CBI court rejects Jagan Reddy’s plea for postponement of hearing on ED cases
In yet another setback to YSR Congress party president and Andhra Pradesh chief minister Y S Jagan Mohan Reddy, a special court for Central Bureau of Investigation cases on Friday rejected his petition seeking postponement of money laundering cases filed against him by the Enforcement Directorate.
The court, however, gave an exemption to the Andhra Pradesh chief minister, from personal appearance for this week’s hearing in connection with the disproportionate assets case and quid pro quo cases filed against him by the Central Bureau of Investigation.
The court was acting on his plea that he was busy with his official engagements. His close aide and YSRC parliamentary party leader V Vijay Sai Reddy, an accused no. 2 (A-2) in the case appeared in the court for the hearing.
Last week, Jagan filed three petitions in the court: one seeking postponement of the hearing on ED cases till the trial into the CBI charge sheets is completed (Under Section 309 of Criminal Procedure Code), another for clubbing of five CBI charge sheets (CrPC 223) and the third on seeking permission for representation of his co-accused for trial in the ED case in his absence.
The ED authorities argued that the money laundering cases were inter-linked with the CBI cases and hence, both be heard simultaneously. The CBI court agreed with the contention of the ED authorities and dismissed Jagan’s petition.
The court also rejected Jagan’s petition requesting that five chargesheets be clubbed for hearing. Each chargesheet will be heard separately.
The CBI court also took up the hearing on the supplementary chargesheet filed by the CBI in connection with the alleged favours extended to Penna Cements as part of quid pro quo agreement for making investments in Jagan’s business firms.
YSRC lawmaker and former minister Dharmana Prasada Rao, then Congress leader and present Telangana minister Sabita Indra Reddy, senior IAS officer Sri Lakshmi and a few industrialists connected with the case attended the hearing.
The cases were later deferred to January 24 for further hearing.