Cash-for-vote case: Revanth Reddy tells SC ACB trap was 'illegal,' his prosecution 'unsustainable'

A two-judge bench of the apex court, comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi, was hearing the case in which Reddy is an accused.
Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy
Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy(File Photo)
Updated on
2 min read

NEW DELHI: Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy on Wednesday told the Supreme Court that the trap laid by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) in the 2015 cash-for-vote case was “completely illegal,” as it was conducted without the registration of an FIR, and that his prosecution is legally unsustainable.

A two-judge bench of the apex court, comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi, was hearing the case in which Reddy is an accused.

According to the prosecution, the case involves allegations that Reddy, then a member of the Telugu Desam Party (TDP), attempted to bribe nominated MLA Elvis Stephenson to secure his vote during the Legislative Council elections. Reddy was arrested on May 31, 2015, after allegedly being caught red-handed by the Telangana ACB.

Appearing for Reddy, senior advocate and former Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi argued that his client's prosecution as an alleged bribe-giver was not legally tenable.

The hearing remained inconclusive on Wednesday and will continue on Thursday, October 16, before the same bench.

Rohatgi contended that no investigation can be initiated under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) without the registration of a First Information Report (FIR).

“A trap was set up before an FIR was registered. The trap is completely illegal because no investigation can commence before an FIR is registered under the CrPC. There was no general diary entry and no FIR,” he told the bench.

He further highlighted that Reddy was being prosecuted under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as it stood in 2015.

“Section 12 at the time dealt with abetment of offences under Sections 7 and 11, which applied only to bribe takers, not bribe givers,” Rohatgi pointed out.

Clarifying further, he said that prior to the 2018 amendment to the Prevention of Corruption Act, bribe givers were not covered under Sections 7 and 11, and hence could not be prosecuted under Section 12.

“The provision to prosecute bribe givers was only introduced after the 2018 amendment,” he submitted.

Reddy continues to maintain his innocence in the case.

Related Stories

No stories found.

X
Google Preferred source
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com