Will appoint special prosecutor to conduct trial in 2015 cash-for-vote scam case against Revanth Reddy: SC

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday said it would appoint a special prosecutor to conduct trial in the 2015 cash-for-vote scam case in which Telangana Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy is an accused, while declining to shift the matter outside the state.

A bench of Justices B R Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra, and K V Vishwanathan said the court would consult their colleagues who are judges in Telangana to name the special prosecutor.

Senior advocate C Aryama Sundaram, appearing for Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) MLA Guntakandla Jagadish Reddy and three others, sought transfer of trial saying the Telangana CM has been publicly making statements on the case.

The counsel accused the CM of making a public statement of beating up the policemen. He also said the ACB, which investigated the matter, fell under the CM's control as he held the portfolio of Home Ministry as well.

Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Sidharth Luthra, appearing for the CM, opposed the plea.

They also contended the trial was stayed in the case due to the order by the apex court.

The bench felt only on the basis of apprehension, the plea for transfer of trial can't be entertained.

"If we entertain such petitions, we will be disbelieving our judicial officers. After all, we have to protect them," the bench said.

Sundaram said the Telangana CM is himself the Home Minister.

"There is a rule of natural justice that no person should be a judge in his own cause," he said.

The bench then said it will pass orders to appoint an independent public prosecutor to inspire confidence.

On May 31, 2015, Revanth Reddy, then with the Telugu Desam Party, was apprehended by the anti-corruption bureau (ACB) while allegedly paying Rs 50 lakh bribe to Elvis Stephenson, a nominated MLA, for supporting TDP nominee Vem Narendar Reddy in the legislative council elections.

Apart from Revanth Reddy, the ACB had arrested some others. All of them were later granted bail.

The plea, seeking transfer of the trial to Bhopal, has raised the issue of a free and fair trial saying that Revanth Reddy has now become the chief minister as well as home minister of Telangana.

"Because a true and fair trial is sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution, which declares that a criminal trial has to be unbiased, and without any prejudice for or against the accused, the trial has to be impartial and uninfluenced which is the fundamental requirement of a fair trial and the first and the foremost imperative of the criminal justice delivery system," the plea, filed through advocate P Mohith Rao stated.

It said if a criminal trial is not free and fair, the criminal justice system would undoubtedly be at stake, eroding the confidence of a common person in the system which would not augur well for the society at large.

"Because most of the prosecution witnesses were examined in chief and the accused no 1 being the chief (minister) and home minister for the State of Telangana can directly influence the de-facto complainant and officers pressurizing them to defer/resile from their earlier statements and further to depose false and there is every possibility that the officers/de-facto complainant will resile/defer from their earlier statements or will depose false under the threat," the plea claimed.

The plea has also sought transfer of the trial in another connected case from a court in Telangana to Bhopal.

On January 5, the apex court had deferred till February the hearing of A Revanth Reddy's separate petition challenging the high court order dismissing his plea questioning the jurisdiction of an ACB court in conducting the trial in the cash-for-vote scam case.

Revanth Reddy has challenged the June 1, 2021 order of the high court by which his plea questioning the jurisdiction of the special ACB court to conduct the trial in the case was dismissed.

In July 2015, the ACB had filed a charge sheet against Revanth Reddy and others under the Prevention of Corruption Act and section 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code.

The ACB had then claimed that it had collected clinching evidence against the accused in the form of audio/video recordings, and recovered an advance amount of Rs 50 lakh.