HC dismisses quash petition filed by retd official in Jagan’s case
This is why the decision to give a mining licence to Raghu Ram Cements Limited (RCL), now known as Bharathi Cements Limited, was permitted to become legally binding.
Published: 29th November 2022 05:43 AM | Last Updated: 29th November 2022 05:43 AM | A+A A-
HYDERABAD: Telangana High Court Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan on Monday dismissed the quash petition filed by B Kripanandam, a former secretary of Andhra Pradesh’s Industries and Commerce Department and accused No. 7 in the illegal assets case involving AP Chief Minister YS Jagan Mohan Reddy (quid pro quo), noting that there was no basis for doing so under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
He said that one can at least infer from the papers that are on file that they could be sufficient to support a trial. Of course, the court would not consider the probative value of the information on file in a procedure under Section 482 of CrPC and would not speculate on the likely result of the trial. A complaint or charge-sheet cannot be quashed on the basis of the accused’s defence. At this point, the only thing the court can say is that it is not a case where the prosecution should be stopped in its tracks.
Kripanandam filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC, asking for the proceedings in CC No.25 of 2013 to be quashed regarding the petitioner who was listed as Accused No.7 by the CBI in the charge sheet. The petition is currently on the file of the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Nampally, Hyderabad.
Chowdary, senior counsel for the petitioner, asserted that the petitioner’s conduct was entirely compliant with the Mineral Concession Rules of 1960 and the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act of 1957. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Limited (GACL) lost its eligibility to apply for a prospecting licence after the maximum five-year duration of its prospecting licence had passed. This is why the decision to give a mining licence to Raghu Ram Cements Limited (RCL), now known as Bharathi Cements Limited, was permitted to become legally binding.
The petitioner, who was the legally authorised party, issued the aforementioned order after carefully weighing all pertinent factors and receiving the departmental Minister’s consent. As a result, the petitioner cannot be accused of exploiting his official position to favour RCL by giving a mining licence, which is the precise ground on which CBI is accusing him, he argued.
On the other hand, the Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI has specifically referred to the portions of the charge sheet that discuss the petitioner’s status as an accused party and contends that a case has been established against the petitioner for committing an offence in violation of Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. It would be clear from that procedure that the petitioner had committed an offence under Sections 120B and 420 of the IPC, of which the CBI Court has taken cognisance. He requested that the criminal petition be dismissed on the grounds that it is without validity. After hearing arguments from both parties, the court rejected Kripanandam’s argument.
IT’S NOT A CASE TO STOP PROSECUTION IN ITS TRACKS: HC
Telangana High Court Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed a complaint or charge-sheet cannot be quashed on the basis of the accused’s defence. The court would not speculate on the likely result of the trial. At this point, the only thing the court can say is that it is not a case where the prosecution should be stopped in its tracks