VIJAYAWADA: TDP president Nara Chandrababu Naidu moved the Andhra Pradesh high court on Tuesday seeking directions to quash the FIR registered against him in the case pertaining to the alleged skill development scam and the consequential judicial custody order of the special ACB court, reports Srikant Aluri. Naidu is currently in Rajahmundry central jail after being arrested and produced before a magistrate on September 10. A lunch motion petition was moved before Justice K Srinivas Reddy for urgent hearing. The matter will be taken up on Wednesday.
Naidu contended in this plea that the case was registered against him with mala fide intention and political considerations. Though the case was registered in 2021, his name came into the picture only in 2022, after the statement of a co-accused, he said in his plea, adding that the mala fides are clear from a bare reading of the complaint and the remand report submitted by the crime investigation department (CID). He stated that all averments in the remand report were vague and not backed by any proof, and all allegations were politically motivated.
Saying he is being made a scapegoat, Naidu said no specific allegation or prima facie case has been made in the complaint against him. If the proceedings are permitted to continue, it will amount to abuse of the process of law, he said. Challenging each section included in the case, Naidu said no ingredient present in the complaint or the remand report attracts any of the sections under which charges were brought against him.
The trial court failed to consider that there is a jurisdictional bar created on investigation and the period of offence is of no consequence in the issue for initiation of investigation, Naidu submitted, adding that sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) cannot be invoked in the present case. He also challenged the trial court’s judicial remand order, stating it failed to study the fact that the CID failed to obtain prior approval from the governor in accordance with Section 17A of the PC Act. Without prior approval, the registration of the FIR was illegal and the subsequent remand order was bad in law, he said.
Naidu also challenged the jurisdiction of the trial court, arguing that the competent court would be special court for MPs and MLAs as he is a sitting legislator. Relying on earlier judgments in the same case, he said the HC had observed the accusations were sweeping in nature and no cogent material existed.
Naidu contended in this plea that the case was registered against him with mala fide intention and political considerations. Though the case was registered in 2021, his name came into the picture only in 2022, after the statement of a co-accused, he said in his plea, adding that the mala fides are clear from a bare reading of the complaint and the remand report submitted by the crime investigation department (CID). He stated that all averments in the remand report were vague and not backed by any proof, and all allegations were politically motivated.
Saying he is being made a scapegoat, Naidu said no specific allegation or prima facie case has been made in the complaint against him. If the proceedings are permitted to continue, it will amount to abuse of the process of law, he said. Challenging each section included in the case, Naidu said no ingredient present in the complaint or the remand report attracts any of the sections under which charges were brought against him.
The trial court failed to consider that there is a jurisdictional bar created on investigation and the period of offence is of no consequence in the issue for initiation of investigation, Naidu submitted, adding that sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) cannot be invoked in the present case. He also challenged the trial court’s judicial remand order, stating it failed to study the fact that the CID failed to obtain prior approval from the governor in accordance with Section 17A of the PC Act. Without prior approval, the registration of the FIR was illegal and the subsequent remand order was bad in law, he said.
Naidu also challenged the jurisdiction of the trial court, arguing that the competent court would be special court for MPs and MLAs as he is a sitting legislator. Relying on earlier judgments in the same case, he said the HC had observed the accusations were sweeping in nature and no cogent material existed.