High Court Censures Police In Naresh’s Murder Case

The police officials who acted indifferently and took the side of the alleged killer Srinivasa Reddy who reportedly killed his own daughter Swathi and her lover Naresh have been taken to task by Mahesh Bhagavat, Rachakonda Police Commissioner.

Hyderabad:  The High Court expressed anger at the way police treated the sensational case of honour Killing of Swathi, Naresh. After completing the hearing in the case, the court severely censured the police. It questioned why police are not acting transparently.  Reacting to the report by police that Naresh’s body was burnt and it was Swathi’s father who killed him it made serious remarks. It asked police why honour killings are increasing in the Telugu states. Pointing out that majority population is questioning the functioning style of police; the court directed the police to work to enhance the prestige of the department.

Meanwhile, The Rachakonda Police Commissioner Mahesh Bhagwat suspended sub- Inspector Shivanaga Prasad for dereliction of duty and coercion in the Naresh murder case.  The Commissioner told media, “SI Prasad called up Swati several times and asked her to return home in a threatening manner after her father T Srinivas Reddy lodged a missing complaint.”

The Bhongir Town Police Station Inspector M Shankar and Sub-Inspector Krishna Murthy were issued charge memo for failing to act promptly to look for Naresh. Another inspector of Ramanapet police station, who had struck a compromise between the families of Swati and Naresh and facilitated their return was also sent a charge memo.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

TSPSC Group-II Examinations Stayed By High Court

The High Court staying the recruitment process for three works asked the government to file a counter within that time limit

Hyderabad:  Creating hurdles for the recruitment of Group –II posts, the Hyderabad High Court stayed the process for three weeks on Monday. After hearing pleas filed alleging that irregularities took place in the Group –II written examinations, the High Court issued orders to TSPSC not to take up any recruitment process in these three weeks. It also asked the State government to file its counter within three weeks.

The government has issued a notification for 1032 posts last year. Around five lakh 65 thousand candidates appeared for the written test held last November. The controversy started during the written examination time itself.

However, TSPSC which released the results invited around three thousand candidates for the interviews and also started the process of certificate verification of the candidates attending the interviews.

Meanwhile, allegations were levelled that the candidates who used whitener and double bubbled were selected for the interview and a lot of irregularities took place in conducting of Group –II examinations. In this context, the High Court ordered to stop certificate verification and any other process till three weeks.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

High Court Refuses Bail To Former MLA

The Hyderabad High Court had refused to grant bail to former MLA Chengala Venkata Rao who was sentenced to life by Anakapalli court in a murder case.

Hyderabad: The Hyderabad High Court refused to suspend the conviction of former TDP MLA Chengala Venkata Rao, who was awarded a life sentence in a murder case, saying that it would not give any preferential treatment to a politician.

The court also rejected Rao’s bail petition.

The Anakapalli sessions court sentenced former MLA Chegala Venkata Rao to life imprisonment in a murder case that took place a decade ago.

Arguing for the suspension of Rao’s conviction, his counsel reportedly said that he was in no way related to the death of the person and added that being a political leader he had to attend people’s problems.

However, the bench refused to accept the arguments and said, “this is the norm being followed and cannot be violated just because he is a politician.”  It also said that there was no rare or exceptional circumstance in the case to grant bail to the politician.

The incident occurred in 2007 when Rao was an MLA. He went to visit a group of people who were protesting alleged sand mining in their area at Bangarampalem village in Nakkapalli mandal.

A heated argument followed and two factions opposing and supporting clashed, leading to the death of one person and leaving several injured.

A local named Gosala Konda died in the violence. On a complaint by victims, the police booked a case against 25 people, including Rao, for inciting violence. The court recently handed out life sentences to 16 accused.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Bombay High Court Upholds Life Sentence In Bilkis Bano Gang Rape Case

The Mumbai HC upheld the life sentence given by trial court to 11 accused in the horrifying Bilkis Bano gang-rape case. It refused to give death sentence.

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Thursday upholding the life sentence given to 11 men convicted in the Bilkis Bano gang-rape and murder case by the trial court, dismissed their appeals filed against the conviction.

Meanwhile, it also dismissed an appeal by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) seeking death sentence to at least three of them, citing it as a rarest of rare case. The CBI felt that awarding death penalty to at least three out of 11 people convicted in the case would send a stern message.

The incident took place in the aftermath of the Godhra train carnage. On March 3, 2002, 17 people including pregnant Bilkis Bano were attacked in a village in Gujarat. In this incident, around eight people were killed and six others were reported missing, while Bilkis Bano and her two family members, master Hussain and Saddam survived.

A special court in Mumbai later convicted eleven men – Jaswant Nai, Govind Nai, Shailesh Bhatt, Radhyesham Shah, Bipin Chandra Joshi, Kesarbhai Vohania, Pradeep Mordhiya, Bakabhai Vohania, Rajubhai Soni, Mitesh Bhatt, and Ramesh Chandana – for the gang-rape of Bilkis and murder of her family members on January 21, 2008, and sentenced them to life imprisonment.

The conviction was challenged by them in the Bombay HC.

The division bench comprising Justice VK Tahil Ramani and Mridula Bhatkar set aside the acquittals of a few Gujarat police officials and two government hospital doctors, as the CBI accused them of tampering with evidence and Bilkis’s statement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

High Court Issues Notices to Ruling Party Legislators in AP

Taking suo moto cognizance of news reports over the attack on Transport Commissioner Office and abusing the commissioner, the High Court took up the case on Tuesday and issued notices to 11 people.

