ID :
41157
Sat, 01/17/2009 - 16:34
Auther :
Shortlink :
http://m.oananews.org//node/41157
The shortlink copeid
Raju's bail plea hearing on Jan 19; custody order on Saturday
Hyderabad, Jan 16 (PTI) A city court here in the capital
of India's southeastern state of Andhra Pradesh Friday posted
hearing on Ramalinga Raju's bail petition to Monday, while
reserving orders on separate pleas of the police and market
regulator SEBI for interrogating the former Chairman of Satyam
Computer.
Additional chief metropolitan magistrate D Ramakrishna,
who heard the petitions filed by the police and SEBI seeking
custody of Raju, his brother Rama Raju and Satyam's former CFO
Vadlamani Srinivas, reserved the orders for January 17 and 19,
respectively.
The police had sought custody of the three for seven
days, while SEBI sought a day's custody to quiz them on
'buying, selling and dealing' in Satyam shares.
The bail petition could not be heard Friday and was
posted for hearing on Monday as arguments on the custody
petitions stretched for over four-and-a-half hours.
Raju's counsel strongly opposed granting either police
custody or SEBI custody, contending that there was no more
material evidence to be collected from the accused.
"The CID has already recovered 44 documents from the
house of Ramalinga Raju, while other important documents were
seized from the Satyam offices both by CID and SEBI.
Moreover, the three accused are currently in judicial
remand and are hence 'physically and legally' not in a
position to present anything," the defence counsel argued.
Senior defence lawyer Prabhakar Reddy said it was the
onus of the new Satyam board to answer any query related to
finances of the company, while describing the SEBI petition as
an effort to "show to India that they too are playing their
role" in the case.
Reddy also quoted provisions of the SEBI Act under which
the case itself was not maintainable and said that the
so-called investigating officer's appointment was in
contravention of statute.
Similarly, he contended that the police custody petition
was also not admissible as the CID as well as SEBI authorities
had already seized relevant documents.
"It is not an open-ended case as the CID could not show
valid grounds for his police custody. Unless the police want
to use third-degree measures to extract some more details,
there was no need for police custody of the accused," defence
counsel Prakash Reddy, Padmanabha Reddy and Nalin Kumar
argued.
Public prosecutor appearing for CID, Anil Kumar,
maintained it was a "monumental fraud" committed by the Rajus
and Srinivas because of which several investors lost heavily.
Besides, there was suspicion that Ramalinga Raju diverted
funds from Satyam and made benami investments elsewhere.
"To dig out the hidden truth, the police require at least
a week's custody of the accused," the public prosecutor added.
He also said grant of police custody was essential to
restore confidence in judiciary among the public. PTI DBV
PMR
of India's southeastern state of Andhra Pradesh Friday posted
hearing on Ramalinga Raju's bail petition to Monday, while
reserving orders on separate pleas of the police and market
regulator SEBI for interrogating the former Chairman of Satyam
Computer.
Additional chief metropolitan magistrate D Ramakrishna,
who heard the petitions filed by the police and SEBI seeking
custody of Raju, his brother Rama Raju and Satyam's former CFO
Vadlamani Srinivas, reserved the orders for January 17 and 19,
respectively.
The police had sought custody of the three for seven
days, while SEBI sought a day's custody to quiz them on
'buying, selling and dealing' in Satyam shares.
The bail petition could not be heard Friday and was
posted for hearing on Monday as arguments on the custody
petitions stretched for over four-and-a-half hours.
Raju's counsel strongly opposed granting either police
custody or SEBI custody, contending that there was no more
material evidence to be collected from the accused.
"The CID has already recovered 44 documents from the
house of Ramalinga Raju, while other important documents were
seized from the Satyam offices both by CID and SEBI.
Moreover, the three accused are currently in judicial
remand and are hence 'physically and legally' not in a
position to present anything," the defence counsel argued.
Senior defence lawyer Prabhakar Reddy said it was the
onus of the new Satyam board to answer any query related to
finances of the company, while describing the SEBI petition as
an effort to "show to India that they too are playing their
role" in the case.
Reddy also quoted provisions of the SEBI Act under which
the case itself was not maintainable and said that the
so-called investigating officer's appointment was in
contravention of statute.
Similarly, he contended that the police custody petition
was also not admissible as the CID as well as SEBI authorities
had already seized relevant documents.
"It is not an open-ended case as the CID could not show
valid grounds for his police custody. Unless the police want
to use third-degree measures to extract some more details,
there was no need for police custody of the accused," defence
counsel Prakash Reddy, Padmanabha Reddy and Nalin Kumar
argued.
Public prosecutor appearing for CID, Anil Kumar,
maintained it was a "monumental fraud" committed by the Rajus
and Srinivas because of which several investors lost heavily.
Besides, there was suspicion that Ramalinga Raju diverted
funds from Satyam and made benami investments elsewhere.
"To dig out the hidden truth, the police require at least
a week's custody of the accused," the public prosecutor added.
He also said grant of police custody was essential to
restore confidence in judiciary among the public. PTI DBV
PMR
