OMC Mining Case: Telangana HC junks AP IAS officer Srilakshmi's criminal revision plea
CBI, which probed the scam, named Srilakshmi as accused No. 6 in the case. The investigation led to the conviction of Janardhan Reddy and his associates, including then AP mines and geology director VD Rajagopal. However, the trial court acquitted former mines minister P Sabitha Indra Reddy and then industries secretary Kripanandam.
Justice Lakshman, in his order, held that the questions relating to mining leases, captive mining, and other factual matters must be examined during trial.
He observed that the truthfulness of such contentions could not be adjudicated by the high court in a criminal revision petition, and accordingly, dismissed Srilakshmi's plea.
You Can Also Check:
Hyderabad AQI
|
Weather in Hyderabad
|
Bank Holidays in Hyderabad
|
Public Holidays in Hyderabad
In her plea, Srilakshmi contended that she merely implemented policy decisions taken by the then AP govgt, which had already favoured OMC. She assumed charge as secretary of industries and mines in May 2006, succeeding Kripanandam, and claimed she had not initiated any new action of her own.
Her counsel further argued that the term 'captive mining' was not used at the time due to a Union govt directive prohibiting it and therefore she could not be faulted on that count.
It was also submitted that section 27 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 provided her legal protection, as it prohibits prosecution for acts done in good faith under the Act.
However, the CBI argued that mining leases were granted, and GOs were issued only after her appointment.
It accused her of suppressing material facts from the Centre while obtaining permission for the lease in favour of OMC. The agency alleged she took expedited steps to eliminate rival claimants to benefit OMC. The chargesheet named her as a co-conspirator along with Janardhan Reddy, OMC managing director Srinivas Reddy, and Rajagopal.
Notably, the high court had earlier discharged Srilakshmi from the case. However, following a challenge by the CBI, the Supreme Court set aside that order, noting that the high court had not heard the agency's arguments. The apex court remanded the matter, directing the high court to hear both parties and dispose of the matter within three months.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
2 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Ludhiana: Drug peddler's illegal house demolished
Local police, in coordination with the municipal corporation, demolished an illegally constructed house belonging to a drug peddler in Kot Mangal Singh here on Wednesday. According to police, the property, owned by Ankur Singla alias Kaka, was razed around 2pm under the supervision of deputy commissioner of police (Investigation) Harpal Singh. (HT Photo) According to police, the property, owned by Ankur Singla alias Kaka, was razed around 2pm under the supervision of deputy commissioner of police (Investigation) Harpal Singh. 'Singla is currently lodged in jail and has eight cases registered against him under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act,' said a police officer. According to DCP Singh, the house was not only unauthorised but also used as a hub for drug trafficking. 'This is part of our strategy to target drug peddlers' illegal assets and send a clear message,' he said. Singla was a habitual offender and was repeatedly arrested but often resumed drug activities upon release, he added. Local residents, who had long complained about the drug activity in their neighbourhood, welcomed the action. 'We had been raising our voices for years. Ankur used to get arrested, but would return within days and start selling drugs again. This time, the demolition of his house has sent a strong message,' said one of the neighbours.
