Revanth Reddy challenges charges in Vote-for-Note case
Hyderabad : The case registered against Revanth Reddy in the Vote-for-Note episode is not legally sustainable, his counsel Siddharth Luthra told the Supreme Court on Tuesday.
Luthra argued that under the Prevention of Corruption Act in force in 2015, offering a bribe did not constitute a separate offence and could only amount to abetment. A specific offence relating to giving a bribe was introduced only after amendments made in 2018, he said, adding that the provisions invoked against Reddy could not sustain under the law applicable at the time of the alleged incident.
Luthra questions FIR delay and ACB jurisdiction
Luthra also pointed to the delay in registering the first information report (FIR) and questioned why details of the incident were not recorded in the general diary.
Referring to the Kuldeep Nayar, Sita Soren and P V Narasimha Rao cases, he placed before the Supreme Court issues relating to the voting rights and privileges of elected representatives and the scope of anti-corruption laws.
Reddy had filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court in 2021, seeking that the Vote-for-Note case be investigated under election laws rather than the Prevention of Corruption Act. Several other applications have also been filed in connection with the matter.
A bench of Chief Justice of India Justice Suryakant and Justices Joy Mallya Bagchi and V Mohan heard the petitions on Tuesday.
Senior advocates Siddharth Luthra and Siddharth Aggarwal appeared for Reddy. Nagamuthu represented Sandra Venkata Veeraiah. Gaurav Agarwal and state standing counsel Shravan Kumar appeared for the government, while Aryama Sundaram, Dama Seshadri Naidu and P Mohit Rao represented the respondents.
Reddy says case relates to election laws
Arguing for Reddy, Luthra said the Vote-for-Note case was closely linked to political developments. He said the FIR was not registered immediately after the complaint and was filed only after Reddy was allegedly trapped.
The incident, he argued, was entirely related to election rules and the Representation of the People Act, and the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) did not have jurisdiction to investigate it. He urged the court to treat the matter as an election case.
Appearing for the respondents, Aryama Sundaram argued that they were in fact the victims and that there had been an attempt to induce their MLAs. He said video and audio recordings, forensic reports and a chargesheet were already available.
Sundaram said the material was against Reddy and urged the court to allow the investigation to continue.
Supreme Court adjourns hearing
After hearing lengthy arguments, the bench adjourned the matter till the afternoon. Luthra continued his submissions for some time later.
Advocate Mohit Rao told the bench that Sundaram could not attend the hearing because of ill health and sought another date for him to make his submissions.
The bench accepted the request and adjourned the hearing. The next hearing is likely to be held on September 30.
