HYDERABAD: Directorate of Law Enforcement (ED) grilled Kavitha, Bharat Rasthra Samithi (BRS) MLC and Telangana CM K Chandrashekar Rao’s daughter on Saturday, for nine hours in relation to Delhi excise policy case.
Kavitha was summoned again by the probe agency on 16 March.
Kavitha entered ED office on APJ Abdul Kalam Rao in Delhi around 11 am from Telangana CM official residence on Tughlak Road. She went out around 20:00 in her car and greeted the BRS activists waiting at the ED office, who chanted slogans to support her.
The ED collected Kavitha’s personal and financial information. Additionally, investigators questioned Kavitha regarding the alleged destruction of the phones she used during the scam period.
The ED confronted her with another defendant, Arun Ramchandran Pillai, regarding the meetings between the defendants and the money transactions.
The detective agency asked her several questions regarding WhatsApp messages and meetings with her former auditor Gorantla Butchi Babu. The key allegation is that Kavitha, as part of the South Lobby, resorted to conspiracy alongside the AAP government, former Deputy CM Manish Sisodia and others in formulating Delhi’s excise policy.
He allegedly held good investments in the tainted company Indospirits. The ED asked her about the corruption and movement of money in the scam where 100 crore is supposedly exchanged.
The ED served Kavitha with a summons under Section 50 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, which gives the power to ask a person to testify or provide any document during the investigation process.
Kavitha will celebrate her birthday on 13th March in Hyderabad.
Six SBR ministers, including Kavitha’s brother and IT Minister KT Rama Rao, spent the whole day in New Delhi. A battery of lawyers was kept ready to fight the case in the event of a legal action by the investigating agency.
Delhi police and central paramilitary forces barricaded ED offices to counter any protests by BRS leaders and activists who reached Delhi.
BRS leaders protested outside the Telangana Bhavan in Delhi and chanted slogans against the Bharatiya Janata Party.
As Hyderabad businessman and alleged frontman of Kavitha, Arun Ramchandran Pillai withdrew his statement before the Enforcement Directorate. However, ED now depends on Kavitha’s former auditor Gorantla Butchi Babu who has confessed to various Kavitha meetings and WhatsApp chats.
Southern lobby including Kavitha bribed AAP government to formulate excise duty policy to facilitate companies to win bids, form cartel and control retail outlets in Delhi. Kavitha invested money through her benami and paid the money back from the company after she got the licenses, ED said.
Businessman Arun Ramchandra Pillai, who was a case related to the alleged Delhi Excise Fraud, accused the Enforcement Directorate of falsifying his statements in his petition to the Rouse Avenue Court.
The ED court asked the agency to file a response by March 13.
Senior Attorney Surender Rao said, “Confession statement before the ED is acceptable as evidence. The burden falls on that person if they are withdrawing a confessional statement. A simple retraction of the confession might not be sufficient to make a confessional statement irrelevant to proceed in Sufficient evidence must be produced to establish that the declaration is inadvertent”.
Kavitha was summoned again by the probe agency on 16 March.
Kavitha entered ED office on APJ Abdul Kalam Rao in Delhi around 11 am from Telangana CM official residence on Tughlak Road. She went out around 20:00 in her car and greeted the BRS activists waiting at the ED office, who chanted slogans to support her.
The ED collected Kavitha’s personal and financial information. Additionally, investigators questioned Kavitha regarding the alleged destruction of the phones she used during the scam period.
The ED confronted her with another defendant, Arun Ramchandran Pillai, regarding the meetings between the defendants and the money transactions.
The detective agency asked her several questions regarding WhatsApp messages and meetings with her former auditor Gorantla Butchi Babu. The key allegation is that Kavitha, as part of the South Lobby, resorted to conspiracy alongside the AAP government, former Deputy CM Manish Sisodia and others in formulating Delhi’s excise policy.
He allegedly held good investments in the tainted company Indospirits. The ED asked her about the corruption and movement of money in the scam where 100 crore is supposedly exchanged.
The ED served Kavitha with a summons under Section 50 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, which gives the power to ask a person to testify or provide any document during the investigation process.
Kavitha will celebrate her birthday on 13th March in Hyderabad.
Six SBR ministers, including Kavitha’s brother and IT Minister KT Rama Rao, spent the whole day in New Delhi. A battery of lawyers was kept ready to fight the case in the event of a legal action by the investigating agency.
Delhi police and central paramilitary forces barricaded ED offices to counter any protests by BRS leaders and activists who reached Delhi.
BRS leaders protested outside the Telangana Bhavan in Delhi and chanted slogans against the Bharatiya Janata Party.
As Hyderabad businessman and alleged frontman of Kavitha, Arun Ramchandran Pillai withdrew his statement before the Enforcement Directorate. However, ED now depends on Kavitha’s former auditor Gorantla Butchi Babu who has confessed to various Kavitha meetings and WhatsApp chats.
Southern lobby including Kavitha bribed AAP government to formulate excise duty policy to facilitate companies to win bids, form cartel and control retail outlets in Delhi. Kavitha invested money through her benami and paid the money back from the company after she got the licenses, ED said.
Businessman Arun Ramchandra Pillai, who was a case related to the alleged Delhi Excise Fraud, accused the Enforcement Directorate of falsifying his statements in his petition to the Rouse Avenue Court.
The ED court asked the agency to file a response by March 13.
Senior Attorney Surender Rao said, “Confession statement before the ED is acceptable as evidence. The burden falls on that person if they are withdrawing a confessional statement. A simple retraction of the confession might not be sufficient to make a confessional statement irrelevant to proceed in Sufficient evidence must be produced to establish that the declaration is inadvertent”.
