Retired IPS officer A.B. Venkateswara Rao has served legal notices on a group of senior serving and retired police and government officials, as well as the State of Andhra Pradesh, seeking ₹1 crore in damages over what he described as malicious prosecution, unlawful suspension, fabrication of official records and violation of his fundamental rights in connection with a procurement case involving security and surveillance equipment.
Claim for Damages Targets Senior Officials
The notices were issued under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Those named include former Directors General of Police D. Gautam Sawang and R.P. Thakur, IPS officers Ravi Shankar Ayyanar, P.V. Sunil Kumar, P.S.R. Anjaneyullu and K. Raghurami Reddy, retired additional SP R. Vijay Paul, retired chief accounts officer in the DGP office C. Govinda Rajan, ACB additional SP S. Sai Krishna, former CPRO to Chief Minister Pudi Srihari, and the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Chief Secretary.
FCRF Academy Launches Premier Anti-Money Laundering Certification Program
The notices seek compensation of ₹1 crore for what Rao described as malicious prosecution, unlawful suspension, fabrication of official records, defamation, and infringement of rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Procurement Case at Centre of Dispute
Rao claimed he had been falsely implicated and victimised in a case relating to the procurement of security and surveillance equipment, specifically an aerostat and unmanned aerial vehicles. The equipment, he said, had been routed through the State Trading Corporation of India for deployment in areas affected by extremist movements and for allied security operations.
Rao further alleged that the conspiracy against him had been set in motion as early as 2018, when he was serving as Additional DGP Intelligence and handling responsibilities that included the adoption of contemporary surveillance technologies for monitoring extremist activity, national security, counter-terrorism, crime prevention and maintenance of public order.
High Court Order Cited in Support
Rao said the High Court, by quashing the FIR registered by the ACB and the charge sheet in its entirety, had established what he called the malicious, unfounded and vindictive character of the prosecution launched against him.
He has also claimed that the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay damages with 12 per cent interest from February 8, 2020, which he identified as the date of the first cause of action.
About the author – Rehan Khan is a law student and legal journalist with a keen interest in cybercrime, digital fraud, and emerging technology laws. He writes on the intersection of law, cybersecurity, and online safety, focusing on developments that impact individuals and institutions in India.
