ORDER :

The petitioner is accused No.4 in Crime No.29 of 2021 registered with the CID Police Station, Mangalagiri for offences under Sections 120-B, 166, 167, 418, 420, 465, 468, 471, 409, 209, 109 r/w 34 and 37 of I.P.C along with Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) & (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. This compliant was registered on 09.12.2021 against 26 accused for having caused wrongful loss of around Rs.241 crores to the Government exchequer.

2. The allegations in the complaint were that M/s. APSSDC had entered into an agreement with the petitioner herein and M/s. SIEMENS Industries Software Development Centers for establishing skill development centers, in accordance with the conditions set out in the agreement. The primary terms of the agreement were that the government was to contribute 10% of the cost and M/s.SIEMENS and the petitioner would contribute 90% of the remaining cost. The contribution of the government, calculated at Rs.371 crores, was released to the petitioner as an advance. The allegation is that the management of the petitioner, after receiving the said amount, had diverted a sum of Rs.241 crores to various shell companies and is routing it back to the petitioner company through Hawala transactions.

3. In the course of the investigation, the investigating officer is said to have issued a notice dated 29.12.2021, under Section 102 of Cr.P.C., bearing letter No.53/DSP-3/EOWII/ CID/2021 to the State Bank of India, Pune Branch for freezing the current account of the petitioner bearing No.38036630496. Thereupon, the said account was frozen by the State Bank of India. Subsequently the petitioner approached the trial Court, namely the Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases-cum-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, by way of Crl.M.P.No.55 of 2022 under Section 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C, for de-freezing the bank account of the petitioner.

4. The petitioner, in support of the said application, contended that the amount lying in the account was not in any manner connected to the alleged crime or alleged diversion of funds; the petitioner, on account of the general directions of the Reserve Bank of India, is permitted to operate only one account through which it has to pay the salaries of nearly 800 employees directly and 200 employees indirectly. As the sole bank account of the petitioner company has been frozen, the petitioner is unable to pay the salaries of the employees; the amounts that are deposited in the bank account of the petitioner, after the bank account had been frozen in December, 2021, are amounts which have been received by the petitioner from different companies during the course of business transactions and as such, freezing of the bank account, in relation to amounts of money which are not related to the alleged crime, is beyond the purview of Section 102 of Cr.P.C; the petitioner is unable to pay its statutory dues including Provident Fund Contribution, ESI Contribution etc., apart from being unable to meet its contractual obligations and as such would be entitled for defreezing of the account.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor had opposed this application on the ground that a sum of approximately 240 crores had been diverted by the petitioner to various shell companies and the said money was being routed back to the petitioner through various under hand transactions and it would be difficult for the investigating officer to pinpoint which transactions are valid and which transactions are part of the attempt of the petitioner to rout the diverted funds back to it. In such circumstances, keeping the account frozen is a valid exercise of authority under Section 102 of Cr.P.C. The learned Public Prosecutor also relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Teesta Atul Setalvad vs. The State of Gujarat, (2018) 2 SCC 372.

6. Heard Sri B.Adinarayana Rao learned senior counsel appearing for Smt. Jyothi Ratna Anumolu, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.3119 of 2022 and Sri T.M.K