The court found that prima facie a case has been made against KTR and an investigation is needed to find if the petitioner dishonestly misappropriated HMDA funds.
Published Jan 07, 2025 | 5:57 PM ⚊ Updated Jan 07, 2025 | 9:02 PM
The Telangana High Court. (Wikimedia Commons)
The High Court of Telangana has held that a prima facie case has been made against former minister KT Rama Rao regarding allegations surrounding the conduct of the Formula E race in Hyderabad.
Dismissing the petition filed by KTR, also the working president of BRS, to quash the FIR filed by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) against him, the high court also made it clear that it would not be proper on its part to thwart the investigation into the allegations at this stage.
Later, KTR filed a petition in the Supreme Court, challenging the high court’s order dismissing his plea. The Telangana government had filed a caveat in the Supreme Court requesting it to hear the state before the apex court took a decision on KTR’s petition.
The allegations against KTR pertain to dishonest abuse of powers, acting contrary to the applicable procedures and business rules, misappropriating Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA’s) money, and causing loss to the state exchequer and gain to third parties. The alleged offences against the petitioner came under Section 409 of the IPC and Sections 13(1)(a) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The ACB’s case is that an amount of over ₹54 crore (in foreign currency) has been paid to Formula E Operations Ltd (FEO) by HMDA at the instance of KTR without necessary approvals and that too when the election code of conduct was in place in 2023.
Delivering a lengthy order, Justice K Lakshman of the high court pointed out that the power to quash an FIR under Section 528 of the BNSS is limited and should be exercised rarely and only in cases where continuation of the investigation would result in the abuse of process or miscarriage of justice. It is equally well settled that the investigating powers of the state cannot be usurped by the court to scuttle the investigation.
Further, the court cannot go into the correctness of the allegations and conduct a mini-trial while exercising its inherent power under Section 528 of BNSS, the judge held.
KTR’s counsel mainly argued that Section 409 of the IPC was not made out against him. Section 409 deals with criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by
banker, merchant, or agent. (Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over the property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine).
Senior counsel Siddharth Dave, who appeared for the former minister, contended that the essential ingredients of criminal breach of trust are entrustment of property or entrustment of dominion of property, dishonest intention, and misappropriation of the said property. He argued that ministers dealing with state
largesse / public funds do not act as ‘trustees’ and there is no ‘entrustment’ of public money in elected legislators.
Therefore, according to him, a minister, like the present petitioner (KTR), cannot be charged with criminal breach of trust.
The judge, however, pointed out that the main allegation pertained to the abuse of authority by the former minister to misappropriate HMDA’s money. HMDA is a body corporate that can own property, enter into contracts, sue, and be sued. The allegations in the FIR clearly state that it was HMDA’s money that was misused. It is not in dispute that HMDA is under the control of the MA & UD Department.
The petitioner, being the minister of the MA & UD Department, has control over the HMDA and approved the note before signing the agreement. Also, in the present case, it is not a general member of the public who has filed a complaint alleging criminal breach of trust against the petitioner and other accused. The complainant is a responsible officer of the government who alleges that HMDA’s money was misappropriated by the petitioner in conspiracy with the other accused.
Justice Lakshman said the court cannot accept the contention that there was no ‘entrustment’.
“From the facts, it is prima facie clear that HMDA’s funds were under the control of the petitioner. Whether the petitioner dishonestly misappropriated the same or not is a factual aspect to be investigated. The allegations indicated that the petitioner, without any approval from the state Cabinet or the finance department, directed the HMDA to pay huge sums of money to a foreign company. Whether the petitioner directed the said payments with a dishonest intention to cause gain to himself or third parties is required to be investigated. The allegations make out a prima facie case of wrongdoing and misappropriation of funds of the HMDA. The same is enough to warrant an investigation.”
The high court reasoned that in the present case, the complaint was lodged on 18.12.2024 and the FIR was registered on 19.12.2024 by the ACB. The next day, KTR filed the quash petition. The investigating agency should have a reasonable opportunity to investigate and collect evidence. Therefore, this court cannot act hastily and thwart the investigation.
(Edited by Majnu Babu).
