Tirumala Laddu Case: SC rejects plea to shift trial out of AP

Tirupati: The trial in the Tirumala laddu ghee adulteration case will remain in Andhra Pradesh, with the Supreme Court on Thursday dismissing a petition seeking its transfer to another state. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi rejected the plea filed by Machindra Shantaram Lanke, a Maharashtra-based businessman and one of the accused in the case. He heads Malganga Milk and Agro Products Pvt Ltd.

Lanke had questioned the possibility of a fair trial in Andhra Pradesh, arguing that public statements made by Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu and Deputy Chief Minister Pawan Kalyan had given the controversy a political dimension.

His counsel, senior advocate Siddharth Dave, submitted that repeated remarks by political leaders could influence the atmosphere surrounding the proceedings and put the accused at a disadvantage.

Dave also referred to the forensic findings, arguing that the reports had not established the presence of animal fat in the ghee samples. He questioned the continued public discussion of the issue despite these findings.

Seeking to shift the trial to a neighbouring state, the counsel pointed out that several accused were from North India and could face language-related difficulties in Andhra Pradesh. He further argued that his client had become caught in the political dispute between different parties and was facing the consequences of the controversy.

The Supreme Court, however, found no convincing grounds to transfer the proceedings. The Bench observed that most of the witnesses and material evidence were in Andhra Pradesh and shifting the trial would lead to practical difficulties. The judges also noted that the investigation was being conducted by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) constituted under the directions of the Supreme Court.

On the concerns raised over public statements by political leaders, the Bench said it had already issued directions to address the matter. It added that the petitioner could approach the court again if any further violation or difficulty arose.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Pradeep Vennelakanti

[email protected]