Telangana High Court: Two interlocutory applications were filed by the petitioner, Gali Janardhan Reddy, for the suspension of his conviction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) and the sentence under Section 430(1) BNSS, made by the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad (‘Special Court’) vide judgment dated 6-5-2025 in relation with illegal mining. K. Lakshman, J., after referring to the contentions of the petitioner regarding his disqualification from the membership, held that if the suspension was not granted, he would lose the chance to contest the by-election of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly and thereby would fail to represent the people of his constituency. The Court, thus, stayed his conviction and granted him bail.
Background of Illegal Mining Case involving G. Janardhan Reddy:
The petitioner was a sitting MLA of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly representing Gangawati Assembly Constituency. It was alleged that he, along with other accused, conspired to secure a grant of mining leases in favor of Obulapuram Mining Company Private Limited. They submitted forged mining returns and manipulated ore quality reports to justify transport and export of illegally mined iron ore and used valid mining permits to cover the transport of illegally extracted ore from un-leased or non-permitted areas. Devi Enterprises and Vijay Leasing Company were used for illegal excavation, transport, and sale of iron ore. And thus, the petitioner was charged for committing criminal breach of trust, cheating, and misconduct punishable under Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 468 and 471 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’).
The Special Court, vide judgment dated 6-5-2025, while acquitting him in Section 120-B read with Sections 468 and 471 IPC, recorded his conviction under Section 120-B read with Section 420 and Section 120-B read with Section 409 IPC. The Special Court imposed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and a fine of Rs 10,000, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months for each offence. Upon conviction, the Karnataka Legislative Assembly disqualified him from membership from the date of conviction as per Article 191(1)(e) of the Constitution read with Section 8 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. Such disqualification will continue for six years since his release unless it is stayed by a competent court.
The petitioner filed two interlocutory applications, in the present criminal appeal, seeking suspension of the conviction and grant of bail by suspending the sentence of imprisonment because there was a likelihood of the announcement of by-elections by the Election Commission to Gangawati Assembly Constituency and he would not be able to contest it. Whereas he respondent requested that since the offences committed by the petitioner were economic in nature involving serious allegations against him, the applications should be dismissed.
Analysis:
The Court took note of the fact that the petitioner was arrested on 5-9-2011 and was enlarged on bail on 20-1-2015, therefore, opined that he had already served 3 years, 4 months and 15 days in jail and out of the imprisonment for 7 years, he hd already served 50 per cent of the sentence. The petitioner was presently in jail from 6-5-2025 and these facts were not disputed by the Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent.
The Court further took note that there was no dispute regarding the petitioner was the sitting MLA and was disqualified from the date of conviction. But the petitioner has specifically pleaded the irreversible circumstances referring to Section 8(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 which states that a person convicted of any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years (other than any offence referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2)) shall be disqualified from the date of such conviction and shall continue to be disqualified for a further period of six years since his release.
The Court stated that it had the power to suspend the sentence and the conviction imposed upon the petitioner and grant him bail after recording its reasons. It further held that since this Court was an appellate court, it must consider the irreversible consequences of not allowing such suspensions.
The Court stated that the petitioner completed nearly half of his sentence and was again been in jail since 6-5-2025, i.e. the date of the impugned judgment. The Court observed that he co-operated with the Special Court and complied with the conditions imposed on him when he was granted bail. Further, he had also paid the fine that he was sentenced to by the Special Court. Thus, prima facie, the Court opined that if the conviction was not suspended, the petitioner, sitting MLA, who gained confidence of the People, would not be in a position to represent the people of his constituency and would be put to irreparable loss and injury as he would not be able to contest the by-elections to be notified by the Election Commission and thus there would be irreversible consequences.
Both the interlocutory applications were allowed, thereby suspending the conviction and sentences of imprisonment imposed by the Special Court and bail was granted to the petitioner upon the following conditions —
-
He shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs 10,00,000 with two sureties for a like sum;
-
He shall not leave the Country without the prior permission of this Court; and
-
He shall not indulge in any criminal acts during the bail period.
[Gali Janardhan Reddy v. State of Telangana, Interlocutory Application Nos. 2 And 3 of 2025, decided on 11-6-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Vimal Varma Vasi Reddy, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Srinivas Kapatia, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Constitution of India HERE
