Senior IAS officer of Andhra Pradesh government Y. Srilakshmi has filed an interim application in Telangana High Court seeking to quash the supplementary charge-sheet filed by CBI against her in year 2012 in an illegal mining case involving private companies.
She sought permission of the HC to present additional documents to support her contentions in the writ petition filed by her in year 2015 challenging registration of criminal case by the CBI against her in the illegal mining matter. The top bureaucrat serving as Special Chief Secretary with the AP government stated that she was seeking permission for furnishing additional documents as her new counsel advised her so in the interest of securing justice to her.
The IAS officer was made sixth accused in the sensational case of alleged illegal mining by Obulapuram Mining Company Private Limited and Bellarey Iron Ore Private Limited. Ms. Srilakhsmi contended that the statement recorded by the CBI under section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) did not show anything that she had common intention and pre-determination along with the other accused.
ADVERTISEMENT
There was no misconduct, let alone criminal misconduct, the officer stated in the interim application. The CBI could not present even an iota of material evidence to prove that she had deceptive intention to cheat the organ of the State, the IAS officer contended. The charge-sheet was bereft of specific allegations of demanding or receiving any illegal gratification from any person, she stated.
The IAS officer stated that she was not holding the designated post when the then government of undivided Andhra Pradesh took a call on the matter of mining of ores. According to her, the CBI had invoked section 13 (2) read along with section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. These sections were done away with Amendment Act 16 of 2018 with effect from July 26, 2018. The top bureaucrat stated that the supplementary charge-sheet filed by the CBI against her on March 30, 2012, had only assumptions, presumptions, conjectures and surmises.
There was no specific allegation of demand or payment of any illegal gratification or quid pro quo, the officer said.
ADVERTISEMENT