Formula-E case: Congress govt files caveat petition in Supreme Court
Rama Rao's counsel argued that the alleged offence under 409 IPC was not made out as there cannot be ‘entrustment’ of ‘public money’ in an elected legislator. He emphasised that the primary ingredient of criminal breach of trust was lacking as there was no dishonest intention and misappropriation as required under the law
Hyderabad: The Congress-led Revanth Reddy government has reportedly filed a caveat petition in the Supreme Court regarding the same case. The petition requests the court to hear their arguments, if Rama Rao’s case was taken up. On Tuesday, the Enforcement Directorate also issued fresh notices to the BRS working president, asking him to appear for questioning in connection with the Formula-E race case on January 16.
Earlier in the High Court, Rama Rao’s counsel argued that the alleged offence under 409 IPC was not made out as there cannot be ‘entrustment’ of ‘public money’ in an elected legislator. He emphasised that the primary ingredient of criminal breach of trust was lacking as there was no dishonest intention and misappropriation as required under the law. Further, the FIR was politically motivated, malicious and constituted abuse of process. At the most, the allegations in the complaint would constitute procedural irregularities, but not criminal offence. Another contention was that the alleged irregularities did not result in any personal benefits to Rama Rao.
On the other hand, the State Government said the investigation could not be interfered with at this stage. It also alleged that Rama Rao, the then Special Chief Secretary Arvind Kumar and the then HMDA Chief Engineer BLN Reddy, conspired to cause loss to the State and a consequential gain to third parties. Rama Rao, without obtaining the necessary sanctions, directed HMDA to make payment of about Rs.54 crore apart from financial commitment of Rs.600 crore along with additional recurring expenditure for the next three years, the State government submitted.
In the order running into 35 pages, Justice Lakshman emphasized that the power to quash an FIR should be exercised sparingly and only in cases where continuation of the investigation would result in abuse of process or miscarriage of justice. The court noted that the allegations against Rao, including dishonest abuse of power and misappropriation of HMDA’s funds, warranted a thorough investigation. Justice Lakshman held that “this Court cannot accept the contention that there was no ‘entrustment’. The other allegations pertaining to dishonest intention and misappropriation are matter of investigation.”
The court also highlighted that the investigating agency should be given reasonable time to conduct the investigation and collect evidence. Consequently, the petition to quash the FIR was dismissed, allowing the investigation to proceed.
