Special CBI Court convicts Janardhana Reddy in OMC mining case

What the Record Shows

A Special CBI Court in Hyderabad convicted former Karnataka Tourism Minister and sitting MLA Gali Janardhana Reddy in the Obulapuram Mining Company (OMC) illegal iron-ore mining case, sentencing him to seven years' imprisonment with a fine, per the judgment recorded on 6 May 2025. The conviction was entered in CC No. 1 of 2012, arising from the CBI's RC No. 17(A) of 2009, registered by the agency's Hyderabad branch.

Three others were convicted alongside him: B V Srinivas Reddy, the managing director of OMC and Reddy's brother-in-law; V D Rajagopal, then an Assistant Director in the Department of Mines and Geology; and Mehafuz Ali Khan, described in the record as Reddy's personal assistant. Each was sentenced to seven years and fined Rs 10,000, according to the reported judgment.

In the same judgment the court acquitted former Andhra Pradesh minister Sabitha Indra Reddy, who had been named among the accused. An acquittal in a joint trial is a finding that the prosecution did not establish the charge against that person; it is set out here alongside the convictions because both outcomes flow from the same verdict, and omitting it would misstate the record.

The case concerns iron-ore mining conducted between roughly 2007 and 2010 under leases held by OMC near the Karnataka-Andhra Pradesh border. The CBI valued the alleged proceeds of the offence at Rs 884.13 crore, a figure recorded in the Telangana High Court's order of 6 March 2025 in related proceedings.

How It Worked

According to the CBI, the case centred on the manipulation of mining-lease boundaries. The agency alleged that OMC tampered with survey and boundary markings so that iron ore could be extracted from areas outside the sanctioned lease, including the Bellary Reserve Forest on the border between the two states.

The prosecution's case, as set out in the chargesheet, was that the extraction breached lease conditions, encroached on reserve-forest land, and that ore was moved and exported without the clearances the law required. The CBI framed the conduct as a criminal conspiracy that caused a loss to the public exchequers of both Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh.

The charges the accused faced reflect that framing. The Telangana High Court order records that Reddy, as Accused No. 2, was prosecuted under Indian Penal Code Sections 120-B, 379, 409, 411, 420, 427, 447 and 468, and under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — the last a provision engaged where a public servant is alleged to have obtained a pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means.

A notable feature of the verdict is that it reached a serving regulatory officer. V D Rajagopal held the office responsible for certifying lease boundaries within the Mines and Geology department; his conviction places the certifying authority inside the same conspiracy the CBI alleged, rather than treating that office as an outside party misled by forged paperwork.

The procedural history was long. The RC was registered in 2009 and a chargesheet filed, leading to CC No. 1 of 2012. By early March 2025 the trial had reached the stage of examining the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the point at which the court puts the incriminating material to each accused before pronouncing judgment. The verdict followed weeks later.

Who Lost Money

The loss the CBI alleged runs to Rs 884.13 crore, calculated as the value of the ore said to have been extracted and moved in breach of the leases. That figure is the alleged proceeds of the offence, not a sum any individual has yet been ordered to repay, and the two should not be conflated.

The parties said to have borne the loss are the public exchequers of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, which the prosecution argued were deprived of royalties and the value of a public natural resource. Beyond the exchequer, the record points to environmental harm: the Bellary Reserve Forest and the communities around the mining belt, where extraction, per the CBI's case, went well beyond the sanctioned footprint.

Unlike a deposit or investment scheme, this matter has no register of individual depositors awaiting a distribution. Recovery here runs through separate channels: the fine imposed, any confiscation of seized property that the court may order at the close of proceedings, and the wider regulatory response that followed the mining scandal across the two states. Gold ornaments and bonds seized during the investigation, worth several crore, remained in the court's custody pending the conclusion of the trial, the Telangana High Court having declined in March 2025 to return them in the interim.

Where It Stands Now

The conviction is recent and is not the end of the road. Reddy pursued appellate remedies, seeking bail and suspension of the conviction, and his membership of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly was subsequently reported to have been restored — a step that ordinarily follows a stay on the operation of a conviction, though the precise terms of any such order could not be independently confirmed from the official record for this report.

A conviction under challenge remains a conviction unless and until an appellate court sets it aside; equally, an appeal that is admitted does not erase it. The correct current position is that the Special CBI Court's verdict of May 2025 stands as recorded while the appeal process runs, and readers should treat any suspension as procedural relief rather than an acquittal. For the co-accused who were convicted, the same appellate avenues are open. Sabitha Indra Reddy's acquittal is, unless the CBI appeals it, the final word in her case.

Readers following the enforcement record can track related matters, from SEBI's recovery closures to the ED's money-laundering cases, through Oquilia's enforcement news archive.

What It Means

The OMC case is a study in how long a public-resource prosecution takes and how much turns on documentary proof of who moved a boundary line. The RC dates to 2009; the verdict came in 2025. For the reader, the lesson is less about mining than about the machinery of accountability: a conviction reaching both a sitting legislator and a serving departmental officer shows that the process can touch both the alleged beneficiary and the certifying official, but only over a timescale measured in years, and with the outcome still testable on appeal.

The case also illustrates the difference between an allegation and a finding. The Rs 884.13 crore figure is what the CBI alleged as the scale of the offence; the court's task was to decide, accused by accused, whether the evidence established the specific charges. It convicted four and acquitted one on the same day, a reminder that a joint chargesheet is not a joint verdict.

For anyone assessing a company's compliance claims, the durable takeaway is to treat regulatory certifications as verifiable facts rather than assurances. Lease boundaries, environmental clearances and export permissions are matters of public record that can be checked against the certifying authority, and a claim that cannot be verified against that authority is worth nothing more than the paper it is written on.

FAQ

Was Gali Janardhana Reddy convicted, and of what?

Yes. A Special CBI Court in Hyderabad convicted him in the OMC illegal mining case (CC No. 1 of 2012) and sentenced him to seven years' imprisonment with a fine, per the judgment of May 2025. He was prosecuted under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on charges arising from iron-ore extraction outside the sanctioned lease.

Does a conviction that is under appeal mean the matter is settled?

No. The conviction stands as recorded by the trial court, but Reddy has pursued appellate remedies, including a plea to suspend the conviction. An appellate court can uphold, modify or set aside a conviction; until it does, the trial court's verdict remains the operative position, and due process continues.

Who else was convicted, and was anyone acquitted?

Three others were convicted: OMC managing director B V Srinivas Reddy, a then Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, V D Rajagopal, and Reddy's personal assistant Mehafuz Ali Khan. Former Andhra Pradesh minister Sabitha Indra Reddy was acquitted in the same judgment, a finding that the charge against her was not established.

How much money was involved?

The CBI alleged proceeds of the offence of Rs 884.13 crore, a figure recorded in the Telangana High Court's March 2025 order. That is the alleged value of the illegally extracted and moved ore, not an amount any individual has been ordered to repay. What is ultimately recovered will depend on fines and any confiscation ordered by the court.

Where can I read the official record?

The Telangana High Court's order of 6 March 2025 in the related interim-custody petitions, which sets out the case reference (RC No. 17(A) of 2009, CC No. 1 of 2012), the charges and the alleged amount, is published on Indian Kanoon and linked below.

This report is based on the Telangana High Court order dated 6 March 2025 in the interim-custody petitions arising from CC No. 1 of 2012, which records the case reference, charges and alleged amount, together with contemporaneous records of the Special CBI Court's judgment, reviewed on 29 July 2026.