New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday remained an order that faulted the CBI director for enabling an officer not from the court-appointed SIT to penetrate into the adulteration of ghee utilized in the renowned Tirumala Tirupati Temple’s ‘laddu prasadam’ (spiritual offerings). The Andhra Pradesh High court stated the CBI director acted in offense of the leading court’s instructions while performing a probe into “adulterated ghee” being utilized to prepare prasadam.
Giving relief on the plea of the CBI director, a bench making up Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran observed there was absolutely nothing incorrect if a specific officer was asked to help in the probe when the head of the probe company himself was keeping an eye on the examination. “If SIT wants to appoint a particular officer, what is wrong with that,” the bench asked.
Lawyer General Tushar Mehta, standing for the probe firm, stated the CBI director personally assembled a conference with SIT members, examined the case, and allowed Rao to continue as an examining officer, albeit in a minimal function.
“He is only a record keeper,” the law officer stated. The submission was opposed by the counsel for the participant who stated, “IO is not a record keeper.”
The counsel for the participant, who initially moved the high court, stated the leading court’s order had actually clearly defined the SIT’s structure and it should have 2 CBI officers chosen by the CBI director; 2 officers chosen by the Andhra Pradesh Police and a senior officer from the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI). He argued that permitting any other officer to take part broke the peak court’s required.
“Whether the SIT has done away with the supervision of the investigation? It is only appointing an investigating officer, who is working within their control,” the CJI asked.
Remaining the order, the bench asked the participant to submit a reply to the plea of the CBI director.
When the legal representative for the participant stated the officer was presuming the function of an examining officer and was pushing the participant to make confessions, the CJI stated, “You make a complaint.”
The CJI asked whether the SIT selected by the leading court abandoned its jurisdiction.
The debate originates from an order of the High Court which held that the CBI director acted contrary to the Supreme Court’s instructions by enabling one J Venkat Rao, an officer not officially part of the unique examination group (SIT), to perform examination in the event.
The high court described the pinnacle court’s instructions of 2024 and stated it purchased the development of an independent SIT making up, 2 CBI officers, to be chosen by the Director, 2 officers of Andhra Pradesh Police, to be chosen by the state, and one senior authorities of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India.
It likewise kept in mind Venkat Rao was not particularly called as one of the state’s agents in the SIT.
The high court held that he might not presume investigative powers in the matter.
The order began a plea submitted by Kaduru Chinnappanna, who declared harassment at the hands of Rao.
According to Chinnappanna, he was consistently summoned by Rao, forced to appear before the SIT workplace at Tirupati, and pressured into offering “scripted false statements”
Chinnappanna declared these procedures were videographed and his declarations were determined under pressure.