Hyderabad: The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has charged Obulapuram Mining Company’s owner Gali Janardhan Reddy and his associate B V Srinivasa Reddy with plundering mineral wealth to thetuneof Rs5,000crorein theBellary region in connivance with AP Mines and Geology wing’s former director V D Rajagopal and assistant director the late R Linga Reddy. However, in the chargesheet filed by the investigative agency in the CBI court on Saturday, the name of fourth accused in the scam IAS officer Y Srilakshmi does not figure. With reference to the involvement of former mines minister Sabita Indra Reddy, CBI joint director V V Lakshminarayana told the media that investigation into that aspect was still going on. The crux of the CBI's chargesheet is that Gali fraudulently obtained mining leases from the Andhra Pradesh government and made use of these leases as a cover to the illegal ore he plundered elsewhere. He exported them to various countries and made money. The mining and forest permits accorded by the officials and the state of AP too were useful for him in going ahead with the loot of the mineral wealth in an indiscriminate way, it held. They were charged under IPC sections 120-B (criminal conspiracy) read with 420 (cheating), 409 (criminal
breach of trust), 468 (forgery for the purpose of cheating, 471 (using as genuine a forged document) and sections 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) (criminal misconduct) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Srilakshmi not named in chargesheet
As to why Srilakshmi’s name did not figure in the chargesheet, about which the judge also enquired, the CBI listed two reasons. One, that the Centre has not yet accorded the required permission to the agency for launching prosecution against an all-India service officer as stipulated by section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The second reason is that since Srilakshmi was arrested very recently, the agency said it was still in the process of collecting evidence against her. “We have explained these circumstances in a separate column earmarked for the `would be additions’ in the chargesheet,” said a CBI official, hinting that her name may figure in the supplementary chargesheet that the agency might file later. However, IAS officers quoting all-India service rules insisted that the Centre’s sanction was needed only for launching prosecution against such officers and not for including their name in the chargesheet.
“We sought permission of the court to continue our investigation in view of the material that is forthcoming on the subject,” Lakshminarayana told the waiting media persons outside the CBI court in Nampally. Chief investigation officer and CBI additional SP R M Khan along with his personnel brought the chargesheet (running into 186 pages) and nearly one lakh pages of documents in ten trunks to the court. It would take a few weeks for CBI special judge B Nagamaruthi Sarma to acknowledge the receipt of such a chargesheet because, as per procedure, he has to affix his signature on each of the documents. The CBI cited 201 witnesses and 607 documents to prove its case.
The CBI said it would file a supplementary chargesheet if the further investigation gives it `good leads’. On the alleged violations of the Mining Regulations and Forest Act, the officials concerned will file separate complaints against the accused and other persons responsible, the joint director said.
With reference to the two cases registered by the CBI against Deccan Mining Company and Associated Mining Company in the illegal mining case, a separate chargesheet will be filed in the trial court in Karnataka.
Referring to the name of Bellary Iron Ore Project Company (BIOP), which figures as one of the accused in the illegal mining case but does not find a mention in the chargesheet, the CBI said it did not go into that aspect as the Supreme Court was looking into the boundary dispute between OMC and BIOP.
breach of trust), 468 (forgery for the purpose of cheating, 471 (using as genuine a forged document) and sections 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) (criminal misconduct) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Srilakshmi not named in chargesheet
As to why Srilakshmi’s name did not figure in the chargesheet, about which the judge also enquired, the CBI listed two reasons. One, that the Centre has not yet accorded the required permission to the agency for launching prosecution against an all-India service officer as stipulated by section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The second reason is that since Srilakshmi was arrested very recently, the agency said it was still in the process of collecting evidence against her. “We have explained these circumstances in a separate column earmarked for the `would be additions’ in the chargesheet,” said a CBI official, hinting that her name may figure in the supplementary chargesheet that the agency might file later. However, IAS officers quoting all-India service rules insisted that the Centre’s sanction was needed only for launching prosecution against such officers and not for including their name in the chargesheet.
“We sought permission of the court to continue our investigation in view of the material that is forthcoming on the subject,” Lakshminarayana told the waiting media persons outside the CBI court in Nampally. Chief investigation officer and CBI additional SP R M Khan along with his personnel brought the chargesheet (running into 186 pages) and nearly one lakh pages of documents in ten trunks to the court. It would take a few weeks for CBI special judge B Nagamaruthi Sarma to acknowledge the receipt of such a chargesheet because, as per procedure, he has to affix his signature on each of the documents. The CBI cited 201 witnesses and 607 documents to prove its case.
The CBI said it would file a supplementary chargesheet if the further investigation gives it `good leads’. On the alleged violations of the Mining Regulations and Forest Act, the officials concerned will file separate complaints against the accused and other persons responsible, the joint director said.
With reference to the two cases registered by the CBI against Deccan Mining Company and Associated Mining Company in the illegal mining case, a separate chargesheet will be filed in the trial court in Karnataka.
Referring to the name of Bellary Iron Ore Project Company (BIOP), which figures as one of the accused in the illegal mining case but does not find a mention in the chargesheet, the CBI said it did not go into that aspect as the Supreme Court was looking into the boundary dispute between OMC and BIOP.
No comments:
Post a Comment