Hyderabad: The High Court has issued notices to TDP MP Kesineni Srinivas, MLA Bonda Umamaheswar Rao, MLC Buddha Venkanna, Mayor Koneru Sridhar, AP DGP, Vijayawada CP and others in the case of attack at Vijayawada Road Transport Commissioner Office. The news came as a shock to the ruling Telugu Desam Party Government, as per reports.

Later, the High Court deferred the case for four weeks. The unruly behavior of MP Srinivas and others party leaders was in the news a few days ago.

Taking suo moto cognizance of news reports over the attack on Transport Commissioner Office and abusing the commissioner, the High Court took up the case on Tuesday and issued notices to 11 people.

News reports suggested that the alleged ruling party leaders abused the AP Transport Commissioner N. Balasubramaniam and manhandled his security staff.

The AP government was criticized for the behavior of its legislators.

Consequently, the Party Supremo and Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu has also taken the issue seriously. Not only he chastised his party leaders, but also offered an apology to the Commissioner.

However, as the High Court took cognizance of the incident, the party leaders will have to defend their case, and in the process may end up causing trouble to the Government.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

High Court Stays AP Govt’s Land Acquisition Order

Hyderabad High Court has stayed the AP Government order acquiring land at Penumaka village near Vijayawada against the will of the people.

Hyderabad: The Andhra Pradesh government is facing a lot of problems in acquiring lands for the capital of the State. Though the Naidu’s government acquired thousands of acres of the land already, it proposed to obtain land from the surrounding villages. As the villagers of Penumaka village of Tadepalli mandal refused to part with their land, the government issued a notification to pool 660.831 acres of land.

The farmers, who were opposed to it, filed a petition in the High Court. After the trial, the High Court issued orders by staying the Penumaka Land Acquisition Notification. Directing the government to progress only after resolving issued by farmers, it directed that status quo should be maintained till then.

Meanwhile, the farmers of Penumaka, though happy over the verdict, are alleging that the State government is using brutal force as they were against notification. No doubt that the fresh decision of High Court would make it difficult for the Government to acquire the land further.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Online Petition Against AP CM To SC CJ, Request For Prosecution

Hyderabad: Its not at all working well for AP CM Chandrababu Naidu these days. After SC issued notice in Vote for Note case, now an online signatures agitation was started by an IT, Thirumal Prasad Patil in change.org website.

The petitioner requested Supreme Court that an impartial investigation should go on in this case and culprits should face the law of the land.

He further added that Telangana ACB mentioned Chandra babu Naidu’s name several times in its charge sheet which suspects CM’s involvement in the case.

It has become unexceptional in our society that rich and powerful sections are easily escaping from the clutches of law which doesn’t look good for our democracy, he stated in his letter.AP CM Chandrababu Nadu was accused in many cases, but courts had given stay without going for further investigation,Patil said.

Patil received more than 4500 signatures supporting this petition within 24 hours. This online petition was addressed to the Chief Justice of SC High Court Judge Jagdish Singh Khehar and to other judges

1 Response

  1. krishnamohan. R says:

    Prosecution to be taken up by SC

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Photos Not Released Respecting Jaya’s Wish: Apollo Doctors

Chennai: Apollo Hospital doctors informed High Court about the conditions prevailing at the hospital that prevented them from releasing J Jayalalithaa’s photos when she was admitted in hospital.

The management of Apollo Hospital, where Amma had her last breathe, Was questioned about the treatment she had in last days of her life. A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed by Joseph seeking appointment of an enquiry commission to probe into the death of Jayalalitha.

Responding to the PIL, Apollo Hospitals management came forward with a statement that all information was released as per Jayalalitha’s wish while keeping in mind the interest of public order.

London based physician Dr. Richard Beale condemned baseless allegations on the so called conspiracy behind her death. She had severe infection and was on  supportive care, but no conspiracy, Dr Richard said. Jayalalitha had her last breathe on Dec 5th after being treated for nearly 70 days in Apollo Hospitals here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Coastal districts go TN way defying courts on Pongal festivities

  • Cock fights in AP, as TN stays firm on Jallikattu

Amaravati: Even as the court refused to give permission for the traditional cock-fights in Andhra Pradesh and Jallikattu in Tamil Nadu, people of the two States are firm on continuing their traditional form of celebrating Pongal.

The coastal districts, particularly Krishna, Guntur and the two Godavari districts have already started organising cock fights in the remotest areas. It is for these three-days that hundreds of people nurture the roosters all through the year, while thousands wait to watch the colourful fight. People feel that the festival loses its sheen if the cock fights are not organized. After all, the fights have been part of the culture for centuries.

Bhimavaram, Undi, Tanuku and Denduluru in Godavari districts, Nuzvid, Vissannapet and Tiruvur in Krishna district are very popular for the rooster fights during Sankranti. The three days of the festival mark thousands of people watching the fights organised away from the villages.

Round-the-clock gambling, liquor, food and prostitution are associated with the cock fights. Gambling sees betting running into a few lakhs of rupees all through the three days with punters betting on 13 cards, 3 cards and inside-outside blind game. This runs even in the night under the specially arranged lighting. The liquor merchants have special stalls which are auctioned by the organisers and they are open 24 hours. Even prostitutes are made available in the vicinity for the three days.

