Delhi Liquor Scam: Six From Telugu States Acquitted
Special Judge Jitendra Singh of the Special Court dealing with MPs/MLAs cases, at the Rouse Avenue Court Complex, New Delhi, said that Arun Pillai and Butchibabu, who were projected by the prosecution as proxies of Kavitha, as well as Prem R. Manduri, sought to be linked as a conduit of the Raghav Magunta who had turned approver, were not part of the applicant entity
Hyderabad: The special CBI court in Delhi on Friday has given a clean chit to the six persons from the Telugu states — K. Kavitha, Abhishek Boinapalli, Mootha Goutham, Butchibabu Gorantla and Sarath Chandra Reddy — in Delhi liquor scam case. They were accused as being part of the so-called ‘South Group’ in the case.
The prosecution had alleged that the ‘South Group’, headed by K. Kavitha, listed as Accused No. 17, comprised Sarath Reddy (A23), Abhishek Boinpally (A4), Arun Ramchandra Pillai (A5), Mootha Gautam (A6) and Butchibabu (A11). It was alleged that this group was favoured by grant of L-1 licence to Indospirits, in which Sameer Mahendru (A7) was a stakeholder.
Arvind Kumar Singh (A15) was alleged to be closely linked to the South Group. Amandeep Singh Dhall (A9) was projected as another beneficiary who agreed to facilitate recoupment of upfront payments to be utilised in the Goa elections for favours extended under the policy which was later withdrawn by the then AAP government in Delhi.
All 23 persons in the case were cleared.
Special Judge Jitendra Singh of the Special Court dealing with MPs/MLAs cases, at the Rouse Avenue Court Complex, New Delhi, said that Arun Pillai and Butchibabu, who were projected by the prosecution as proxies of Kavitha, as well as Prem R. Manduri, sought to be linked as a conduit of the Raghav Magunta who had turned approver, were not part of the applicant entity.
This assumed significance in view of the prosecution’s assertion that an amount of Rs 25 crore had been paid as “upfront money” pursuant to the alleged conspiracy.
In the absence of reliable material establishing an overt act, pecuniary gain, or conscious participation on her part, the attribution of liability was stated to be speculative by the court. On these grounds, Kavitha's counsel prayed that the court may hold that no prima facie case or grave suspicion arose against Kavitha and that she be discharged from the proceedings. The court discharged her due to lack of evidence.
Abhishek Boinpally
The CBI had alleged that Abhishek Boinpally had played a conspiratorial role in the formulation of the excise policy. However, the court felt that in the absence of cogent material demonstrating beneficial ownership, de facto control, or entitlement to financial accruals, no adverse inference could be drawn against him. It was finally submitted that the prosecution’s case against Abhishek rested on conjecture, internally inconsistent statements of accomplice witnesses, and an unsubstantiated money trail unsupported by recovery or independent corroboration.
Arun Ramchandra Pillai
The prosecution sought framing of charges against Hyderabad-based Pillai under Section 120-B of the IPC read with Sections 7, 7A and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court felt that the material relied upon was speculative, contradictory and uncorroborated, and did not give rise to any prima facie case. Accordingly, continuation of proceedings would amount to an unwarranted trial in the absence of foundational material, and he is entitled to discharge.
Mootha Goutham
The prosecution alleged that Gautham allegedly provided corporate infrastructure and financial channels necessary for ‘layering’ and ‘integration’ of proceeds derived from the manipulated arrangement for the wholesale liquor trade. The court found that there was no motive, no nexus with excise policy, and no material showing direction, knowledge or participation. Accordingly, even if the prosecution case was accepted at its highest, no grave suspicion arose against Goutham and he was entitled to discharge, the court said
Butchibabu Gorantla
Alleged to have assisted the ‘South Group’ in incorporating favourable clauses into the liquor policy and said to have been involved in policy draft discussions, the CBI stated that a confidential excise department tender document was recovered from Butchibabu which suggested unauthorised access to official records. The court felt that the case rested on conjecture, uncorroborated statements and procedurally defective electronic material. There was no material showing agreement, corrupt intent, unlawful gain or participation in any illegal act. No grave suspicion arose against Butchibabu, entitling him to discharge.
Sarath Chandra Reddy
The prosecution alleged that Reddy played a key role in transferring land parcels to Kavitha and making money transactions in helping the accused in the case. The court said that in the absence of foundational facts constituting offences under the IPC or the PC Act, continuation of proceedings against would amount to an unwarranted trial. Sarath Chandra Reddy is, therefore, entitled to discharge.
