VIJAYAWADA: The Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing the sensational multi-crore liquor scam during YSRCP regime have named Vasudeva Reddy as the second accused (A2) and arrested him on Saturday.
He was produced before the ACB Court in Vijayawada, which remanded him to judicial custody until February 27. Subsequently, he was shifted to Guntur district jail.
According to the remand report submitted, the SIT officials informed the court that the accused Vasudeva Reddy had played a key role in the liquor scam.
The investigation, supported by technical evidence, forensic science laboratory (FSL) reports and witness statements, concluded that he was central to the alleged irregularities. Officials further stated that the entire process of liquor sales, purchases, orders and supply was carried out under his supervision.
The report also highlighted that although the Andhra Pradesh State Beverages Corporation Limited (APSBCL) functioned through an online system, it was converted into a manual system without proper authorisation, with Vasudeva Reddy playing a crucial role. He is accused of operating the APSBCL system manually and leading a syndicate involving officials and staff. The SIT further claimed that settlements were made through prime accused Kasireddy Rajasekhar Reddy and his associates, Sumit and Prakash.
Investigators alleged that Vasudeva Reddy and other syndicate members controlled the Order For Supply (OFS) system, manipulated liquor orders, transported kit bags, altered brands and monitored sales. He allegedly threatened liquor companies, collected money in the form of commissions and diverted up to Rs 60 crore per month, causing a loss of Rs 192 crore to the State exchequer.
Appearing for the accused, the defence lawyer argued that Vasudeva Reddy had fully cooperated with the Special Investigation Team (SIT) throughout the probe. He informed the court that Reddy had turned an approver in the case.
The counsel further contended that there was no urgency to arrest his client, especially when he had been extending cooperation to the prosecution agency. He also pointed out that Reddy’s anticipatory bail petition is pending before the High Court and that orders are awaited.
In such circumstances, the arrest was carried out in haste solely to secure judicial custody, the lawyer argued.
The defence further submitted that Muppidi Avinash, who was allegedly described as the ‘architect’ of the case, had not been arrested by the SIT. It was also claimed that the Supreme Court had earlier expressed displeasure over the manner in which the SIT was handling the matter.