In an interesting development, the Crime Investigation Department (CID) of the Andhra Pradesh police probing the multi-crore AP State Skill Development Corporation scam, allegedly took place during the Chandrababu Naidu regime, served notices on retired IAS officer L Premachandra Reddy, who is presently an advisor to the Jagan Mohan Reddy government on state reorganisation act matters.
The CID, which has made former CEO Ganta Subba Rao and director K Lakshminaryana as Accused No. 1 and 2 in the case, has surprisingly spared Premchandra Reddy, who was the managing director of the corporation when the alleged scam took place.
The TDP leaders have been alleging that it was Premchandra Reddy, who had issued orders in favour of Siemens company, if at all there is any such scam in the corporation, but since he has now become closer to Jagan Mohan Reddy, the CID officials have excluded his name.
On Friday, however, the CID served notices on Premachandra Reddy, too, after the state high court reprimanded the police for selectively targeting some people, while leaving the others including Reddy, who was the MD of the corporation.
Interestingly, the notices served on Premachandra Reddy were not about his role in the scam, but the CID included his name only as a witness and not as an accused.
The CID sought to know from him what role former chief minister N Chandrababu Naidu, former finance minister Yanamala Ramakrishnudu and then chief secretary had played in the scam.
In the notices, that were served under Section 91 and 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the CID asked him to submit any documents pertaining to the role of Naidu, Yanamala and then chief secretary. He was given a 37-page questionnaire with regard to the case.
In the morning, the high court granted conditional bail to Ganta Subba Rao, asking him to be available to CID police whenever called. It also said he must be available every Saturday from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. It also directed the CID to give notice one day in advance if it wants to prosecute Subba Rao.
However, during the hearing, the high court commented on why all the members of the committee were not included in the case. The CID officials were questioned whether there was any evidence that Subba Rao was guilty of misappropriation of funds.
On the other hand, Subba Rao's lawyer objected to naming only a few as accused in the case. The petitioner brought to the notice of the court that some were deliberately implicated in the case.