While the courts and the police raise objections to organising the traditional cock fights, there is not much opposition for the gambling, liquor and prostitution organised along with the fights. Mango gardens, which are more in number and each extended to 25 acres to 100 acres turn into the venues for the cock fights and other activities during the thre- day merrymaking. The cab owners and auto drivers would have field day during these days taking people to the venue and bringing them back.

The roosters, which are nurtured for Pongal are priced highly during the period, particularly at the venues. The price of each rooster, depending on its colour and variety, ranges from Rs 10,000 to Rs 1.50 lakh during the three days. Some of them are fed with cashews and dates everyday all through the year, while a few of them are given liquor and non-vegetarian food, including prawns to be strong and withstand a few cuts of the knife during the fight.

The police are the greater beneficiaries of these fights as the organisers pay huge amount to turn a blind eye to the events organised in their areas. The organisers, who collect money from the stall holders of gambling, liquor, food, parking and prostitution, besides the rooster owners, pay to the police and the local leaders to ensure that the event goes without disturbance.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Uttam asks KCR to drop new Secretariat plan

  • In an open letter, he says it’s waste of public money

Hyderabad: Telangana Pradesh Congress Committee (TPCC) President N Uttam Kumar Reddy on Thursday wrote an open letter to Chief Minister K Chandrasekhar Rao asking him to drop the plans to shift the State Secretariat.

“Shifting of Telangana Secretariat is an unwise and irrational decision. The decision to demolish the present Secretariat  and construct a new complex at a huge cost of hundreds of crores of rupees is not a judicious decision and is a mere waste of precious taxpayers’ money,” the TPCC chief said in his letter to the Chief Minister.

He pointed out that H-Block (South and North Blocks) was constructed as recently as 2008 and is in a very new condition. This has new and spacious office accommodation. The D-Block was constructed in 2003, A-Block in 1998, J-Block in 1990, L-Block in 1981, C & B blocks in 1978 and K-Block in 1975. The only really old block in the Secretariat is the G-Block, he said.

The TPCC chief said it was really unfortunate that the Chief Minister has cited “vaasthu defects” as the reason for demolishing a fully functional Secretariat with all buildings having many decades of life left and planning plush buildings at a cost of Rs 350 crores. “In this age and time, spending hundreds of crores of rupees of precious public money because of vaasthu reasons is not justified,” he said.

Further, he said, that it was astonishing that the Advocate General has submitted to the High Court that the present Secretariat complex does not meet fire safety regulations. “Is it possible that you as the Chief Minister and your minister colleagues were operating in the present Secretariat without fire safety regulations being met? Is it also possible that the CM of AP, Chandrababu Naidu, who has Z category security was operating from the present Secretariat complex till a couple of weeks back from buildings without fire safety regulations? Is it possible that former CMs Kiran Kumar Reddy, K Rosaiah, Dr Y S Rajasekhara Reddy, Chandrababu  Naidu, N T Rama Rao and all their minister colleagues were operating from buildings without fire safety regulations?” asked Uttam Kumar Reddy.

He said that the State Government’s stand in the High Court has raised many suspicions among the people of Telangana.

The Congress leader said that with the shifting of AP Secretariat to Vijayawada and vacation of the buildings in the Secretariat complex, there was  more than enough space now to accommodate all departments outside the Secretariat to be brought into the present complex. Thereby all departments and sections of the Telangana Government can be brought into a single complex without spending a single rupee.

“It is sad and ironic that your government does not release overdue amounts for farmers’ loan waiver scheme or students’ fee reimbursement scheme, but indulges in such wasteful and unnecessary spending. As the first Chief Minister of Telangana State, we expect that you will conduct all matters like a statesman. The voice of the opposition parties, members of civil society, NGOs and the lay public must be heard by you and the move for a new Secretariat building dropped forthwith,” the TPCC chief said.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

ఆర్కే పోలీస్ కస్టడీలో ఉన్నట్టు సాక్ష్యం ఉందా?

  • హెబియస్ కార్పస్ పిటిషన్ విచారణలో పద్మక్కను అడిగిన హై కోర్టు
  • సాక్ష్యం చూపడానికి పది రోజుల వ్యవధి కోరిన పిటిషనర్

హైదరాబాద్: మావోయిస్టు అగ్రనేత రామకృష్ణ ఎలియాస్ ఆర్కే భార్య పద్మక్క దాఖలు చేసిన హెబియస్ కార్పస్ పిటిషన్ పై విచారణను హై కోర్టు మరో పది రోజులకు వాయిదా వేసింది. ఈ మేరకు పిటిషనరే కోర్టును అర్థించారు. తన భర్త పోలీసుల కస్టడీలో ఉన్నారనీ, ఆయన ప్రాణాలకు భద్రత కల్పించాలనీ, కోర్టులో హాజరు పరచడానికి ఆదేశించాలనీ ఆమె కోరిన సంగతి తెలిసినదే. అక్టోబర్ 24 వ తేదీన ఒడిశా లోని మల్కాన్ గిరి జిల్లాలో జరిగిన ‘ఎన్ కౌంటర్’ తర్వాత ఆర్కే ఆచూకీ తెలియని సంగతీ తెలిసినదే. ఈ రోజు విచారణ చేపట్టిన జస్టిస్ సివి నాగార్జున రెడ్డి, జస్టిస్ ఎం ఎస్ కె జైస్వాల్ లతో కూడిన ధర్మాసనం, మీ భర్త పోలీస్ కస్టడీలో ఉన్నట్టు సాక్ష్యం చూపించగలరా అని పిటిషనర్ ను ప్రశ్నించింది. దాంతో ఆర్కే పోలీస్ కస్టడీలోనే ఉన్నట్టు సాక్ష్యం చూపడానికి పిటీషనర్ పది రోజుల వ్యవధి కోరారు.

