Telangana HC declines to quash petition filed by senior advocate accused of bribery
Justice K Lakshman observed that the allegations levelled against the petitioner were grave.
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Wednesday declined to quash a criminal petition filed by a senior advocate of the High Court who is facing allegations of accepting Rs. 7 crore from a litigant with the alleged intent of bribing High Court judges to secure a favourable verdict.
Justice K Lakshman observed that the allegations levelled against the petitioner were grave. “The allegation that money was obtained to bribe the judges of this Court casts a serious doubt on the independence of judiciary and implies that justice is up for sale. Such serious allegations need to be investigated,” he said.
The petition came from a complaint filed by Dr Chintala Yadagiri, who alleged that he had engaged senior advocate Vedula Venkataramana as his counsel in a land dispute case. The complaint revealed that the advocate had demanded and received Rs.7 crore, assuring him that the money would be used to bribe High Court judges and ensure a favorable judgement. The promised judgment never happened, in fact the senior advocate failed to appear in his case, alleged the complainant. When the money was demanded back, the advocate allegedly failed to return the money, resorting to caste-based insults and threats when confronted. The advocate is alleged to have threatened the complainant of his life with the help of one Ahmed Bin Abdulla Balala, who was an MLA, the complaint disclosed.
V. Pattabhi, senior counsel for the petitioner contended that the allegations were false. He argued that the complaint was ambiguous, lacking particular dates for the purported payment, and that there was no proof to back up the assertions. The counsel further pointed that the case was civil in nature and concerned from an alleged incident occurred in 2005, and there was a significant delay of 19 years in filing the said complaint. Nimma Narayana the counsel for the defacto complainant submitted that alleged offences were cognizable in nature. The counsel highlighted that the genuineness of the allegations in the FIR could only be determined after the completion of the investigation, by relying on plethora of Supreme court judgements. The court expressed impression that certain allegations seems to be exaggerated and raised questions on the bonafides of the complaint as the complainant also agreed to proceed with an illegal agreement. The court considering the advocate’s reputation and the absence of any indication that his custodial interrogation was necessary, exercised the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC and granted protection from arrest till the filing of the chargesheet. However, a condition was imposed on the petitioner to fully cooperate with the ongoing investigation.
Justice B Vijaysen Reddy of Telangana High court granted interim nail to Shaik Afzal Hassan, Junior Assistant at office of Asst Director Survey and Land Records Khammam. The Judge was dealing with a writ plea filed challenging the action of station house officer Khammam in filing multiple FIRs on the same cause of action. The allegations were that the petitioner was involved in the falsification and fabrication of Family Members Certificate and Death Certificate of Late Mr Syed Bajee S. A complaint was registered on the petitioner at Khammam for the said offences. Earlier Afzal was granted anticipatory bail in two FIRs registered against him with sureties. The petitioner counsel said that while Afzal was complying the conditions of Anticipatory Bail, with a pre-meditated plan police registered another FIR on same day and arrested Afzal. After considering the rival contentions of both parties, the judge observed that even though the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail he was deprived of the same. Emphasizing on fundamental rights, the petitioner was granted interim bail subject to the condition of executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000 with two sureties each. The Judge further held that, interim bail shall be subject to the result of the police custody petition pending before magistrate Court.
