Hyderabad: The Hyderabad High Court on Wednesday granted relief to beleaguered IAS officer Ratna Prabha by quashing the charges framed against her by the Central Bureau of Investigation in YSR Congress president Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy’s illegal investments case.
The CBI had charged Ms Ratna Prabha of allegedly extending undue favours to Indu Tech Pvt Ltd while allotting land in the capacity of secretary to the Information Technology and Communication department. The Bureau had charged her under Sections 120 (B) (criminal conspiracy), 409 (criminal breach of trust) and 420 (cheating) of the IPC.
The special CBI Court had taken cognizance of the chargesheet and had shown Ms Ratna Prabha as accused No. 9 in the illegal investments case, passing an order to that effect on October 10, 2013.
Following this, Ms Ratna Prabha had moved the High Court, seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against her, contending that she had discharged her duties after duly following the instructions of the government under Article 311 of the Constitution and also the Business Rules and the Secretariat Instructions.
Allowing the plea, Justice V. Suri Appa Rao ruled that the allegations against the petitioner were baseless and that there was no prima facie case made against her.
The judge found that the AP Industrial Infrastructure Corporation had forwarded the applications for the process only after it had been satisfied with the norms. He noted that three IT companies, including Indu Tech Zone Pvt Ltd, had submitted their applications to set up IT companies and the CBI too, in its affidavit, had admitted that the APIIC was the nodal agency for allotment of land and fixation land value.
The judge pointed out that the signatures of the chief secretary were very much available on the note file and in fact the petitioner had forwarded the note file before the Cabinet after incorporating the notes of the Finance department.
The judge said that the petitioner could not be found at fault as it was the duty of the government either to approve or disapprove of a decision placed before it in due process.
After perusing the records and material placed before him, the judge held that no ingredients had been made out under Sections 120 (B), 409 and 420 of the IPC against the petitioner, therefore there was no reason as to why the petitioner must be made to undergo mental agony of a criminal trial.