అంతకుముందు విశాఖపట్నం రూరల్ ఎస్పీ రాహుల్ దేవ్ వర్మ అఫిడవిట్ దాఖలు చేస్తూ ఆర్కే పోలీస్ కస్టడీలో లేరని చెప్పారు. అప్పుడు ఆర్కే పోలీస్ కస్టడీలో ఉన్నట్టు సాక్ష్యం చూపగలరా అని న్యాయమూర్తులు పిటిషనర్ ను అడిగారు. తాము మరో మావోయిస్టు నేత చలపతి ఆచూకీ గురించి అడగడం లేదనీ, ఆయన పోలీస్ కస్టడీలో లేరని మాకు తెలుసునని ప్రముఖ విప్లవ కవి వరవరరావు అన్నారు. ఉదయ్ అనే మరో మావోయిస్టు నేత క్షేమం పట్ల కూడా సందేహాలు ఉన్నప్పటికీ పిటిషనర్ ఆయన పేరు ప్రస్తావించలేదు. ఆర్కే పోలీస్ కస్టడీలో ఉన్నట్టు సమాచారం ఉండడంవల్లనే ఆయన గురించి పిటిషనర్ ప్రత్యేకంగా కోర్టును అర్థించినట్టు తెలుస్తోంది. అక్టోబర్ 24 ‘ఎన్ కౌంటర్’లో పద్మక్క తన కుమారుడు మున్నా ఎలియాస్ పృథ్వీని కోల్పోయారు.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HC admits PIL against Secretariat building demolition

  • TS directed not to raze till next hearing

Hyderabad: The Hyderabad High Court has directed the Telangana State Government not to demolish the Secretariat building complex till the next hearing.

Taking up hearing on a PIL filed by Congress Legislature Party deputy leader T Jeevan Reddy, who alleged that the public exchequer would be deprived of many crores of rupees if the state government demolished the present Secretariat building complex, the High Court admitted the PIL for hearing. The court also made it clear that it could order an inquiry into demolition of Secretariat building but it would not interfere with the shifting of the Secretariat from the existing one. The court directed the State Government to file a counter with full details.

State Advocate General Ramakrishna Reddy submitted to the court that the demolition of the Secretariat building and shifting of the Secretariat were part and parcel of the government’s policy decision. Ramakrishna Reddy informed the court that the State Government will file a counter with all details. The court adjourned the case for two weeks.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

RK’s Wife Files Habeas corpus

  • Case adjourned to Thursday

Visakhapatnam: Top Maoist Akkiraju Haragopal alias Ramakrishna (RK)’s wife Sirisha alias Padma had filed a habeas petition in Hyderabad High Court on Monday asking the state to produced her husband. She claimed that her husband is in police custody and his life is in danger. She prayed the court to protect her husband. The HC has asked AP government to file a counter with all the details including the whereabouts of RK. The judge said the court is considering the issue very seriously. The court has expressed the view that the police should know the facts.

The cousel who appeared on behalf of the petitioner said the judge has criticized the Attorney General for talking about the jurisdiction.  The judge said there is no jurisdiction as far as human rights are concerned. Whether one is a Maoist or an ordinary citizen, he is a human being. Kalyan Rao, Revolutionary writer, said the people’s organizations have been demanding that RK and his followers have to produced in the court.

Ramakrishna was the top leader who organized the plenary of the CPI(ML) at the cut off area in Malkangiri district in Odisha. His son Munna (25) was among more than 30 persons killed when AP Greyhounds  and Odisha’s Special Operation Group mounted a joint operation in the early hours of last Monday, 24 October 2016. RK was reported to have escaped with another leader Uday alias Ganesh.  Munna’s body was taken away to his native place in Prakasham district by his mother, Padma. It was reported later that RK and Uday were caught by the police and were taken away to an undisclosed destination by helicopter.

In the wake of rumours that RK might have been killed in the same operation on Monday morning, his wife had filed the petition. Andhra Pradesh DGP had repeatedly announced that RK is not there in police custody. This was confirmed by Visakhaptnam rural SP Rahul Dev Varma also.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Undavalli moves HC in ‘Vote for Note’ case

Hyderabad: Former Congress MP Undavalli Arun Kumar has filed a petition in High Court requesting to implead him in ‘Vote for Note’ case involving Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu. 

Undavalli appealed that though Chandrababu’s name was mentioned a number of times in the case, his name was not included in the case as an accused, nor was he examined as a witness so far.

He said that it was not correct and everyone should be treated the same way as per law. He requested the court to give him an audience to hear his argument.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HC admits plea against building new Secretariat

Hyderabad: Though the TRS Government got the decks cleared for securing the Andhra Pradesh and Telangana Secretariat buildings for taking up construction of a new Telangana Secretariat complex, it faced a legal hurdle with High Court admitting a petition filed by Congress senior leader T Jeevan Reddy and Jagitial Congress MLA Komatireddy Venkata Reddy, on Thursday. 

The Congress leaders, in their petition, have appealed against the proposal to demolish the existing Secretariat buildings and construct a new complex. The buildings being proposed for demolition include the ones recently constructed spending crores of public money.

