Telangana HC dismisses Nimmagadda Prasad’s quash petition in Jagan cases

Justice K. Lakshman of the High Court pronounced the court's decision on Monday.

Srinivas Kapadia, the counsel for CBI, submitted that the investigation agency had thoroughly probed the case against Prasad and collected evidence that the Vanpic (Vodarevu and Nizampatnam Port Industrial Corridor) Project was given to Prasad by the then Andhra Pradesh government and allotted more than 15,000 acres of land in Prakasam and Guntur districts to the companies promoted by Prasad in violation of all the laws, rules and norms and granted several concessions.

As a quid pro quo, Prasad invested about Rs 854.50 crore in companies such as Carmel Asia Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Bharathi Cements, Jagathi Publications Pvt. Ltd., Silicon Builders, Sandur Power Company among others, which belong to Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy, the CBI counsel argued.

He further submitted that based on the evidence collected, the CBI had already filed a chargesheet and the case is at the trial stage before the CBI court. He requested the court to not grant any relief to the petitioner, otherwise the whole process of trial would be affected.

The petitioner was arrested on May 15, 2012, later enlarged on bail on October 18, 2013. CBI filed a chargesheet against 14 accused including the ministers of the day. A total of 73 accused were named in the case registered by CBI.

Senior counsel T. Niranjan Reddy, arguing on behalf of Prasad, submitted that the CBI had arrayed his client as an accused under political pressure and that the investigating agency was unable to collect the evidence against his client or that he paid any bribe to the then government officials or others.

The petitioner, through his counsel, contends investments made by him in Jagan Mohan Reddy’s companies were genuine and cannot be equated to a bribe. He con

tends that there is no proof of the alleged quid pro quo deal.

He argued that the final report, statements of witnesses and connected material do not make out a prima facie case against him and ingredients of the alleged offences are not satisfied.

The CBI, however, argued that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner and the contentions raised by the petitioner are to be decided during trial and the power under Section 482 of CrPC cannot be exercised at this stage.

In a 33-page judgment, Justice Lakshman said the court only needs to see if the collected material and the allegations in the chargesheet make out a prima facie case. “The validity, admissibility, relevancy of the material cannot be gone into by the courts while dealing with an application to quash the criminal proceedings. A roving inquiry and a mini-trial are proscribed.”

The judge also took note of the fact that, “There are specific allegations against the petitioner. The role of the petitioner and his alleged criminal acts can only be determined during trial. Therefore, the petitioner cannot contend that for the wrongs of the company, he cannot be arraigned as an accused.”

The judge, while dismissing the criminal petition, granted liberty to petitioner to file a discharge petition and said the trial court will decide it in accordance with law and without being influenced by any observations made by this court.