Even as the serious charges of Cash-for-Vote and counter charges of phone tapping being traded by the TRS and TDP governments reached Delhi, some fundamental questions were being raised by legal experts about whether the charges filed against Revanth Reddy in Cash-for-Vote case would fall under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences relating to elections.
The TDP is believed to have sought opinion of some eminent lawyers including a retired judge on the legalities of the whole case. The unanimous view of these experts is that the police did not follow the mandatory procedures under the Code of Criminal Procedure in registering an FIR or for collecting material evidence in respect of cognizable offence. “These charges will not be sustainable,” they say.
Sections 7 and 11 of the PC Act state that it will be an offence if a public servant is induced by some one to accept gratification to do an act in the exercise of his official functions.
They have argued that exercise of a right to vote or not to vote is not a public duty or official duty of the complainant MLA Stephenson. Thus these sections could not be attracted.
The above offences however will come under sections 171B and 171 C of Chapter IX A of I.P.C. and punishable but are bailable and non-cognizable, they say. The police if wanted to take action for these offences, should have obtained permission from the court under section 155 Cr.P.C for initiating action.
Legal experts apparently observed that in order to circumvent the mandatory procedure, ACB intervened and took up the offences under the PC Act to make it non-bailable and cognizable for the ‘reasons best known to them’. They also said that even if PC Act is invoked, the police did not follow the mandatory procedures under the sections 154 and 157 Cr.P.C. in registering the FIR.
First of all an FIR signed by the complainant should be registered by the police officer and only then investigation for collection of evidence should commence. Again before collection of evidence, the police officer has to report to the Magistrate by sending copy of the complaint and the FIR.
Moreover under Section 157, the police officer cannot proceed to the spot and take measures for the search and arrest of the accused unless the FIR. is registered and despatched to the Court, they said.
When the DG, ACB received the complaint from Mr. Stephenson on May 28, he forwarded the complaint to DSP ACB with direction to verify the contents and take action as per law and procedure.
But the DSP violated the above sections 154 and 157 of Crl.P.C and in the remand report he also admitted that the investigation commenced even before FIR was registered. The arrangements for video and audio recording were also made even without the FIR, sources said.
