The YSRCP government in Andhra Pradesh headed by Chief Minister YS Jaganmohan Reddy received a jolt in the Supreme Court on Monday in a case pertaining to insider trading in purchase of lands by some individuals in Amaravathi capital region and also in acquiring lands for the capital region at Amaravati during previous TDP regime between 2014 and 2019.
The Supreme Court on Monday has struck down the AP government’s petition on Amaravathi insider trading.
The AP High Court on January 20, 2021, struck down the cases registered by the AP Crime Investigation Department (CID) alleging insider trading in purchase of lands by some people in Amaravati.
However, the Jagan government filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court on June 29 challenging the AP High Court judgement delivered on January 20 stating that there was no insider trading in Amaravati.
A division bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice Vineeth Saran and Justice Dinesh Meheshwari heard this petition.
The bench struck down the petition on Monday stating that AP High Court has struck down the petition after taking into consideration all the issues.
The CID had registered the cases against several individuals, including Kilaru Rajesh, a close aide of TDP general secretary Nara Lokesh, and Northface Holdings Private Limited director Tottempudi Venkateswara Rao, based on a complaint filed by N Suresh of Velagapudi, alleging insider trading.
It was alleged that some people with the prior knowledge of the location of the State capital, purchased lands at cheaper rates in Amaravati.
The high court had earlier stated that the lands purchased by the petitioners got valid registration documents. Purchase of lands with proper registration cannot be considered as a crime under Section 420 of IPC. No police investigation had concluded that the petitioners committed a crime. There were reports in the media about the location of State capital even before former Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu was sworn in on June 9, 2014 and it could not be said that the petitioners purchased the lands concealing the facts, the high court observed.
