Complex case delayed verdict, Ramalinga Raju convicted after six long years of trial
Hyderabad: After six long years of trial, Ramalinga Raju, has been convicted. But the case took many twists and turns, as it had been a long trial with three chargesheets and voluminous documents. Several witnesses and documents had to be examined including digital evidence.
After the first FIR in January, 2009, there was a political storm where late CM Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy and the present AP CM N. Chandrababu Naidu traded charges against each other over the political affiliations of Raju.
The fraud had New York links too making the investigation a big task. A multi disciplinary team was formed by the CBI.
The CBI said, “The team had worked overtime and completed the investigation involving large documents and evidence in record time. After thorough investigation, CBI filed its first charge sheet in April 2009 in 45 days; supplementary charge sheet was filed in September 2009 and another in January 2010. The investigation was completed in 10 months.” After the third chargesheet, it took ten months to set up the special trial court.
Philanthropic Raju sought leniency
Satyam Computers former chairman Ramalinga Raju’s plea for lenience on the quantum of punishment for his “philanthropic activities” was rejected by the CBI Special Court on Thursday.
In a statement to the court, Raju and his brother B. Rama Raju said that they had founded 104, 108 ambulance of EMRI and did service for the country through Byrraju Foundation and benefited lakhs of people, thus asked the court to take a lenient view on punishment.
Raju also claimed he is ill and has to take care of his children and parents and spoke about psychological trauma during his 33 months imprisonment.
However, the court convicted him for seven years, citing that it was a grave offence affecting the reputation of the corporate system and the economy.
Other accused also pray-ed for lenient view stating that they are either old or sick and or have dependant families. The CBI Special Judge B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi said, “It is not a fit case either for invoking provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act or taking a lenient view on quantum of sentence,”
CBI counsel K. Surender said, “Raju said he had been helping the society. So the court should take the lenient way. However, it was not considered”.
