Hyderabad: The Hyderabad High Court on Friday granted relief to senior IAS officer Y. Srilakshmi by setting aside the cognizance taken by the Special CBI Court of a charge sheet filed against her by the CBI in the Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy illegal investments case.
The CBI had charged Ms Srilakshmi with extending undue favour to Dalmia Cements in allotting lease of mining stone in Kadapa district.
Justice B. Siva Sankar Rao was partly allowing the quash petition by Mr Srilakshmi. The judge quashed the cognizance order of the Special Court for the offences punishable under Section 120 –B read with 420, and 409 of IPC for want of sanction to take cognizance.
The judge said apart from the ingredients constituting the offences under Section 120-B and 420 IPC, prima facie case was not made out from the facts insofar against the petitioner.
The judge said that petition was dismissed insofar as the cognizance orders of the Special Judge for the offence punishable under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the petitioner that was without prejudice to any of the defence of the petitioner in trial.
City police chief appears before court
Hyderabad city police commissioner Mahender Reddy on Friday appeared before the Hyderabad High Court in a contempt case.
A woman moved the contempt case against the police commissioner and others for failing to provide her police protection despite a court order.
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan and Justice P Naveen Rao was dealing with the contempt case by one Dr Eunice Lalnunmawii Chawngthu, as a party in person seeking to punish the commissioner for not implementing the order passed by a division bench.
Earlier, a division bench requested the police commissioner to personally look into the representation, if any, made by the petitioner to find out whether any criminal case was made out by her against any person and that whether she required police protection by entrusting her case either to Station House Officer, Banjara Hills Police Station or any other responsible officer as he deemed fit and proper.
H. Venugopal, counsel for the Home department, while submitting an additional affidavit, stated that the representation of the petitioner was entrusted to a team headed by senior officer Swathi Lakra and the team found that there was perception of no threat to the petitioner, hence there was no contempt in the case.
The petitioner sought time to file her reply on the additional affidavit. While dispensing the presence of the police commissioner, the bench adjourned the case.
