Hyderabad: The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), On Tuesday, started its counter arguments before the Telangana High Court, to the contentions of the Nimmagadda Prasad and Vanpic Projects in related to the chargesheet filed by it in relation to YS Jaganmohan Reddy`s quid pro quo cases.
K. Surendar, Counsel for CBI, submitted to the single Bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, which is hearing the quash petitions filed by accused in the cases filed by CBI.
Surendar for CBI argued that Nimmagadda Prasad was trying to get out from the case registered against him in a related conspiracy, involved in getting agreement from the then government to develop the Sea ports and Vanpic Industrial Corridor.
“Prasad is arguing that as an individual, he could not influence the Council of Ministers and late Chief Minister Y.S. Rajashekhara Reddy to get extended benefits to him. But, facts are that the Vanpic project was estimated to cost Rs 70,000 crore and now his company has acquired Rs 12,000 acres of land after paying around Rs 480 crores to farmers. He also invested Rs 350 crore into companies owned by Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy. The CBI feels that Rs 350 crore is a bribe paid to Andhra Pradesh Chief Minsiter Jagan Mohan Reddy,” CBI Counsel Surender submitted to the Court.
In a bid to counter Prasad`s contentions that CBI had no documentary evidence and only relied on circumstantial evidence in making a case for a criminal conspiracy between late Y.S. Rajashekara Reddy, Y. S. Jagan Mohan Reddy and himself (Nimmagadda Prasad) in getting favors in concessional agreements, the Counsel for CBI submits that in most criminal conspiracies, there is seldom any direct evidence and courts must, on circumstantial evidences alone, conclude that an offence was committed.
Earlier, the Nimmagadda Prasad`s counsel T. Niranjan Reddy argued that the CBI had no documentary evidence to show that the criminal conspiracy planned between Y.S. Rajashekara Reddy and Jagan Mohan Reddy to extend benefits to companies which invested in latter`s companies. If any favor to his son by the then Chief Minister, it amounts to bias, at most, and does not amount to a criminal act.
