The Enforcement Directorate on Friday moved the Special Court for CBI cases seeking permission to record Kadapa MP Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy’s statement in his illegal investments case.
The ED wants to record his statement in the capacity of the former director and chairman of M/s Jagathi Publications. The company was named as Accused No. 12 in the first chargesheet filed by the CBI in the case.
In its petition filed before the court, the ED stated that it was the only competent authority to investig-ate matters under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and Foreign Exchange Management Act.
It also mentioned that an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) had been filed after preliminary enquiry and examination of the chargesheet filed by the CBI.
“The accused contravened the provision of the PMLA which needs investigation in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder,” the petition stated. It said that cases were filed under Section 120-B, read with 420, 409, 468 and 471 of IPC and Sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
“Some of the offences under Section 120-B of IPC and Section 13 of PC Act are scheduled offences un-der the PMLA and as such the ED is empowered to investigate,” the plea said.
Since the accused (Mr Jagan Mohan Reddy) is in judicial custody and is not accessible to ED officials to record statements and to investigate under Section 50 of the PMLA, the ED sought the court’s permission. The ED stated that a team of officers incl-uding deputy director Dr Rajeshwar Singh and four assistant directors would record the accused’s statement in judicial custody.
Subramanyam suspension plea rejected
The Special Court for CBI cases dismissed the suspension plea filed by senior IAS officer L.V. Subramanyam on Friday. Principal Judge for CBI cases, A. Pullaiah, heard the matter.
Prakash Reddy, counsel for Mr Subramanyam, alleged the CBI had changed its stand by saying that it had not approach-ed the state government for sanction of prosecution.
“In the past, there was clear corresponden-ce between the state and the CBI. The state sent the refusal order to the CBI on June 5. However, the government has done this after giving an opportunity to Mr Subramanyam to reply on the charges,” said the counsel.
The CBI counsel refused the allegations and told the court that they didn’t approach the state directly. The counsel said they had requested the Central government, wh-ich in turn, directed them to the state.
“Mr Subramanyam has no right to challenge the summons issued to appear on June 18,” the counsel said.