Hyderabad: The trial of the high profile criminal misconduct case filed by the Anti Corruption Bureau against the director of Nims and four others, is yet to begin as there is a high rate of pendency of cases in the ACB court at Hyderabad.
The ACB detected a Rs 3.14 crore fraud in the purchase of medical equipment in the Nizam's Institute of Medical Science (Nims) in 2015. The charge sheet was filed in 2016.
The next hearing is on January 22, 2018. This will be the third time the accused have been called but the case has yet to begin in the special court.
Nims’s former director A Dharma Rakshak, former medical superintendent D. Mukund Reddy, former financial controller V. Sridhar, and two non-government private individuals — Surya Prakash Reddy, managing partner of Global Life Services, and Vikas Khanna, the then South Asia manager of Berchtold company — have been accused of flouting the conditions of the tender.
The public servants illegally awarded contracts to Global Life Services in connivance with Vikas Khanna to supply operation theatre tables, OT lights and ventilators, causing '3.14 crore loss to the exchequer. A case under Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code was filed in November 2015.
It is one of the ACB's strongest cases and was investigated over eight months. In the charge sheet the ACB has said: “The Nims officials entered into a criminal conspiracy with Vikas Khanna and Surya Prakash Reddy and awarded contracts and cause loss to the exchequer.”
The delay in the trial is due to the fact that a Supreme Court ruling has directed the special courts of the ACB to clear all cases filed before 2012. This has put post 2012 cases in cold storage.
Lagging behind
- The NIMS case is not alone; several disproportionate assets and criminal misconduct case filed from 2012 to 2017 are pending before the ACB special court.
- In several cases, ACB special court is yet to take cognizance of the case and frame charges against the accused, as priority is being given to cases filed before 2012.
- Delay in hearing cases weakens the prosecution's case and leads to acquittals.
