HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.693 OF 2022

ORDER

Heard Mr. K. Vivek Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. P.V. Venkata Ravi Sankar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Srinivas Kapatia, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI appearing on behalf of the respondent.

2. This Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the order dated 17.10.2022 in Crl.M.P. No.47 of 2021 in C.C. No.1 of 2012 passed by learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases at Hyderabad.

3. The petitioner herein is arraigned as accused No.6 in the aforesaid C.C. The offences alleged against her are punishable under Section - 120B read with 409 of IPC and Section - 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘P.C.

Act’).

4. Upon filing the charge sheet by the Investigating Officer and upon taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences by the Special Court, the petitioner herein - accused No.6 filed an application under Section - 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’)

vide Crl.M.P. No.47 of 2021, seeking her discharge in the said C.C. Vide order dated 17.10.2022, learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases at Hyderabad (for short ‘Special Judge’) dismissed the said application. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed present revision.

5. Vide order dated 08.11.2022, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court allowed said revision setting aside the order dated 17.10.2022 in Crl.M.P. No.47 of 2021 passed by learned Special Judge and allowed Crl.M.P.No.47 of 2021 discharging the petitioner - accused No.6 in the aforesaid C.C.

6. Challenging the said order dated 08.11.2022, the CBI preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide Crl.A. No.2654 of 2025 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.10747 of 2023). Vide order dated 07.05.2025, the Apex Court, without going into the merits of the case, allowed the appeal remitting the matter to this Court for passing a reasoned order by giving opportunity to both sides. The observations made by the Apex Court are as follows:

“1. Leave granted.

2. We have heard the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellant and the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. We are not inclined to go into the merits of the case, as from a perusal of the records, we find that the appellant has not been given a sufficient opportunity to contest the matter before the High Court on merits.

4. In such view of the matter, the impugned order stands set aside and the matter stands remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration. Needless to state that the High Court is expected to hear both the appellant and the respondent at length and, thereafter, pass a reasoned order within a period of three months from today. We make it clear that all the issues are left open.

5. As law mandates, the interim order which was in existence before the High Court, pending the impugned order, shall get revived automatically.

6. The appeal is allowed, accordingly.”

7. After remanding the matter, learned counsel on either side made their submissions extensively.

8. As per the charge sheet, the allegations levelled against the petitioner herein are that the petitioner during her term between 17.05.2006 to 10.10.2009 as Secretary, Industries & Commerce, Government of Andhra Pradesh abused her official position as a public servant by not including the condition of ‘captive mining’ in the final leases and issued G.O. Ms. No.151 and G.O. Ms. No. 152 dated 18.06.2007 in favour of M/s. Obulapuram Mining Company Private Limited (for short ‘OMCPL’). The Petitioner allegedly facilitated the other accused to cheat the Government by violating all the Rules & the Procedures prescribed in the Mines and Mineral (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short ‘MMDR Act, 1957’) and the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, and thus caused huge loss to the public exchequer.

9. Mr. K. Vivek Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended mai