Telangana High Court Reserves Orders On Y. Srilakshmi’s Plea To Quash CBI Case
The CBI submitted that Pratap Reddy had invested approximately Rs 68 crore in companies linked to Jagan Mohan Reddy as a quid pro quo for these favours
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Thursday reserved the orders in a petition filed by former industries department secretary Y. Srilakshmi seeking quashing of the CBI case registered against her in the alleged quid pro quo dealings involving investments made in companies owned by Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy.
During the hearing, the CBI informed the court that it had gathered substantial evidence to proceed against Srilakshmi, contending that she had misused her official position in extending undue benefits to Penna Cements, owned by Pratap Reddy, a close associate of late Chief Minister Y.S. Rajasekhar Reddy. It pointed to alleged irregularities in the allotment of 231 acres in Yadiki of Anantapur district, a prospecting lease over 304.7 hectares in Kaulapalli of Kurnool district, renewal of leases in 82,213 acres in Tandur of Rangareddy district, and concessions granted for construction of Pioneer Hotels in Hyderabad.
The CBI submitted that Pratap Reddy had invested approximately Rs 68 crore in companies linked to Jagan Mohan Reddy as a quid pro quo for these favours. Opposing the quash petition, CBI special counsel Srinivas Kapatia argued that Srilakshmi had earlier challenged the cognisance orders of the CBI court but had subsequently withdrawn her petition after arguments were completed and the court had reserved orders. Therefore, he contended, the same issue could not be reopened through a second petition.
Senior advocate K. Vivek Reddy, representing Srilakshmi, submitted that the withdrawal of the earlier petition was placed on record before the judge concerned and argued that prosecution sanction had been granted only under the Prevention of Corruption Act, not under the IPC provisions invoked in the case. He contended that valid sanction was required under both statutes and relied on Supreme Court precedents.
After hearing both sides, Justice Jukanti Anilkumar adjourned the matter to December 11 for pronouncement of orders.