Vijayamma, Bharathi lash out at CBI on Jagan probe

  

By S A Ishaqui

Hyderabad, May 29 : Y.S. Vijayalakshmi, honorary president of YSR Congress and Y.S. Bharathi Reddy, wife of YSR Congress chief, Jagan Mohan Reddy, on Tuesday, blamed the CBI for not investigating the illegal investments case properly.

Talking to this newspaper at Indira Park here, during a daylong protest against the illegal detention of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy, Ms Vijayalakshmi alleged that the Congress and TD have conspired to send Jagan Mohan Reddy to jail. They are now trying to ensure that bail is denied to him.

Citing the state government’s reluctance to file a counter affidavit before the AP High Court in the PIL by Shankar Rao, seeking a probe against Jagan, she said if the government had filed an affidavit at that time, there would not have been any case against Jagan.

The government intentionally avoided such an affidavit even though the court granted time, she alleged. She said while the ministers are openly declaring that all the 26 GOs issued by them, were in order, the government has not yet come out with an official statement.

They said that would not be surprised if the Congress and TD join hands to fight YSRC in 2014 elections.

“We are God-fearing people. The traitors will pay for their misdeeds one day,” Ms Bharathi said. 

“It won’t be a surprise if the Congress and TD openly join together to defeat Jagan, in 2014 elections.”

Ms Bharathi Reddy alleged that the Congress-run CBI intends to keep her husband in custody until the general elections, to gain political mileage for its masters.

She said her husband was in jail today not because of corruption, but because he chose to stand by the people. Irrespective of what it means to him he will choose to do what his people want him to do. She said the investigation has been on for the last 22months, and in the status report filed before the Supreme Court, the CBI asked for three months in October 2012 to complete the investigation. Again, the CBI said that they need another four months to complete the investigation, she added.

She said, “This farce is being watched by the people and in the general elections they will give their verdict, in clear tone, putting an end to the game of nexus between the ruling and main Opposition parties".

As per the provisions of the CrPC the investigation agency, has to complete the probe and file a charge sheet, within 90 days in a cognisable offence. More than a year has elapsed and the CBI sis till calming that the investigation is on, she added. It clearly shows that the investigation was politically motivated. The delay in investigation was only to ensure that Jagan should remain in jail. 

Ms Vijayamma alleged that the TD Chief Chandrababu Naidu has been protecting both the state and the Central governments for his selfish interests. She questioned whether Mr Naidu had fulfilled any one of his poll promises during his nine years of reign as the CM of the State. 

No public institution was working in a systematic manner in the country under the UPA Government, but Naidu has chosen to support it for his own political survival, she alleged. She charged that Naidu is the key man in resignation of the ministers and the resignations are end results of Naidu’s secret meetings with Congress leaders in Delhi, during his recent trips.

Counsel first in marital war: SC

By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad, May 8 : The Supreme Court has directed criminal courts dealing with cases of dowry harassment to refer the parties to a mediation centre before they start hearing the case, if they feel a settlement is possible and both parties are willing.

While setting aside an order passed by the AP High Court in a matrimonial case, the apex court observed that “marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the couple to settle down in life and live peacefully”.

Give mediation a chance, says SC

A Division Bench comprising Justice Aftab Alam and Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai of the Supreme Court pointed out that “little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved, with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case”.

Pointing out that though the offence of dowry harassment, punishable under Section 498A of the IPC, is non-compoundable (meaning it cannot be withdrawn by the petitioner), the Bench said that in appropriate cases, if the parties are willing and if it appears to the criminal court that there exist elements of settlement, it should direct the parties to explore the possibility of settlement through mediation.

A complaint under Section 498A of the IPC (husband or relatives of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) presents a difficulty because the offence is not compoundable except in AP, where, by a state amendment, it was made compoundable, the SC added.

The Bench made it clear that “this is, obviously, not to dilute the rigour, efficacy and purport of Section 498A of the IPC, but to locate cases where the matrimonial dispute can be nipped in the bud in an equitable manner. It will be for the concerned court to work out the modalities taking into consideration the facts of each case”.

The Bench cautioned that the judges must ensure that this exercise does not lead to the erring spouse using mediation process to get out of the clutches of the law.

SC turns down Andhra Pradesh, not to send T-case back to HC

By S A Ishaqui

Hyderabad, May 4  The Supreme Court on Friday refused to concede the request of the state government to transfer a petition, dealing with violence in the AP High Court premises in September 2010, to the High Court to try it.

A division bench comprising Justices G.S. Singhvi and Ranjana Prakash Desai was hearing a petition filed by P.V Krishnaiah, a practicing advocate of the AP High Court, seeking action against advocates who were involved in vandalism in the High Court premises on September 2010. It was also hearing a contempt case filed by A. Jayaprakash, former TD MLA, of Vijayawada.

The petitions referred the chaos on September 15, 16 and 17, 2010, in the AP High Court premises, during a boycott call given by the Telangana Advocates Joint Action Committee.

When the petitions came up for hearing, Venkata Ramani, senior counsel for the AP government, urged the apex court to transfer the case to the AP High Court, which has initiated a suo motu contempt case against the advocates. The police also registered cases against the advocates involved in the vandalism.

The bench refused to transfer the case and pointed out that it was a serious case where the apex court has to deal the issue in-depth, with regard to lawyers indulging in such “illegal” activities, at the very place from where they earn their bread and butter.

The bench also expressed its dismay at the advocates turning the court premises into a dais to express their feelings. The bench posted the case to August 2.