Hindustan Times
2 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Nithari killings: Supreme Court upholds acquittals of both accused
New Delhi The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the acquittal of Surendra Koli and Moninder Singh Pandher in 12 cases of murder linked to the Nithari killings. (Representative photo) The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the acquittal of Surendra Koli and Moninder Singh Pandher in 12 cases of murder and rape linked to the Nithari killings, junking the appeals filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the victims' families. A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai passed the order endorsing the findings of the Allahabad High Court in October 2023 that acquitted them. Koli will remain in jail as he is serving life imprisonment in one of the Nithari killings cases, where his conviction was upheld by the top court in 2011. To be sure, Pandher and Koli were charged in 16 cases for the killing of young girls between 2005 and 2007. While the trial court convicted Koli in 13 cases, Pandher was convicted in two of the 13. Pandher has been acquitted in all cases against him, while in one of the 13 cases, Koli's conviction was upheld by the top court in 2011. On Wednesday, the CBI, represented by additional solicitor general (ASG) Rajkumar Bhaskar Thakare, contended that the high court refused to believe the discovery of skulls and bones outside the house where Koli was working as a servant. As the ASG opened the submissions describing the case as 'one of the darkest crimes in history', the bench, also comprising justices SC Sharma and K Vinod Chandran, said, 'Don't try to prejudice the court by using such expressions. Just tell us what is the perversity in the high court judgment.' The CBI lawyer contended that the high court disbelieved the confessional statement of Koli, considering that he was in the custody of the police and the possibility of him being tortured. He said that the trial court, which convicted Koli in 13 cases while acquitting him in three, had extensively considered the evidence presented by the CBI. In response, the court told Thakare that, being a seasoned criminal lawyer, he should know that any recovery made during the investigation should be supported by a statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, which relates to recovery made pursuant to a statement recorded by an accused in police custody. Thakare told the court that the recovery of skulls, bones, slippers and clothes of the victims could not be planted by anyone. He urged the court not to go by the high court's insistence on recovery not being consistent with the Section 27 provision, but rather go by the recovery as a fact under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, which constitutes motive or preparation for any crime. The bench said, 'If Section 27 statement is not recorded, then the recovery should be thrown into the dustbin. The high court has disbelieved the recovery on that ground.' As Thakare sought to take the court through the evidence on record, the bench insisted, 'We will take up the appeal only if you show any perversity or impossibility in the high court order.' The HC had held the recovery against Koli to be inadmissible in law, in the absence of any disclosure statement, non-specification of the time, place and contents of disclosure, absence of independent witnesses and contradictory version of contents of information furnished. The high court order of October 16, 2023 said, 'We hold that prosecution has failed to prove the information or disclosure furnished by the accused and consequently the discovery of bones, skulls or skeletons…cannot be read in evidence against the accused appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The prosecution has failed to prove this circumstance against the accused.' The high court described the entire investigation to be 'botched up' as basic norms of collecting evidence were brazenly violated. On Wednesday, CJI Gavai told the law officer, 'Show us one judgment that any recovery made without recording of section 27 is admissible. The judgment of the high court has followed this established rule of law. If you tell us to follow otherwise, nearly 100 judgments passed by me may have to be rendered per incuriam (legal term which means order passed in ignorance of law).' Senior advocate Geeta Luthra, appearing for the father of one of the victims, told the court that the case requires an elaborate hearing. She said that in 2011, based on the same set of evidence and confession of the accused, the top court had upheld the conviction of Koli. She pointed out that the evidence presented by the prosecution before the trial court showed the culpability of the accused and, to this extent, urged the court to consider setting aside the HC's acquittal. The crime took place in Nithari, a village adjoining the upscale satellite town of Noida. The CBI found that Koli lured girls to the house, sexually assaulted them and indulged in cannibalism. The prosecution had also discovered the weapon used to kill the girls. In July 2024, the top court issued notice on CBI appeals and directed that the entire case record from the trial court be shared in digital form with the lawyers appearing for both sides. Incidentally, while senior advocate Yug Mohit Chaudhary appeared along with advocate Payoshi Roy for Koli, they were not called upon to make submissions as, at the end of a hearing that lasted for nearly half an hour, the court dismissed the appeals.
Hindustan Times
2 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
HC seeks reply from Ludhiana CP on cyber crime SHO's appointment
The Punjab and Haryana high court has sought an affidavit from Ludhiana commissioner of police Swapan Sharma over the appointment of inspector Jatinder Singh as station house officer (SHO) of the cyber crime police station, despite his alleged ineligibility to investigate cases under the Information Technology (IT) Act. The high court has fixed the next hearing for September 26 and will examine the commissioner's affidavit before proceeding. (HT Photo) The direction came during the hearing of a writ petition filed by advocate Gagandeep Singh, a resident of Sarabha Nagar in Ludhiana, who alleged that inspector was not a regular inspector and, therefore, not qualified to probe cybercrime cases. The petitioner submitted that the officer himself admitted in an official note dated December 16, 2023, that he was a local-rank officer and not authorised to investigate cases under the IT Act. Despite this, he allegedly investigated a case registered on December 14 and gave a clean chit to the accused. The petition also cited a 2016 directive by the director general of police (DGP), prohibiting personnel from armed police and Indian Reserve Battalions (IRB) from holding SHO posts in district police. Inspector Singh, the petitioner said, belongs to the 4th IRB in Jalandhar and was, therefore, ineligible for the posting. The high court has fixed the next hearing for September 26 and will examine the commissioner's affidavit before proceeding. When contacted, CP Swapan Sharma said inspector Jatinder Singh had been appointed by a predecessor and was later removed after the matter came to his notice.
