Hyderabad: Justice K. Surender of the Telangana High Court acquitted two external evaluators accused of demanding bribes from a final-year MBBS student at Osmania Medical College, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the essential element of “demand” under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The judge was dealing with criminal appeals filed by Dr Gurushantappa S. Bandi and Dr K. Anand Rao, challenging their conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. The trial court earlier convicted the appellants under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for one-and-a-half years each. The allegations arose from an Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) trap operation based on a complaint lodged by a student, who alleged that the professors demanded Rs.5,000 and Rs.6,000 respectively in exchange for awarding passing marks in the practical examinations. The High Court found serious flaws in the prosecution’s case. It was an admitted fact that the practical examinations were completed on May 11, 2002, and the marks were finalised the same day. The court observed that once the evaluation was completed and marks submitted to the chief examiner, the accused had no power to alter or influence the results, thereby eliminating the possibility of “official favour” pending at the time of the alleged demand. The High Court also noted that the chief examiner, a crucial witness who could have confirmed or denied the allegation of marks manipulation, was not examined by the prosecution. The marksheet of the complainant was not produced. Furthermore, the evidence of the sole prosecution witness lacked corroboration and none of the other students who took the exam were examined, and there was no explanation as to why only the complainant would be targeted for such a bribe demand, the High Court observed. In the case of the first accused, although cash was recovered from under a bedsheet, there was no positive sodium carbonate test on his hands. In the second accused’s case, while the tainted money was found in a hanging pant pocket, the court accepted the defence argument that the cash could have been planted. Justice Surender relied on the various rulings of the apex court and reiterated that mere recovery of cash without independent proof of demand and acceptance was insufficient to sustain a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Accordingly, the judge allowed the appeals, set aside the trial court’s judgment, acquitted both professors and ordered their release.HC seeks state’s stand on notional seniorityA two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court comprising Justice Sam Koshy and Justice N. Narsing Rao directed the state to respond whether previously granted relief regarding notional seniority applied to another batch of postgraduate teachers (PGTs). The panel was dealing with a writ plea filed by J. Ramakrishna and 100 other PGTs working in schools across the state. The petitioners challenged the action of the state in denying them notional seniority with effect from June 14, 2013, on par with the first phase candidates appointed pursuant to notification issued in February, 2012. The petitioners argued that the denial unjustly deprived them of benefits under the Revised Pay Scales of 2015 and 2020. They contended that such action was arbitrary and illegal. Further, the petitioners relied on recent judgment passed by the High Court, and a Supreme Court ruling, where a similar set of teachers was granted notional seniority from June 14, 2013, along with all consequential monetary benefits. The court, after hearing initial submissions, sought clarification from the government and posted the case for further hearing.HCA’s five-year domicile rule struck downJustice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court struck down the Hyderabad Cricket Association’s (HCA) controversial five-year domicile rule for state team selection, calling it illegal, arbitrary, and beyond the authority of the office bearers who issued it. The court directed the HCA to consider the eligibility of a 22-year-old cricketer without imposing the impugned domicile condition. The judge disposed of a writ plea filed by Rishiket Sisodia, who moved from Uttar Pradesh to Hyderabad in 2017 and since then he played consistently in local leagues and represented Hyderabad in national tournaments. Despite his exceptional performance, including over 1,800 runs in a single HCA season, and notable showings in national-level U-19 and U-23 teams, he was suddenly deemed ineligible under a new rule issued on November 7, 2023, requiring non-native players to prove five years of continuous domicile in Telangana. The HCA attempted to justify the rule by claiming it was following the directives of supervisory and single-member committees formed for cricketing oversight. The court reviewed internal emails and held that the supervisory committee did not issue any binding direction regarding the domicile criteria. Instead, it merely advised the HCA to follow established procedures. Counsel for the petitioner highlighted that, despite being directed in an interim order on October 4, 2024, to consider the petitioner’s selection without the domicile condition, the association allowed the player to train, only to later remove him without explanation. This, the judge said, demonstrated “high-handedness” and a lack of transparency on the part of the association and its CEO. The judge criticised the HCA for “putting the petitioner in a state of uncertainty” and noted that such treatment of players was against the spirit of fair competition and cricketing integrity.2 cops challenge denial of seniorityJustice Namavarapu Rajeswar Rao of Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea challenging the denial of seniority to two sub-inspectors of police, based on their prior service as reserve sub-inspectors (civil). The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by Ballagani Satheesh and Dulam Pavan Kumar, sub-inspectors of police at Manipeda (Mahbubabad district) and Palakurthy (Jangaon district) respectively. The petitioners sought a direction against the authorities to count their earlier service rendered in the cadre of reserve sub-inspector (civil) for the purpose of seniority in the sub-inspector (civil) cadre. The petitioners contended that although they were later absorbed as sub-inspectors (civil), the service rendered by them as RSIs has been excluded for seniority and promotional considerations, which they claimed is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of the Constitution. The judge directed the government pleader to get instructions from respondent authorities.
Source link
