Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: ADITYANATH in Bibhu Prasad Acharya vs The State Of Ts., on 21 January, 2019Matching Fragments
1(c). The petitioner in W.P.No.2253 of 2018 by name Mr. Adityanath Das, IAS Officer is A.10 in SC.No.2 of 2017 on the file of learned Principal Special Judge for trial of CBI Cases- cum-Special Court under PML Act, 2002 at Nampally, Hyderabad, which is in ECIR.No.9/HYZO/2011 of Directorate of Enforcement, taken cognizance for the offences allegedly committed under Sections 4 r/w 3 of PML Act in the prosecution maintained by the complainant Director of Enforcement through its Assistant Director, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Hyderabad. The prayer in the petition is to quash the proceedings in SC.No.2 of 2017 against him.
37 Dr.SSRB,J Crl.P.No.3988 of 2016 & batch 3(e). In view of the above, the learned counsel for the Directorate of Enforcement sought for dismissal of the quash petition.
4. The writ petitioner is A.10-Adityanath Das in SC.No.2 of 2017 on the file of learned Principal Special Judge for trial of CBI Cases-cum-Special Court under PML Act, 2002 at Nampally, Hyderabad, in his seeking to quash said SC proceedings against him as A.10, now Principal Secretary Government of Andhra Pradesh. A.10 out of 10 accused including Sri YS Jagan Mohan Reddy-A1, Sri V. Vijay Sai Reddy-A2, Sri N. Srinivasan-A3, M/s. Bharati Cement Corporation Private Limited-A4, M/s. Jagati Publication Limited-A5, M/s. Carmel Asia Holdings Private Limited-A6, M/s. The India Cements Limited-A7, M/s. Janani Infrastructure Private Limited-A8, Sri M. Samuel-A9 and A10- Sri Adityanath Das, the writ petitioner and by referring to charge sheet filed by the CBI against several accused among them supra. So far as the investigation under PML Act concerned mentioned from Para 11 onwards of the private complaint by referring to Para 10.11 that A.10-Adityanath Das (petitioner), Principal Secretary, I & CAD, Government of AP, Hyderabad, in his statement dated 21.10.2014 under Section 50 (2 & 3) PML Act inter-alia stated during his tenure as Secretary I & CAD pertaining to allocation of water from Krishna and Kagna rivers to M/s. India Cements were issued.
38 Dr.SSRB,J Crl.P.No.3988 of 2016 & batch So far as his role concerned, referred in Para 25(j) and further stated from Paras 26 to 30 as follows:
"25(j). Shri Adityanath Das was the Secretary, Department of Irrigation and Command Area Development, Government of Andhra Pradesh. Shri Adityanath Das, in conspiracy and connivance with Shri Y.S Jagan Mohan Reddy and other accused persons abused his official position and shown undue favours to M/S The India Cements Limited. The favours extended by him is in the form of allotment of additional 10 Lakh Litres of water from River Kagna without referring the matter to Interstate Water Resources Authority to M/S The India Cements Limited by violating the existing norms, regulations and procedures and caused wrongful loss to Government of Andhra Pradesh. He also did not consider the aspect of pending water royalty along with penalty from M/S The India Cements Limited and sanctioned additional water to M/S The India Cements Limited.
5. Heard both sides at length the common arguments in all the three matters in several sittings and perused the provisions, propositions and factual matrix from the entire material available on record.
6. Leave apart for the time being the respective contentions of Adityanath Das(writ petitioner) and BP Acharya (petitioner in the two quash petitions) respectively of they are not involved in any offence of money laundering in discharge of their official duties and coming to Adityanath 51 Dr.SSRB,J Crl.P.No.3988 of 2016 & batch Das with further contentions in particular that in issuing G.O.Ms.Nos.94 & 106 I & CAD dated 22.07.2008 and 12.08.2009, in the so called allocation of additional water to the India Cements-A7 and what all if at all allocated was within the 10% reserved water for industrial use covered by various circulars and notifications referred supra in the pleadings supra and as per the AP Government Business Rules and Secretariat Instructions and from the water and industrial policy of the State and has also stated by the then Hon'ble Minister in his affidavit in the SLP(Crl).No.609 of 2012 of the allocation was done not in accordance with the regulations and procedures prescribed and in force and nothing beyond and as per the Government policy exercised through SIPB whose decisions are at par with cabinet decisions as per the Secretariat Business Rules covered by G.O.Ms.No.201 dated 01.12.1995 and that too out of SIPB resolution dated 18.12.2000 to make available 10% of water for existing projects and SIPB decided on 23.05.2001 to keep its decisions out of scrutiny particularly ACB and Vigilance Department and SIPB made CE competent to give water allocation and deemed permission or approval if no decision taken within 7 days of application and the G.O.Ms.No.178 dated 21.06.2005 covering the industrial policy of the State of AP water allocation to a tune of 10% for industrial use for existing as well as future projects and even as per the recommendations contained in Bachavat River Water 52 Dr.SSRB,J Crl.P.No.3988 of 2016 & batch Tribunal and out of AP's share and the decision taken on merit at the highest level by the Minister concerned with the conference of the CM and no error found in Inter State Water Resources by Chief Engineer ISWRA in the said allotment and that too when it is a renewal of the old allotment with extra quantity from Krishna and Kagna rivers to India cements and that too from the proposal came from Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle after arrears realized of the water royalty, for no involvement of money laundering much less with intention or knowledge much less commission of money laundering or aiding or abetting any others to have benefit and sanction for prosecution refused by Central and State Governments to the CBI of PC Act and IPC offences respectively earlier sought by CBI against the petitioner from the say of no any irregularity and no loss to the Government, that required to be considered with reference to any offence of money laundering defined in Section 3 of the Act which speaks whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime and projecting or claiming it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering that is punishable under Section 4 of the Act with different punishments for the advance specified in Part-A of the schedule or other than those respectively, similar is the contention of Shri BP Acharya and further that the decisions 53 Dr.SSRB,J Crl.P.No.3988 of 2016 & batch taken not by him, much less exclusively, that too the other departments involved and the Minister concerned or the cabinet committee that have taken the decisions and there is no any offence of money laundering committed by him and the cognizance order and prosecution are unsustainable and the State Government also after careful consideration of the report of the CBI and the version given by the member of service has come to the conclusion that the member of service has not taken any unilateral decision as he has forwarded his comments/observations to the State Government for orders on issues concerning APIIC and the Government; one of the common contentions raised along with other quash petitioners is want of sanction that now required to be decided first as a common issue involved with reference to the rival contentions of the requirement or not of the sanction to prosecute any of the 3 petitioners as the case may be.