MLA Poaching case: Revision petition dismissed
Justice D Nagarjun of the Telangana High Court on Monday dismissed the revision petition preferred by the Special Investigation Team
Hyderabad: Justice D Nagarjun of the Telangana High Court on Monday dismissed the revision petition preferred by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) in the MLA poaching case.
The memo filed by the SIT before the ACB court for implicating BL Santosh, Thushar Vellappally, Jaggu Swamy and Advocate B Srinivas was dismissed.
Challenging the same as illegal, the State had approached the High Court. Senior counsels L Ravichander and Ramchander Rao appeared on behalf of the accused and proposed accused in the case. However, a detailed order is awaited.
In a connected matter, Justice K Surendar extended till January 23 the stay in favour of BL Santosh against Section 41-A notices issued to him by SIT in the case.
The counsel representing BL Santosh said the High Court order transferring the investigation to CBI was in abeyance till the State obtains a certified copy and requested the court for a stay extension.
Disha case
A two-judge panel, comprising Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice N Tukaramji, continued hearing Supreme Court Advocate Vrinda Grover in the Disha encounter case. The batch of public interest litigation cases was filed alleging the encounter as fake and extra-judicial killings.
Vrinda Grover said the 3-member Sirpukar Commission constituted by the Supreme Court had disbelieved that the police resorted to encounter as self-defence. She said the commission report was sufficient to take cognisance and register FIR against the officers involved in the encounter.
Referring to the apex court judgment in the Manipur encounters case, she argued that the Supreme Court had directed FIRs to be registered in those cases where Commissions of Inquiry had recommended action against the police. FIR and the investigation is a constitutional and statutory obligation of the state, she argued and faulted the State government for not collecting the evidence in the right perspective.
Arguing that the Commissioner of Police had conducted a press conference after the encounter even before the inquest was conducted, recoveries were made and before FIR was sent to Magistrate in an attempt to influence the public, Grover said the SIT too did not act in an impartial manner and left out crucial evidence.
In light of the Commission report and disputed facts, she stressed booking a case against the officers under Section 302 of the IPC and Juvenile Justice Act. At the request of the Advocate General, the court adjourned the case to January 23 for state response.
