Satyam case back to Sessions Court

Hyderabad: The Hyderabad High Court on Thursday held that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeals by Satyam Computer Services Limited (SCSL) founder B. Ramalinga Raju and nine others challenging the conviction and sentence awarded by the XXI additional chief metropolitan magistrate of (special CBI court) Hyderabad.

Ramalinga Raju and others moved the High Court after rejection of their appeals by the Metropolitan Session Judge of Hyderabad declaring that the appeals are not maintainable as the sessions judge has no jurisdiction over the special court as it was designated as a sessions court.

The state government has designated the XXI additional chief metropolitan magistrate court as sessions court to try the offences against the accused in the multi-crore Satyam accounting fraud under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

The Registry of the High Court raised an objection over the jurisdiction of hearing the appeals by the High Court.

When these appeals came for hearing before Justice T. Sunil Chowdary, he asked counsels for the appellants and the CBI to assist the court.

Counsels for both sides contended that the High Court has no jurisdiction to hear the appeals.

Counsels for appellants said the special CBI court has tried all the offences under the IPC as per Section 248 (2) and Chapter 19 of the CrPC in the capacity of the magistrate and the special court was designated as sessions court only to try the cases under the PMLA Act.

When the magistrate tried the cases under the relevant provisions of the CrPC, the next appellate court is the sessions court. If the High Court hears the matter, they will lose their remedy before the sessions court and they have to to go the apex court in case the HC dismisses their pleas are dismissed by the HC.

While considering the contentions, Justice Sunil Chowdary upheld the objections of the Registry by observing that mere designation of the special court to try the cases under the PMLA shall not amount to upgradation of the court as a sessions court.

Maintaining that the decision of the MSJ court in rejecting appeals was misconceived, the judge directed the Registry to remand the appeals to the MSJ court along with case bundles and the MSJ court was asked to deal with the appeals and pass appropriate orders after examining it.

HC to hear plea on Parl Secys
The High Court said that it will decide on Friday whether there is balance of convenience in favour of the petitioners or not to grant an interim order regarding pleas pertaining to the appointment of Parliament Secretaries by the TS government.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta and Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar while hearing petitions challenging the creation of the post of the parliamentary secretary, told counsels for the petitioners and the advocate general to confine their arguments to whether an interim order can be granted at this stage as the matter required a detailed examination and there was no time to hear the case in view of fast approaching summer vacation.

Congress MP G. Sukhender Reddy and TD MLA A. Revanth Reddy have moved separate petitions challenging the TS Parliamen-tary Secretaries (Appointment, salaries, allowan-ces and miscellaneous provisions) Act, 2015.

Stressing on the need for an interim stay, counsel for the petitioner said that the Act did not specify the appointees’ duties.

Advocate-general K. Ramakrishna Reddy said the government made the Act only to decide the salaries of the Parliamentary Secretaries and the secretaries will assist the ministers in the Assembly.

The bench said in the present case the question arises about providing benefits to these Parliamentary Secretaries through the exchequer and it will take a decision on Friday.

AP told to file counter
The HC has directed the AP government to file a counter affidavit on a petition by Minor Forest Produce Gatherers Committee of Chekkavada village of EG district challenging the monopoly of the Girijan Coo-perative Corporation over minor forest produce, especially in scheduled areas.

The committee represented by convenor Andala Borramma moved the plea contending that after the Panchayat Raj [Extension of Scheduled Areas] Act 1996, (PESA) and the AP Panchayat Raj Amendment Act in 1998 the ownership of minor forest produce lies with the Gramsabha.

The petitioner said the GCC was not allowing them to sell the broom grass to other traders who give higher rates.

While adjourning the case to June, the court directed the government to file counter affidavits.