E-Paper
Special court summons CM Jagan to appear in connection with quid pro quo case
The ED special court also served notices to YSR Congress party MP and general secretary V Vijay Sai Reddy among others.
A special court for Enforcement Directorate cases in Hyderabad on Saturday issued summons to YSR Congress party president and Andhra Pradesh chief minister YS Jagan Mohan Reddy to appear before the court on Monday in connection with a quid pro quo case.
The ED special court also served notices to YSR Congress party MP and general secretary V Vijay Sai Reddy, retired IAS officer BP Acharya, Hetero Group of companies’ director M Srinivasa Reddy, Aurobindo Pharma managing director K Nityananda Reddy and Trident Life Sciences’ former managing director P Sharat Chandra Reddy, asking them to appear before the court for hearing.
The case was originally being heard by a metropolitan sessions judge court in Nampally, where the ED had filed a charge sheet in January 2016. Recently, the case has been shifted to the special court for Central Bureau of India (CBI) and ED cases.
In all, the special court is now hearing all the six charge sheets filed by the ED in connection with the quid pro quo cases filed against Jagan Mohan Reddy and others. The CBI also filed 11 separate charge sheets in the case.
Also read: Covid-19 vaccination drive to begin from January 16 in India
The CBI and the ED probed the case in which Hetero and Aurobindo pharma companies were accused of investing ₹27.25 crore in Jagathi Publications, the media house floated by Jagan, in lieu of the land allotment of 150 acres made to them at Pharma Special Economic Zone at Jadcherla in Mahabubnagar district, by his father and former chief minister late YS Rajasekhar Reddy during the latter’s regime between 2004 and 2009.
Aurobindo, later, transferred part of its lands to its sister concern Trident Life Sciences, the investigating agencies said.
The ED, probing the case under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), had attached assets worth ₹51 crore belonging to these pharma companies. The companies later moved the appellate tribunal to get their attached properties released but the tribunal asked them to make cash deposits that have an equal worth of their respective attachments.
