Court discharges former drug regulator S Eswara Reddy, three others in corruption case

New Delhi: A special court has discharged former drug regulator Dr S Eswara Reddy and three other accused in a corruption case registered by the CBI, holding that the prosecution failed to make out even a prima facie case of criminal conspiracy or offences under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act.

The court said the CBI's allegations did not give rise to suspicion, let alone the grave suspicion needed to frame charges.

It discharged Reddy and others concluding that mere suspicion was not enough to proceed to trial.


Also read | CCI clears five major deals across food, energy, fintech and telecom sectors

The court found that the call recordings relied on by the prosecution did not attribute criminality to Reddy. None of the accused, it noted, had said in the recordings that Reddy demanded a bribe on any particular day or time to favour Bengaluru-based Biocon Biologics Ltd (BBL). Nor did they show that he acted outside his duties or performed any illegal act, or a legal act by illegal means, while processing the company's files.

The CBI had also not intercepted any call between Reddy and the other accused that could establish his role as a conspirator, the court said.

The court said the main ingredient of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the IPC is a meeting of minds and an agreement between the accused, which did not appear from the material on record.

It also held that the call recordings between other accused could not be used against Reddy under Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, as that provision applies only once there is prima facie evidence that a conspiracy exists.

The court held that the prosecution had not shown that they performed their public duty improperly or dishonestly with mala fide intention or that they obtained an undue advantage as a motive or reward.

The court noted that no undue advantage was granted to BBL by the Joint Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) while dealing with its applications for Insulin Aspart, as no licence was granted.

The court also noted that the investigating agency had not named BBL or its owner as accused.