HC upheld Bhupalapally court`s decision to examine complaint against KCR, Harish Rao
The private complaint was lodged by Rajalinga Murthy from Bhupalpally, who was murdered recently.
Hyderabad: In a setback to former chief minister K. Chandrashekar Rao and former irrigation minister T. Harish Rao, the Telangana High Court made it clear that their objections with regard to maintainability of a revision petition before the Bhupalpally district court regarding damage to the Medigadda barrage, was incorrect and misplaced.
The High Court upheld the decision of the principal sessions judge court of Jayashankar Bhupalapally, in allowing the revision petition to examine a private complaint seeking criminal and legal action against Chandrashekar Rao, Harish Rao and others on allegations of conspiracy in constructing the Medigadda barrage without approval from engineers and misappropriation of public money and causing huge loss to the exchequer.
The private complaint was lodged by Rajalinga Murthy from Bhupalpally, who was murdered recently. A magistrate court at Bhupalpally had rejected his complaint citing jurisdiction. The district sessions court allowed the revision petition filed by Murthy, and issued notices to the BRS leaders who then approached the High Court.
Justice K. Lakshman made it clear that the revision petition before the Sessions Court at Bhupalpally was maintainable. However, the judge set aside a few portions of the orders passed by the Sessions Judge to the extent of observations made while allowing Murthy’s revision petition.
Justice Lakshman opined that the Sessions Judge court while allowing numbering of the revision petition had made unwarranted observations that “all are equal before the law. If this petition is returned without proper enquiry, then wrong messages go in the society. To instill confidence in the judiciary, it should be taken as a revision petition.”
The High Court opined that such observations were unwarranted and touched upon the merits of the case. These observations indicate that the Sessions Court had already made up its mind about the outcome of the case. These observations-cum- findings could not have been given at the preliminary stage when the only question before the Sessions Court was whether the revision petition was maintainable, Justice Lakshman pointed out.
The court considered the submissions of public prosecutor Palle Nageshwar Rao, who argued that there was a breach of trust by the petitioners as the project began without proper consultation. The project was allegedly constructed on ‘sand soil’ which would not have borne its weight and the project was allotted to M/s Genco which had no experience in building dams and irrigation projects. “To find out the truth behind it, the case has to be registered and investigated,” he said.
The High Court directed the Principal Sessions Judge, Jayashankar Bhupalapally, to decide the criminal revision petition strictly in accordance with the law.
