Live
- Chanchalguda Jail Officials Say They Haven't Received Bail Papers Yet, Allu Arjun May Stay in Jail Tonight
- BJP leaders present evidence of illegal voters in Delhi, urge EC for swift action
- Exams will not be cancelled: BPSC chairman
- Nagesh Trophy: Karnataka, T.N win in Group A; Bihar, Rajasthan triumph in Group B
- YS Jagan condemns the arrest of Allu Arjun
- Economic and digital corridors to maritime connectivity, India and Italy building vision for future, says Italian Ambassador
- SMAT 2024: Patidar's heroics guide Madhya Pradesh to final after 13 years
- CCPA issues notices to 17 entities for violating direct selling rules
- Mamata expresses satisfaction over speedy conviction in minor girl rape-murder case
- Transparent Survey Process for Indiramma Housing Scheme Directed by District Collector
High Court stays trial of IAS officer
Justice Raja Elango of the High Court at Hyderabad on Wednesday stayed criminal proceedings against B Sam Bob, IAS officer AP Cadre, in the Y S Jaganmohan Reddy illegal assets case.
Hyderabad: Justice Raja Elango of the High Court at Hyderabad on Wednesday stayed criminal proceedings against B Sam Bob, IAS officer AP Cadre, in the Y S Jaganmohan Reddy illegal assets case.
The judge was dealing with a petition filed by the IAS officer. The counsel for the petitioner Sivaraju Srinivas pointed out that according to Section 197 of Cr P C, the CBI required sanction from the State government as well as the Central government to go ahead with the prosecution.
The CBI, named the petitioner as an accused for signing on Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with Lepakshi Knowledge Hub during his tenure as Principal Secretary (Industries and Commerce Department) in the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State.
The petitioner’s counsel pointed out that both governments had refused permission to the CBI to go ahead with the prosecution of the IAS officer. He informed the bench that the petitioner only processed the MoA under the Industrial Policy 2005-10 and submitted it for orders of the competent authority and subsequently, the State Cabinet ratified the MoA.
He submitted that both governments had refused permission for prosecution on the ground that there was no valid reason to prove that the officer directly benefited the private party. The judge accordingly stayed the petition.
