Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J.
Sri Nara Chandra Babu Naidu - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Petition No.7951 of 2023
Decided on : 20-11-2023
ORDER :
1. This petitioner/A.37 has filed the present Criminal Petition invoking the provisions of Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) seeking regular bail pertaining to Crime No. 29 of 2021, registered at the C.I.D., Police Station, Amaravati, Andhra Pradesh.
2. The petitioner, along with others, stands accused in a case involving the offences punishable under Sections 166, 167, 418, 420, 465, 468, 471, 409, 201, 109 read with Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (referred to as 'IPC'), and Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (referred to as 'PC Act').
3. The case against the petitioner and others is as follows:
ii. Six clusters were formed at the inception for Rs. 546,84,18,908/-, with SIEMENS and Design Tech providing a grant-in-aid of 90%, i.e., Rs. 491,84,18,908/-, and the Government's share thereof 10%, i.e., Rs. 55,00,00,000/-. A Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) was signed between APSSDC and SIEMENS under G.O.Ms. No. 4, dated 30.06.2017. Subsequently, a tax investigation by the Additional Director General, GST, Pune, regarding CENVAT credit claims by M/s. Design Tech Systems Private Limited and M/s. Skillar Enterprises India Private Limited exposed a significant financial scam by SIEMENS and Design Tech involving funds allocated to APSSDC.
iii. The Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) specifies that Design Tech is obligated to provide training software development, including various sub-modules for advanced manufacturing CAD/CAM. The MoA explicitly prohibits sub-contracting. Despite this, SIEMENS and Design Tech subcontracted a substantial portion of their work to M/s. Skillar Enterprises Private Limited, New Delhi, employs a self-centric approach reminiscent of Solomon's wisdom.
iv. Design Tech claimed that M/s. Skillar Enterprises Private Limited provided training software development for advanced manufacturing of CAD/CAM, and payments for royalty and subscription were made as they developed the software. M/s. Skillar allegedly supplied the software directly to Skill Development Centers in Andhra Pradesh. When tax authorities questioned M/s Skillar, it denied subcontracting technical work, stating the software provided was technical material, and invoices wrongly mentioned royalty and subscription.
v. A.D.G.G.I., Pune, found contradictory stands between the service provider and service receiver. Further scrutiny revealed that M/s. Skillar purchased the software from shell/defunct companies, forming a cartel to siphon off public funds amounting to crores of rupees. The Managing Director of Design Tech admitted a lack of evidence showing services received from these companies.
vi. The Corporation was directed to conduct a forensic audit upon discovering financial irregularities. M/s. Sharat and Associates, a Forensic Audit Firm, conducted an inquiry, revealing flaws in policies, systems, fund utilization, and various spending practices. The audit covered the financial years 2014-15 to 2018-19, despite their responsibility to oversee the work and maintenance of the clusters, M/s. SIEMENS and Design Tech engaged in fraudulent activities, dubiously swindling crores of rupees.
4. The case of the petitioner/A.37, in brief, is that:
Bail is the rule and custody is the exception; without substantial evidence, personal liberty should not be curtailed.
object of bail is to secure appearance of the accused person at his trial by a reasonable amount of bail. Unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial where called ....
Order granting bail must demonstrate application of mind as to why applicant has been granted or denied privilege of bail.
Economic offences need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country, requiring a different approach in the matter of bail.
The court determined that the serious allegations of financial fraud, coupled with the accused's criminal history and risk of witness tampering, justified a refusal of bail.
Bail in economic offenses requires balancing public interest against individual rights; pre-trial detention must be justified beyond seriousness of charges.
Bail should not be denied solely based on the seriousness of the charges; considerations must include the necessity of ensuring the accused's presence at trial and not obstructing justice.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