The Congress leaders urged the High Court to investigate and give its judgment to prevent such wastage of public money. The court, after admitting the plea, adjourned it for tomorrow (Friday).

Congress has been criticizing the move to construct a new Secretariat complex  stating that the Chief Minister is taking such unnecessary decisions saying it is non-compliant with ‘Vastu.’

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

‘Vote-for-Note’ case still haunts AP CM

  • Telangana ACB files counter-affidavit in HC

Hyderabad: The Telangana State Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) told Hyderabad High Court on Wednesday that the ‘note-for-vote’ case is under investigation and it has not been closed. It is carrying out a thorough probe to unearth the role played by the accused, the ACB said.

Malla Reddy, ACB’s investigating officer, has filed a counter-affidavit over the petition by Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Nara Chandrababu Naidu seeking to squash the orders of the ACB court against him based on the private complaint filed by Alla Ramakrishna Reddy, YSRCP MLA, representing  Mangalagiri constituency  in Guntur district. The respondent/complainant Ramakrishna Reddy also filed counter to squash Naidu’s petition.

The High Court while staying the ACB order on September 2, directed the Telangana government and Mangalagiri MLA to file counter-affidavits in the matter. Earlier, the ACB court had directed the investigating agency to probe the role of Naidu in the scam.

Ramakrishna Reddy, aggrieved with the stay order issued by the HC, approached the Supreme Court praying for vacation of the stay. The SC, on hearing the plea, ordered that the HC has to decide on the case within four weeks from October 21.  The matter came up for hearing before Justice T Sunil Chowdary on Wednesday when the counsel representing Naidu requested the judge to grant some more time to respond to the counters filed by the respondents, who in this case are the MLA and the representative of the ABC. The judge posted the matter to October 27.

Alla Krishna Reddy, in his counter-affidavit, submitted that he has locus standee to lodge a complaint against Naidu in the case of ‘vote-for-note’ case.  He reminded the HC the orders of the SC in the case of Dr Subramanyam Swamy Vs Dr Manmohan Singh that any person of this country has a right to inform the courts about any criminal activities indulged by any one and anywhere. 

The MLA argued that the petitioner, in fact, has no right to file a squash petition in the HC.  He added that even the apex court observed that the accused cannot file a squash petition when the case is under investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act.  He also contended that under any circumstances stay cannot be granted in cases when Prevention of Corruption Act is deemed to have been violated and  a person is accused of  abetting someone to receive bribes.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

మన సంస్థలు గాడిదలు, సింగపూర్‌వి గుర్రాలట!

telakapalli ravi

తెలకపల్లి రవి

అమరావతి స్టార్టప్‌ క్యాపిటల్‌ నిర్మాణానికి స్విస్‌ చాలెంజి పద్ధతిని సవాలు చేసిన కేసులో రాష్ట్ర ప్రభుత్వం తరపున అడ్వకేట్‌ జనరల్‌ దమ్మాలపాటి శ్రీనివాస్‌ విపరీత వ్యాఖ్యలు చేశారు. భారతీయ నిర్మాణ సంస్థలను గాడిదలతో పోలుస్తున్నట్టుగా ‘మాకు పరుగెత్తే గుర్రాలే కావాలి, గాడిదలు వద్దు ‘ అని నోరు పారేసుకున్నారు. గతంలో సింగిల్‌ జడ్జి ఎస్‌.రామచంద్రరావు ఇచ్చిన స్టే ఉత్తర్వులపై ప్రభుత్వం సుప్రీం కోర్టుకు వెళ్లగా మళ్లీ హైకోర్టులోనే తేల్చుకోమని వారు వెనక్కు పంపిన సంగతి తెలిసిందే. ఇప్పుడు తాత్కాలిక ప్రధాన న్యాయమూర్తి రమేష్‌ రంగనాథన్‌, యు.దుర్గాప్రసాదరావులతో కూడిన ద్విసభ్య బెంచి విచారణ జరుపుతున్నది. ఎజిశ్రీనివాస్‌ పై విధంగా అనగానే దుర్గాప్రసాదరావు గాడిదలే బాగా పనిచేస్తాయి, పైగా కష్టపడిపనిచేస్తాయి, బరువులు మోస్తాయి అని నవ్వుతూ చురక వేశారు. అయినా సరే గుర్రాలే కావాలి గాని గాడిదలు వద్దని ఎజి మళ్లీ అన్నారు. గతంలో ముఖ్యమంత్రి చంద్రబాబు నాయుడు మన వాళ్లు కట్టేవి మురికివాడల్లా వుంటాయని అన్నారు. ఇప్పుడు ఆయన ప్రభుత్వ ఎజి మరో అడుగు ముందుకేసి గాడిదలతో పోల్చారు. ఈ సందర్భంగా ప్రభుత్వం తన వాదనలో చిత్రమైనమార్పు చేసింది. రాజధాని భవనాల నిర్మాణం, అభివృద్ధి మాత్రమే గాక ఉద్యోగాల కల్పన, కమర్షియల్‌ స్పేస్‌ మార్కెటింగ్‌ ముఖ్యమని వాదించింది. ఈ పనిచేయాలంటే విదేశీ కంపెనీలే కావాలి గాని మన వాళ్లు చేయలేరని ఎజి అభిప్రాయం వెలిబుచ్చారు. మరి హైదరాబాదులో ఐటి కంపెనీల విస్తరణకు దేశీయ సంస్థలే కారణం కదా అని కోర్టు వ్యాఖ్యానించింది.

