google.com, pub-8701563775261122, DIRECT, f08c47fec0942fa0
Hollywood News

High Court Flays Sigachi Probe

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Tuesday expressed satisfaction over the lack of arrests in connection with the June reactor explosion at the Sigachi Industries pharmaceutical unit in Patancheru, Pashamylaram, which claimed the lives of 54 workers and injured many. The court expressed serious concern over the slow progress of the investigation and asked why no arrests were made despite witness statements and prima facie material.

The court directed the state government to submit a comprehensive report on the progress of the investigation and postponed the next hearing to November 27.

Asking whether compensation of Rs 1 crore was paid to each of the aggrieved families as promised by Sigachi Industries, the Supreme Court directed the company to file a case against its managing director and chief executive officer. The court directed the government to submit to it details of the compensation paid to the families of the dead and injured workers.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice GM Mohiuddin was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by city-based petitioner K. Baburao. The petitioner sought directions to expedite the investigation, provide fair compensation and consider transferring the investigation to the Central Investigation Laboratory (CIL).

The panel asked the government to submit details of the report of the expert committee formed to investigate the causes of the explosion, including the findings and recommendations contained in the report.

Advocate Vasudha Nagaraj, defending the petitioner, submitted that the investigation has not progressed significantly even after several months and no arrest has been made despite the clear violations and violations committed by the company. He argued that the full compensation was not paid.

Additional solicitor general T. Rajnikanth Reddy, appearing for the state, informed the bench that the police had recorded the statements of 192 witnesses. The company’s vice president of operations died in the explosion. He said the expert committee had submitted a report to the government under consideration and requested two weeks to file a counter-statement. He informed the court that the company had paid Rs 25 lakh to the families of each deceased worker to cover medical expenses and other relief measures, making a total of Rs 21.83 crore.

The board questioned whether the vice president’s death exonerated other responsible officers at the company. When the bench sought clarity on the promised compensation of Rs 1 crore per deceased worker, the other solicitor general said the company management would explain the matter on its own bench and the government was merely acting as a monitoring agency. He also informed that the labor department had sealed the factory building after the incident and necessary steps would be taken as per the recommendations of the expert committee.

Paper leak: HC postpones case filed by Bandi

Hyderabad:Justice J. Anil Kumar of the Telangana High Court on Tuesday stayed the case filed by the Union home minister to quash the criminal case filed against him in the SCC question paper leak case for the state’s Bandi Sanjay. While the case, filed in 2023, is pending, the petitioner is provided with protection from arrest.

Senior advocate L. Ravichander argued that the complaint does not amount to an offense under the Indian Penal Code or the Telangana State Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractices) Act. He stated that the provisions of the law would not apply to the plaintiff.

Ravichander said that even according to the prosecution, the paper was allegedly leaked after the investigation started and the theory that a person jumped from the walls and took a photo of the paper was celluloid material and was far from the truth. He said the investigation was politically motivated.

Justice Anil Kumar constantly probed the prosecutor on various aspects of the matter, including the applicability of the Malpractice Act against the petitioner. Upon request, the matter was postponed until the following week for the prosecutor to discuss the matter.

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button