A cheating case was filed against Jinna Srikanth, arrested by CCS sleuths, way back in 2007
The arrest of Jinna Srikanth by the sleuths of Hyderabad Central Crime Station in a cheating case brings some solace to persons allegedly duped by him.
But, it raises many questions about the way CCS officials had investigated a case registered against him six years ago on similar charges. The case was the first of three cheating cases booked against Srikanth by the CCS so far.
Having operated a screen printing unit for over 10 years, Srikanth started Maha Life Online Marketing Private Limited with different investment schemes luring small investors with the promise of high returns in short term.
He is accused of collecting crores of rupees from 2,000 members with false promises of providing open plots, gold jewellery and in addition to double the sum of their investments within two years. As his promises fell flat, some members registered a case in 2007 and he obtained anticipatory bail. Nearly six years later, there is no progress in the case .
No charge-sheet was filed so far though Srikanth and other persons accused of abetting and aiding him, were available for questioning.
As the investigation continued, Srikanth went ahead and floated Green Gold Infrastructure Limited and offered huge returns through organic fertilisers market.
Investors, who had fallen prey, registered another case against him in the CCS in 2008. Interestingly, probe into the second case was completed and the charge-sheet was filed. Still, the first case in 2007 was under investigation without a charge-sheet being filed.
No negligence: DCP
“Srikanth was apparently emboldened by the delay and took people for a ride the second time by starting another company,” an investor remarked.
“Had Srikanth been questioned properly and documents seized, how could he continue the cheating spree?” he questions. CCS DCP L.K.V. Ranga Rao doesn’t see anything wrong in failure of the investigators to file a charge-sheet against Srikanth.
“There are several cases which are pending longer than the one against Srikanth,” he says.
According to him, no property acquired by the accused through the money collected from investors could be seized by the police. Police found that the accused had purchased 40 acres of land on the city outskirts with that money. But, he moved the court stating that the land was purchased by his wife and not by him.