అయితే ఇందుకోసం కాంట్రాక్టరు ఎంపికకు సంబంధించిన టెండరు నిబంధనల్లో ఉపాధి కల్పన అన్నఅంశమే లేదని అదిత్య తరపు న్యాయవాది డి.ప్రకాశ్‌రెడ్డి స్పష్టం చేశారు. విదేశీపెట్లుబడులను ఆకర్షించడంలో సింగపూర్‌ కన్సార్టియం విఫలమైతే ఎలాటి అపరాధ చర్యలుంటాయో కూడా లేదని ఆయన పేర్కొన్నారు. టెండరు నిబంధనల్లో ఆదాయం ప్రధానంగా పొందుపర్చి ఇక్కడ ఉపాధి కల్పన ముఖ్యమని మాట మారుస్తున్నారని కూడా ప్రకాశ్‌రెడ్డి వివరించారు. సింగపూర్‌ కన్సార్టియంకు ఎంత వాటా ఇస్తున్నారో బయిటపెట్టకుండా అంతకంటే ఎక్కువ ఇచ్చేవారినే పోటికి అనుమతిస్తామని చెప్పడం ఏ విధంగా స్విస్‌ చాలెంజి అవుతుందని ఆయన ప్రశ్నించారు. దానికి సంబంధించి లేఖ రాసినా క్రిడా అధికారులు తిరస్కరించారని గుర్తు చేశారు. వాస్తవానికి విదేశీ కంపెనీకి ఈ కాంట్రాక్టు అప్పగించడం చట్టం ముందు నిలవదనీ, దేశీయ సంస్థలకు అవకాశం లేకుండా వుండేట్టుగా నిబంధనలు రూపొందించారని ఆయన విమర్శించారు.

కేసు విచారణ సోమవారం కూడా కొనసాగుతుంది గనక మరిన్ని వింత వాదనలు వినే అవకాశముంది.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Decide in 4 Weeks: SC tells HC

  • Note for vote case

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday asked the Hyderabad High Court to decide on the petition filed by AP Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu within four weeks. The apex court had instructed the petitioner Alla Ramakrishna Reddy, YSRCP MLA from Mangalagiri, to come back to the court if a decision is not taken by the HC in stipulated time. The SC told the petitioner that it cannot interfere in the case at this stage.

Earlier, ACB court had asked the ACB, Telangana, to file a charge sheet against Naidu by end of this month. This is regarding note for vote case.

Naidu appealed to the HC against the orders of ACB court. The HC had granted a stay of eight weeks on the orders of the ACB court. Alla approached the SC challenging the stay granted by the HC. Noted Advocate Luthra had argued on behalf of Naidu that there cannot be two FIRs on the same issue according to CrPC 256 and 210.

The SC bench questioned the stay on the basis of Section 19 of the Anti- Corruption Act. Luthra pleaded that since the HC had given a stay for eight weeks the apex court could allow the HC to deal with the matter. The SC agreed with the suggestion.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Swiss Challenge Stayed

  • HC Asks AP To File Counter
  • Hearing Again October 31

Hyderabad:  The joint High Court of AP and TS has on Monday ordered a stay on the Swiss Challenge method being adopted by Andhra Pradesh government to develop Amaravati as new capital city. A construction company had filed a petition questioning the secrecy in the process of selecting the bidder. The petitioner prayed for orders making it mandatory for the government to make the details of the first bid public in true spirit of Swiss Challenge method. The court asked the AP government to file a counter. The hearing would resume on October 31.

The method of selecting the bidder has become controversial when the bid submitted by Singapore consortium was kept in sealed cover. The very concept of Swiss Challenge is open competition. The first bid has to be publicised widely  and other bidders have to be given fair chance to compete. The judge has questioned the secrecy during the course of hearing.

Please follow us on [button color=”dark blue” link=”https://www.facebook.com/primepostindia/” target=”_blank” icon=”momizat-icon-facebook”]Facebook[/button]  [button color=”blue” link=”https://twitter.com/Primepostindia” target=”_blank” icon=”momizat-icon-twitter”]Twitter[/button]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HC stays Investigation against Naidu

  • 8 Week reprieve for AP CM
  • Alla to approach SC

Hyderabad: Justice Raja Elango of Hyderabad High Court has ordered a stay for eight weeks on Friday on the decision of the ACB special court to re-investigate ‘Note for Vote’ case. The judge was acting on a petition filed on behalf of AP Chief Minister Nara Chandrababu Naidu on Thursday requesting for a stay. After hearing the counsel for Naidu the judge has ordered a stay and asked the ACB of Telangana to file a counter.

Naidu approached the court seeking squash of the proceedings in a lower court, specially the re-investigation order issued by it. The earlier order was passed by ACB Principal Special Judge after YSRCP MLA Alla Ramakrishna Reddy filed a petition seeking reopening of the case. There has been no forward movement in the case for almost one and half years. Alla produced in the court a report given by a forensic laboratory in Mumbai which confirmed that the voice on the controversial tape belonged to Naidu.

Naidu, however, pleaded in his petition that Mangalagiri MLA Ramakrishna Reddy had no locus standi in the case. He argued that the incident in which the case was filed occurred during the time of MLC elections and only Election Commission of India has jurisdiction and nobody else. He also submitted that there cannot be proceedings in two courts on the same charges simultaneously. While granting the stay, the judge has asked the ACB special public prosecutor to file a counter stating his argument.

