Orders on Dharmana reserved

By S A Ishaqui

Hyderabad, April 26: The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Thursday reserved its order to Monday on a plea by roads and buildings minister Dharmana Prasad Rao challenging an order passed by the special CBI court taking cognisance of a chargesheet filed against him for the offences allegedly committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The special court on January 21, passed the order considering the plea of the CBI that there was no need for prior permission of the state government to prosecute the accused minister. The CBI filed the chargesheet against the minister in illegal investments case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy for allotting the lands to the Vanpic project in the capacity of revenue minister. 

Opposing the plea of the minister, senior counsel Ashok Bhan appearing for the CBI argued that the CBI court held that the office held by the minister at the time of offence was different from the office he held at the time of taking cognisance of the offence, and hence there was no need for sanction of prosecution by the government against the accused minister. He alleged that the minister had abused the power in Vanpic case.

Mr B. Kumar, senior counsel from Chennai arguing the case for the minister contended that Section 362 of CrPC bars any criminal court from reviewing or modifying an order passed by it earlier. He said that the trial court had first concluded that sanction was a necessary precursor to taking of cognisance of offences under the PC Act, but the same court modified the order unilaterally without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard.

After hearing the arguments, Justice B Seshasayana Reddy said that the order will be pronounced on Monday.

‘Prohibition must in Tirupati’

A Division Bench comprising acting Chief Justice N.V. Ramana and Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar of the AP High Court on Thursday asked counsel for the government to clarify the stand of the government on why prohibition was not being imposed in Tirupati by Monday.

The Bench was dealing with the PIL by Bhumana Abhinay Reddy, a social worker and son of Tirupati MLA B. Karunakar Reddy stating that the sanctity of Tirumala and Tirupati was violated due to ever increasing number of wine shops and bars, including belt shops, in the pilgrim centre.

The Bench enquired with government counsel N. Sreedhar Reddy as to what was the policy of the government with regard to allowing liquor sales in Tirupati. Meanwhile, several owners of bars and restaurants and many individuals moved the HC to implead them as the parties to the petition. They opposed the PIL seeking prohibition.