drinking water were seized on suspicion of being unsafe for consumption. Following the inspection, the authorities were required to initiate criminal proceedings under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act). The petitioner officials contended that the prosecution was barred due to an inordinate delay. The judge noted that the FSS Act mandates that prosecution should ordinarily be initiated within one year of the alleged offence. The law allows extension of the limitation period up to three years, provided the authorities record specific written reasons for the delay. In this case, the complaint was filed only in February 2021, nearly four years after the alleged offence. The sanction order issued by the authorities cited only “administrative reasons” for the delay, which the judge found vague and legally inadequate. “Administrative reasons, without further explanation, cannot justify the prosecution of individuals when the statutory limitation period has already lapsed,” the judge observed.
Carrier not liable without proof of loss: HC
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court ruled that the certificate issued by the carrier only acknowledges that an accident occurred and goods were damaged, but it cannot be treated as an admission of liability for the amount claimed. The judge set aside a trial court order directing a transport carrier to pay `1.95 lakh to an insurance company for goods damaged in transit, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to prove the actual quantum of loss. The judge dealt with a city civil court appeal filed by Transport Corporation of India, Secunderabad, challenging the decree passed by the lower court in a suit filed by an insurance company. The dispute arose after Laxmi Machine Works, Coimbatore, consigned seven cases of ring frames and spares to Abohar, Punjab, through the defendant carrier. The goods, insured by the first plaintiff, an insurance company, were delivered in a damaged condition. The insurer, after assessing the loss through a surveyor, paid `1,95,760 to the consignee and sought to recover the amount from the carrier. While the trial court held the carrier liable and decreed the suit in favour of the insurer, the judge, on appeal, ruled that, though liability under the Carriers Act, 1865, could be presumed, the quantum of damage was not duly established. Justice Bheemapaka noted that the surveyor’s report relied upon by the insurance company was prepared unilaterally, without notifying the carrier. Neither the surveyor nor any representative of the consignee was examined to verify the actual value of the damaged goods. The judge observed that mere payment by the insurer to the insured does not prove the extent of loss.