Alla Ramakrishna Reddy told the media persons that he would approach the Supreme Court on Monday with a plea to vacate the stay so that the re-investigation can proceed. He flayed Naidu fit knocking the door of the HC instead of facing the probe. The counsel for the petitioner Sudhakara Reddy said there is no stay on the investigation work of the ACB. The stay was only on the memo issued by the ACB special court, he opined.

– Primepost Bureau

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Naidu’s Petition in High Court

Hyderabad: Here is the full text of the petition filed in Hyderabad High Court on Thursday on behalf of AP Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu pleading to grant a stay on the proceedings in ACB special court in ‘Note for Vote’ case.


(Under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code)



Criminal Petition No.        of 2016



Nara Chandrababu Naidu,

S/o late Kharjura Naidu, Aged 67 years,

R/o. Chief Minister’s Camp Office,

Undavalli village, Tadepalli Mandal,

Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh                    …Petitioner/Accused



 1. The State of Telangana,

Rep. by its Public Prosecutore for ACB Cases

High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad

For the State of Telangana

And the State of Andhra Pradesh                               …Respondent


  1. Alla Ramakrishna Reddy,

S/o Dasaradharami Reddy, Aged 47 years,

Occ: MLA, Mangalagiri Assembly Constituency,

Opp. Old Bus Stand, Nidamarru Road,

Mangalagiri, Guntur District,

Andhra Pradesh.                                             …Respondent/Complainant


The address for service of all notices and process on the above named Petitioner is that of his counsel Sri.Posani Subba Rao Advocate, #A-29, Madhura Nagar, Ameerpet, Hyderabad-38


1. It is submitted that the respondent herein has, on 08.08.2106, filed private complaint C.C.SR.No. 958 of 2016 before the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad against the petitioner herein under Section 190 and 200 Cr.P.C in Crime No.11/ACB-CR-1-HYD/2015, praying under:

Hence, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to take the complaint on file and deal with the Accused for the offences u/s 12 of the P.C.Act.and 120I.P.C and it is humbly submitted that as the Police investigation is simultaneously proceeding in the same offence the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to invoke section 210 Cr.P.C.

The learned Special Judge (FAC), vide order dated 29.8.2016 forwarded the said private complaint to the police U/s 156(3) for thorough investigation and report.

The present Criminal Petition Is filed for quashing the said as the same is contrary to law and non-application of mind in reference to the facts of the case, without jurisdiction and without assigning reasons and the respondent herein has no locus to maintain such complaint and seek relief.

2.(a) It IS submitted that Crime No.ll/ACB-CR/2015 of ACB Police Station, City Range-1 Hyderabad was registered on 31.5.2015 U/s 12 P.C Act and U/s 120(B) r/w 34 IPC. This crime was registered based on a written complaint said to have been submitted by one Sri Sebastian on 28.5.2015. According to the said defacto complaint, he was a member of the Legislative Council of the State of Telangana and one of the voters for the Election scheduled to be conducted by the Election Commission of India under the Representation of People Act, 1951 for electing the members to the Legislative Council. He alleged that he was offered money by some of the accused to cast vote in favour of a candidate contesting for such election.

(b). The ACB revered the laid crime against four persons, investigated into the matter and filed a charge sheet (report under S.173(2) CrPC before the court of Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB cases, Hyderabad. It, was stated in the charge sheet that investigation is still pending as against A5 Sri Sandra Venkata Veeraiah. It was further stated that any other material which would come to light during further course of investigation against A1 to A4 would be placed before the Special Judge by filing a supplementary charge sheet. The charge sheet dated 27.7.2015 is pending consideration.

(c). The Accused No 4 (in this crime) filed criminal petition No.5520 of 2015 before this Hon’ble High Court U/s Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings in the crime. This Hon’ble, Court, vide its judgment dated 3.6.2016, was pleased to quash the proceedings in so far as A4 is concerned. While quashing the proceedings, this Hon’ble Court was pleased to hold that the allegations in the written report and in the charge sheet regarding the alleged bribe (offering money to vote) do not attract the ingredients of Section 12 of P.C Act. It is further held that Sections 120(B) and 107 IPC also are not attracted based on the ingredients of the written report.

(d). It must be pointed out that the State of Telangana filed a Special Leave Petition against the judgment dated 03.06.2016 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, being SLP (Cri) 5248 of 2016, Vide order dated 22.07.2016. Notice was issued in the Special Leave Petition, however no stay was granted of the judgment dated 03.06.2016.

3 (a). It is submitted that in the meanwhile, the respondent herein, who has no connection with the crime in question & pending investigation (being neither the informant nor a witness) is an MLA representing Mangalagiri Assembly constituency in Andhra Pradesh who belongs to YSRCP, filed a private complaint against the petitioner herein on 8.8.2016 before the Principal Special Judge SPE & ACB cases. This private complaint was filed in the crime already registered and where a charge sheet had been filed on 27.7.2015. AT the it is pertinent to point that that this complaint makes no mention of the charge sheet filed.

(b). In the present complaint, the respondent alleges that the petitioner herein was a conspirator of the alleged offering of money to the defacto complainant in Crime No. 11. He relied on a phone conversation and a public speech and interview said to have been made by the petitioner herein. He further alleged that the investigation into the crime was not effectively conducted. Based on such vague, bald, and unfounded allegations, the respondent herein filed a Complaint before the Special Court (ACB) the prayer in which has been reproduced above.

