Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Fair Investigation In Tirupati Laddu Adulteration Case
In an alleged case of adulteration in the Prasadam Laddus at Tirumala Tirupati Temple, the Andhra Pradesh Court has held that the Director, CBI, could not have directed J Venkat Rao to conduct the investigation as the same was contrary to the directions of the Supreme Court.
The Petitioner approached the High Court seeking a direction for a free and fair investigation by the SIT constituted as per the directions of the Supreme Court. The Petitioner also sought a further declaration stating that the manner and conduct of the SIT officials were illegal and arbitrary.
The Single Bench of Justice Harinath. N said, “The two SIT members i.e., Sri.Sarvashresth Tripathi, IPS, IGP Guntur Range and Sri Gopinath Jatti, IPS, DIG, Visakhapatnam Range, who were recommended by the State in the reconstituted SIT were already members of the SIT constituted by the State. Inclusion of 10th respondent as investigating officer over and above the number of reconstituted SIT is not permissible and would certainly over reach the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.”
Advocate uday kumar vampugadavala represented the Petitioner, while GP represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The Supreme Court had passed an order duly considering that the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh had gone in public making a statement on September 18, 2024 that Ghee containing animal fat was being used to make Prasadam Laddus at Tirupati Tirumala under previous regime. It was also observed that some press reports reported that the Executive Officer of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam made a contrary statement that adulterated Ghee was never used. It was in such circumstances that the SIT was ordered to be formed.
The petitioner received a notice requiring him to appear. It was the petitioner’s case that he was compelled, forced and intimidated to record various scripted false statements before the SIT and the proceedings were recorded by a Video Camera. It was submitted that, the petitioner was forced to give statements to the dictates of an Officer of the team.
Arguments
It was the case of the Petitioner that the entire investigation is being derailed and is being conducted with a predetermined motive, and the witnesses are being pressurised to depose to the dictates of the 10th respondent and other police officers. It was further submitted that the 10th respondent is not a member of SIT; however, he has been repeatedly issuing notices to the petitioner calling upon him to appear as a witness before the SIT office at Tirupati.
Reasoning
The Bench noted that the Supreme Court had ordered that the investigation should be conducted by an independent SIT consisting of the members referred to in the order, and the investigation was entrusted to the independent agency consisting of the members mentioned therein. “In such circumstances the CBI could not have nominated the 10th respondent as the investigating agency contrary to the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India”, it said.
As per the Bench, the very purpose of entrusting the investigation by substituting the SIT constituted by the state ought to have been unambiguously interpreted by the Director, CBI and he ought to have named any one of the Officers of the reconstituted SIT as an investigating officer.
Thus, the Bench allowed the Petition by directing the Director to conduct a free and fair investigation by supervising the investigation, which is to be conducted by the SIT reconstituted as per the directions of the Supreme Court.
Cause Title: Kaduru Chinnappanna v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh (Case No .: Writ Petition No .: 14239/2025)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocate uday kumar vampugadavala
Respondent: GP for Home, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI P S P Suresh Kumar