CDSCO Corruption Case: Delhi Court Discharges S Eswara Reddy and Others
A Delhi court has discharged former CDSCO official S Eswara Reddy and three others in a CBI corruption case, citing a lack of prima facie evidence.
In a significant legal victory, a Delhi court has discharged former CDSCO official Dr. S. Eswara Reddy and three other individuals in a high-profile corruption case investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The court ruled that the evidence presented by the agency was insufficient to establish a prima facie case, meaning there was not enough basic evidence to justify proceeding with a criminal trial.
The Court's Verdict
Special Judge (PC Act) Vishal Pahuja of the Rouse Avenue Courts delivered the order on October 31. The judge cleared Dr. Eswara Reddy, along with Animesh Kumar, Guljit Sethi (also known as Guljit Chaudhri), and Praveen Kumar Lakshminarayana (alias L. Praveen Kumar). In the detailed ruling, the court emphasized that the allegations brought forward by the CBI did not even create a basic level of suspicion, let alone the "grave suspicion" required to put the accused on trial.
Failure to Prove Conspiracy and Bribery
The court scrutinized the CBI's claims regarding a criminal conspiracy and the exchange of undue advantages. Specifically, regarding Dr. Eswara Reddy, the judge found that the prosecution failed to provide enough material to prove the demand or acceptance of bribes. Even the circumstances surrounding the alleged recovery of money were deemed insufficient to sustain the charges.
Furthermore, the court addressed the following points:
- Official Conduct: There was no evidence to show that the public servants involved had performed their duties dishonestly or improperly in exchange for favors.
- SEC Recommendations: The court found no prima facie illegality in how applications were processed or how the recommendations of the Subject Expert Committee (SEC) were altered.
- Call Recordings: In a critical blow to the prosecution, the court rejected the intercepted call recordings as evidence, citing violations of the Indian Telegraph Act and its associated rules.
Lack of Specifics for Other Accused
The court also highlighted glaring gaps in the evidence against the other three individuals. In the case of Animesh Kumar, the judge noted that the charge sheet was vague, failing to specify the exact date, time, or location where an alleged payment of Rs 30,000 took place.
As for Guljit Sethi and Praveen Kumar, the court concluded that the material provided by the CBI was simply not enough to frame charges or prove that they were part of a criminal conspiracy.
Legal Basis for Discharge
"Mere suspicion is not sufficient to put an accused to trial; the material must give rise to grave suspicion."
Based on this principle, the court determined that the prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case against any of the four accused. Consequently, they were discharged under Section 250 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (which corresponds to Section 227 of the former Code of Criminal Procedure).