AP High Court not to revoke orders

By Shariff Ameeruddin Ishaqui
Hyderabad, June 2: The special sitting of the vacation bench of the APHigh Court onMonday has taken a new twist when the bench refused the request of the advocate-general to withdraw the orders of the suspension of two sub inspectors of Kadapa andTirupati west police stations.
It may be mentioned that the High Court passed an order on May 29 to suspend both the SIs on the ground that they mislead the court in a case pertaining to theMs Gayatri and Amruth Raj, fourth year physiotherapy students, who were said to be married on April30.
The bench comprising Justice L Narasihma Reddy and Justice RameshRanagnathan got annoyed when advocate-general CV Mohan Reddy said on what basis the bench came to conclusion that it is a ploy created by the police.
Justice Ramesh Ranganathan seriously objected to the comment of the AG and said theAG is not supposed to pose such questions to the court.
When the AG said he posed the question to himself, the judge pointed out that "then how can you address'yourlordships' . I am sure that you are aware that it is basic fundamental that the counsel cannot pose questions to the court."
Justice Narasimha Reddy said "if you start putting questions and attributing motives to the bench it will become difficult to deal with the case. It's boggling us why this case is taking new turns since its beginning".
The bench observed whenever police produces the girl during the course of dealing with an habeas corpus petition the court used to close the case after the recording the statement of the girl."
But in this case we are not going to close the case since law executiveis apparently taken it as an issue of prestige. We decided to wait for the district judge's report as we ordered to conduct an enquiry on the developments when the girl lodged acomplaint to the Kadapa Lok Adalat".
The bench took a serious view when the AG submitted that the girl appeared before the judicial first class magistrate on May 30, and the magistrate recorded the statements of the girl and her husband.
The AG produced the copy of the statement of the girl.The bench asked the AG "we passed suspension orders on May 29, the girl and her husband appeared before the magistrate very next day when you came to know that and how can you obtain the copy?
The bench directed the magistrate that he submit a report to the court on the circumstances that led to the recording of their statements and asked it to a send copy of the statement of the girl's husband.
The court also questioned the AG about the suspension of the both SIs. The AG replied that the district police superintendent was not competent to suspend the officers and they sought a clarification from his office.
The bench asked him whether he had filed any application to the court in this record. He replied in negative and asked the court to record his statement.
The court observed that the law executive officer was supposed to assist the court to deliver the justice and they cannot support misdeeds committed by the police or other government servants.
The case was posted to June 13.