Rohatgi stated, “No investigation can commence under the Code of Criminal Procedure without registration of an FIR. A trap was set up before an FIR, making it illegal. There was no general diary entry and no FIR.”
The counsel highlighted that Revanth Reddy is being prosecuted under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, applicable at the time. He explained that Section 12 pertained only to abetment of offences under Sections 7 and 11, which applied solely to bribe takers, not bribe givers. The inclusion of bribe givers came only after the 2018 amendment.
“Even if Sections 7, 11, and 12 apply, they only cover acts by public servants in official duty. Voting in a Legislative Council election is not an official act,” Rohatgi emphasized. He elaborated on the legal framework as it stood in 2015, arguing that prosecuting Reddy as a bribe giver is unsustainable.
Justice Maheshwari inquired about the retrospective application of Section 12, to which Rohatgi clarified that the 2018 amendment expanding Section 12 could not be applied to 2015 allegations. He stated, “Now it is abetment of any offence, which is logical, but that was not the position earlier.”
The hearing is set to continue tomorrow. Last month, the Supreme Court had upheld the Telangana High Court’s decision quashing the case against another accused, Jerusalem Mathai.
The case revolves around allegations that Reddy attempted to bribe then-nominated MLA Elvis Stephenson to secure a vote for the Telugu Desam Party (TDP), of which Reddy was a member at that time.
