HC permits KTR to appear before ACB along with advocate today

Hyderabad: K Tarakarama Rao, former Municipal Administration Minister and Sircilla MLA, got a sigh of relief in the Telangana High Court on Wednesday when the single bench of Justice Kunuru Lakshman, while hearing his lunch motion writ, allowed an advocate to accompany him to the ACB office on January 9 to appear before the investigating officer in the Formula E Race case. Senior counsel J Ramchander Rao accompany KTR.

While giving this relief to KTR, the judge turned down the request of senior counsel J Prabhakar, appearing for KTR, that there should be recording of audio and video of the entire investigation. Rao had moved the petition challenging the decision of ACB investigating officer, refusing his plea for taking an advocate to the bureau office.

KTR was issued a notice on January 6 by the Deputy, Superintendent of Police, ACB directing him to appear before him on Thursday in the office located in Road No.12, Banjara Hills, MLA Colony, to investigate the Rs.50 crores paid to a private company, without following due procedure of law.

During the hearing, the judge made it amply clear that an advocate cannot accompany KTR during the investigation and observed “there is no question of permitting a lawyer to accompany KTR during investigation” but cited the judgment delivered by him in a similar case--the murder case of former minister Y S Vivekananda Reddy, wherein Avinash Reddy, MP (YSRCP), who is an accused, was permitted to appear before the CBI along with an advocate. The investigation was held at a place where the accused was visible to the advocate, who accompanied him, but he will not be at a place from where sound emanating from the office will not be audible to advocate. The judge had also permitted audio and video recording of the investigation as the petitioner/accused suspected that the IO (an IPS officer from CBI) of changing the statements.

The judge, while adjourning the writ to after Sankranti vacation, directed the ACB IO to ensure that the visibility of the petitioner /accused to the advocate and the advocate. He gave liberty to the petitioner to approach the HC, if at all there is any deviation in the implementation of his order.