(c). The learned Special Judge vide order dated 29.8.2016, chose to refer the private complaint to the investigating agency U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C for conducting investigation and submit report, despite the fact that a charge sheet had already been filed on 27.7.2015

4 (a). It is submitted that the Order of the Special Judge directing investigation and report under Section 156(3), CrPC after the filing of the charge sheet on 27.7.2015, is legally impermissible since the power under S.156(3) is not available at that stage.

(b). The Order of the Special Judge directing investigation and report under Section 156(3), CrPC would result in an anomalous situation, wherein after the filing of the charge sheet on 27.7.2015 there would be a second FIR being registered with respect to the same matter / transaction.

(c). Further, the prayer (though misconceived as well) was for invoking Section 210, CrPC which mandates the pre-existence of a private complaint before a Magistrate, which is not the case in the present matter. Here, the Complaint was filed on 08.08.2016 whilst the charge sheet had been filed on 27.7.2015. more than a year before the filing of the private complaint. This delay has not been explained by the Complainant.

(d). The respondent herein has no locus to file such private complaint especially to refer to the Police for investigation U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C as he was not an aggrieved person to invoke such jurisdiction and power by the Special Court.

(e) As per the law laiddown by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of UP, (2015) 6 SCC 287, before a petition is filed under Section 156(3), there have to be prior applications made under Section 154(1)and Section 154(3), CrPC. Both these aspects should be clearly spelt out in the application and necessary documents to that effect shall be filed.

(f). Further,     it is now settled that applications under Section 156(3) have to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the Applicant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. All these aspects are mandatory in terms of Priyanka Srivastava v. State of UP. (2015) 6 SCC 287. In the present case the private complaint which was referred to the police, was not supported by an affidavit and no application was filed to any authority seeking such investigation and he did not file copy of such application if any and there is no such assertion in the complaint

(g). Exercise of power U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C requires application of judicial mind and the court must be vigilant with regard to nature of allegation made and shall not issue directions without proper application of mind in reference to the allegations and material if any placed. Mere recording of the Magistrate that he has gone through the com plaint, documents and heard the complainant in the order, will not be sufficient. The Magistrate must reflect in the order as to what weighed with him before passing directions under S.156(3) CrPC. In the present case, the impugned order is silent and fails to disclose any reasons nor referes to any material.

5 On merits, it is submitted that the petitioner herein has not committed any offence much less as alleged by the respondent herein/complainant. The petitioner denies all the allegations made against him in the complaint. The complaint does not disclose any cognizable offence either to take on file or refer to the police. The allegations made therein are vague, untenable and false.

6 (a). It is submitted that the respondent being a private complainant, has relied on the evidence and material already collected by the investigating agency, yet made allegations against the investigating agency of not conducting investigation effectively, there was no justification for the Respondent to have invited an order to refer his complaint to the Police for investigation and submit report (contrary to the prayer sought).

(b). In view of the observations and findings arrived at by the Hon’ble High Court in a quash petition filed by one of the accused that P.C Act has no application to the facts and circumstances of the case (which judgement though challenged is not stayed or set aside) the Special judge for SPE & ACB cases acted with undue haste and contrary to judicial propriety though he has no jurisdiction either to entertain the complaint or to refer the same to the Police for investigation.

(c). The respondent/complaint did not seek such relief as ordered by the court & sought only to take into cognizance of his complaint by the court and to proceed further in terms of Section 210 Cr.P.C. There is no reason assigned and there are no circumstances and facts mentioned by the Special Court to refer the complaint to the Police for investigation contrary to the relief sought by the complainant.

7. It is submitted that the respondent herein who filed private complaint is an MLA of Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly and belongs to opposition party of Respondent. The complaint by Respondent against the sitting Chief Minister of the State of Andhra Pradesh, is solely intended to embarasss, harass and malafidely wreak political vengeance against him. He intended to take the private complaint as a weapon for taking such vengeance. He is no way concerned with this crime which is registered in the State of Telangana and in connection with the election to the Legislative Council of the State of Telangana. He is neither a victim nor an aggrieved person. The complaint and impugned order are an abuse of process of law & Court.

8. Other grounds, if any, may be permitted to be pleaded at the time of hearing.

 9. It is submitted that the Certified Copy of the Private Complaint which was filed by the respondent herein before the Special Judge could not be secured. The true typed copy is herewith filed. The filing of the Certified Copy may be dispensed with.

For the reasons stated above, it is prayed that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to quash

a) the private complaint CCSR.No. 958 of 2016 before the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad against the petitioner herein under Section 190 and 200 Cr.P.C in Crime No.ll/ACB -CR-l-HYD/2015,

 b) the order dated 29.8.2016 passed in CC SR No.958 of 2016 by the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB cases, Hyderabad, and

 c) to pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice.

It is further prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to stay the operation of order dated 29.8.2016 passed in CC SR No.958/2016 by the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB cases, Hyderabad and consequential investigation, if any pending disposal of the criminal petition and pass such other order or orders in the Interest of justice.

It is further prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of Certified Copy of the Private Complaint in C.C.SR.No.958 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases. Hyderabad, in the present criminal petition and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.


Date: 01.09.2016                                                        Counsel for the Petitioner

Click here to download the petition

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.