Raghunandan quash petition before CJ bench

‘Mandatory procedures of sealing seized money not followed by police’

November 12, 2020 11:43 pm | Updated 11:43 pm IST - HYDERABAD

Justice K. Lakshman of Telangana High Court on Thursday directed the HC Registry to place BJP leader and Dubbak MLA elect M. Raghunandan Rao’s petition seeking to quash a First Information Report (FIR) report before Chief Justice bench.

Mr. Rao, who got elected in Dubbak by-election, moved the HC seeking a direction to quash the FIR issued by Siddipet One Town police over alleged BJP workers snatching away money. This money, police claim, was seized from the house of Raghunandan Rao’s relative Surabhi Anjan Rao in Siddipet during election campaign.

Police already arrested eight persons, including a woman, in the case of snatching away part of the money seized by police. The FIR stated that Mr. Raghunandan Rao proved the crowd that gathered at Mr. Anjan Rao’s house to take away the seized money.

Mr. Raghunandan Rao’s counsel Vishnu Vardhan Reddy contended that the MLA elect was falsely implicated in the case. The lawyer argued that the mandatory procedures of sealing the seized money was not followed by the police. The alleged seizure proceedings adopted by police were vague, he said.

Justice K. Lakshman, declining to hear the petition, stated that matters relating to criminal cases involving public representatives would be placed before the bench of CJ. The petitioner’s counsel argued that Mr. Rao was not elected as MLA on the day the FIR (437/2020) was issued.

“He was not an MLA but a contesting candidate then,” he said. Though Mr. Rao eventually got elected following the counting of votes two days ago, he had to complete the procedural formalities like administration of oath and issuing Gazette notification to be declared MLA officially. Till this was not conducted, he would be a civilian, the lawyer said. The judge, however, said that the date of election would be the date of election of the MLA as per section 67A of the Representation of People’s Act-1951. Mr. Rao was the member of the TS Legislative Assembly and hence the matter required to be placed before the CJ bench, the judge said.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.