IMPORTANT POINT
Initiation of criminal proceeding – Absence of approval as contemplated in Section 17A of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for conducting enquiry, inquiry or investigation of offences alleged to have been committed by a public servant in purported exercise of his official functions or duties, would neither vitiate proceedings nor would be a ground to quash proceedings or FIR registered against such public servant.

JUDGMENT :

ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant is aggrieved by initiation of a criminal proceeding against him and his detention in connection with the same by the respondent State through its CID. Allegations have been made against him for commission of offences under Sections 166, 167, 418, 420, 465, 468, 471, 409, 209 and 109 read with Sections 120B, 34 and 37 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 12 and 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The said offences are alleged to have been committed between the years 2015 and 2019, during which period he was the Chief Minister of the State of Andhra Pradesh. Initially, a First Information Report dated 09.12.2021 was lodged with CID Police Station, Andhra Pradesh, Mangalagiri implicating twenty-six persons as accused. On that basis, CR No. 29/2021 was registered. The appellant was not included in the array of accused persons in that F.I.R. The offences primarily relate to siphoning of public funds and I shall refer broadly to the allegations forming the basis of the F.I.R. in the succeeding paragraphs of this judgment. The list of accused persons was subsequently expanded and the appellant was also arraigned as an accused by an “Accused Adding Memo” dated 08.09.2021 lodged before the Special Judge, SPE & ACB cases (hereinafter referred to as “the Special Judge”). The appellant was implicated as accused no. 37, whereas another individual, Kinjarapu Atchannaidu was made the 38th accused. The latter is a former minister of Andhra Pradesh and appears to be a member of the legislative assembly of that State at present. The appellant was arrested on 09.09.2023 and was produced before the Special Judge on 10.09.2023. He was remanded to judicial custody by the Special Judge. The appellant applied before the High Court on 12.09.2023 for quashing the F.I.R. in Crime No. 29 of 2021 implicating him, invoking the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (1973 Code). The legality of the remand order dated 10.09.2023 was also challenged in the same petition before the High Court. The appellant’s plea was rejected and his petition was dismissed on 22.09.2023 by a learned Single Judge. The present appeal is against this judgment of dismissal of the said petition.

3. The primarily allegation against the appellant is facilitating diversion of public money in the approximate range of Rs. 370/- crores, which was to be used for setting up of six clusters of skill development centres in Andhra Pradesh. For this purpose, Andhra Pradesh State Skill Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “APSSDC”) was established through a memorandum numbered as G.O.Ms. No. 47 dated 10.09.2014 (referred to as 13.12.2014 in the order of the Special Judge dated 10.09.2023) issued by the Higher Education (EC A2) Department. APSSDC entered into an agreement with two corporate entities, Siemens Industry Software India Pvt. Ltd. (“SIEMENS” in short) and Design Tech India Pvt. Ltd. (we shall refer to it henceforth as “Design Tech”). The original object, in terms of a memorandum numbered as G.O.Ms. No. 4 dated 30.06.2015 issued by the Skill Development, Entrepreneurship & Innovation (Skills) Department approving the said Agreement, was to set up six different clusters comprising of one Centre of Excellence and five Technical Skill Development Institutions and Skill Development Centres in Andhra Pradesh. The total project cost was conceived to be Rs. 3281,05,13,448/- with each of the six clusters costing Rs. 546,84,18,908/-. Government contribution was limited to 10 percent of the cost amounting to Rs. 55,00,00,000/- with SIEMENS and Design Tech providing grant-in-aid of 90% i.e. Rs. 491,84,18,908/-. It is the State’s case that requirement of contribution of the two corporate entities was ignored and the final memorandum of agreement only entailed outflow of Rs.330/crores from the State to Design Tech. A signed