Loopholes In Revanth Reddy’s Case

The video footage with clear audio of Revanth’s conversation with Stephenson and the subsequent ‘leak’ of TDP leader and AP CM Chandrababu Naidu’s alleged telephonic conversation with Stephenson regarding the deal have been proving to be strong evidences against Revanth and the TDP honcho in the case. However, certain arguments by Revanth’s lawyers have cast a bright light on the loopholes in Revanth’s case.

Here are some of the valid arguments raised by Revanth’s lawyers:

–       Why did not the ACB register an FIR on Revanth on the same day when Stephenson filed a complaint on 28th May itself? Why did they wait until they caught Revanth and filed the FIR on 31st May?

–       ACB stated that the money was transferred to Stephenson’s house in 3 vehicles but no cash was found in Revanth’s vehicle.

–       ACB said that it recorded the audio tapes on 29th, 30th and 31st of May. How can the ACB record audio without an FIR?

–       Stephenson mentioned in his FIR that Revanth did not approach him In this case, how is Revanth related to this entire fiasco?

–       PC Act 12 is not applicable to this case. It will only be applicable when the crime is proven under the PC Acts 7 and 11.

–       As per the acts 7 and 11, public representatives are punishable only if they misuse their power. But Revanth Reddy is not in power. How can they file a case under the PC acts 7 and 11?

–       The ACB accused Revanth of asking for vote in the audio and the video tapes. Asking for vote is not a punishable offence.

–       As per the people’s representation act, Revanth’s case should be dealt by the police and not by the ACB and the case must be filed in a police station.

While these were the arguments by Revanth’s lawyers, here are some more insights that show certain loopholes in this case:

–       The ACB did not take prior permission from the Election Commission before spying and subsequently filing the case on him, since an election code was in vogue at the moment in the view of MLC polls.

–       The Election Commission has the right to try ACB for violating the election code by spying and also booking Revanth under several charges.

–       In April 2014, the then Supreme Court Special Bench ruled out the footages from the audio and video recordings during sting operations.

–       Law experts feel that the court may not consider the video and audio evidences or Stephenson’s evidence submitted by the ACB.

–       The DGP of ACB, AK Khan, stated that the footage was not leaked by the ACB. This shows the lapse in the ACB’s handling of the case and gives a hint that outside powers have influenced the ACB for political routing of the case.