IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SAMIR J. DAVE, J.
Prashantbhai Sureshbhai Mishra - Applicant
Versus
State of Gujarat - Respondent
R/Criminal Misc. Application No. 8886 of 2022
Decided On : 18-05-2022
Transit Anticipatory Bail - Criminal Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 438 - Indian Penal Code, Sections 166, 167, 418, 420, 465, 468, 471, 409, 201, 109 read with Section 120(B) - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(c) and (d)
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought Transit Anticipatory Bail in connection with a case involving offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The case involved financial irregularities and a forensic audit revealed various irregularities and misstatements.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the applicant had hidden material facts of the case and deliberately omitted to disclose summons under Section 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code, leading to the rejection of the application for Transit Anticipatory Bail.
Issues: Concealment of material facts by the applicant, validity of the application for Transit Anticipatory Bail
Ratio Decidendi: The deliberate hiding of material facts by the applicant led to the rejection of the application for Transit Anticipatory Bail.
Final Decision: The application for Transit Anticipatory Bail was rejected, and the rule was discharged.
ORDER :
1. Rule. Mr. H.S. Soni, learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent-State.
2. By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant accused has prayed to release him on Transit Anticipatory Bail in case of his arrest in connection with the FIR registered as FIR No.29 of 2021 registered CID PS, Amaravathi, Manglagiri, Guntur, for the offenses punishable under Sections 166, 167, 418, 420, 465, 468, 471, 409, 201, 109 read with Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. Brief facts of the case as per the FIR are as under:
The object of the SIEMENS Project/scheme is to impart Hi-end technology to the trainers. APSSDC has deputed a team to visit SIEMENS Centers of Excellence already established in Gujarat and to submit a report. SIEMENS offers training program in collaboration with various State Governments. In the negotiations, the State Government has agreed to establish SIEMENS Centers of Excellence, Technical Skill Development Institutions and Skill Development Centers in different clusters. Each Cluster comprises of one Center of Excellence, five Technical Skill Development Institutions and Skill Development Centers. Six such clusters have been formed at the inception at a cost of Rs.546,84,18908/- with Siemens and DesigTech providing a grant-in-aid of Rs.491,84,18,908/- 90% and a Government share thereof is 10% - Rs.55 Crores.
A MoA has been entered into between APSSDC on one hand and SIEMENS on the other. SIEMENS is a combination of M/s. SIEMENS Industry Software (India) Private Limited and M/s. DesignTech Systems Private Limited. The MoA is in furtherance of G.O.M.S.No.4, dated 30-06-2017 of Skill Development Entreperneurship and Innovation (Skills) Department.
A tax investigation by the Additional Director General, GST, Intelligence, Pune in respect of claims of availing of CENVAT credit by M/s. DesignTech Systems Private Limited and M/s. Skilllar Enterprises India Private Limtied led to unearthing a huge financial scam involving crores of rupees by M/s. SIEMENS Industry Software India Private Limited and M/s. SIEMENS Industry Software India Private Limited. The funds relate to Andhra Pradesh State Skill Development Corporation, Vijayawada (shortly referred to as APSSDC).
As per the MoA, DesignTech has to provide training software development including various sub-modules designed for high end software for advance manufacturing CAD/CAM. The MoA does not contemplate subcontract. However, Siemens and DesignTech had subcontracted a large part of its works to M/s. Skillar Enterprises Private Limited, New Delhi, with self-centric Solomonon’s Wisdom. As a matter of fact, Skillar was established after DesignTech had entered into a contract with APSSDC. It is the claim of DesignTEch that Skillar has provided training software development includimng various sub-modules designed for high and software for advance manufacturing CAD/CAM. Skillar has directly supplied the same to the Skill Development Centers in Andhra Pradesh. DesignTech further claims that royalty and subscription were paid to Skillar since they have developed the software. When tax Authorities confronted Skillar, Skillar has claims that no technical work has been subcontracted and the training software development including various sub-modules provided are technical material and royalty and subscription have been wrongly mentioned n the invoices. Thus the Addl. D.G.G.I, Pune concluded that both the service provider and service receiver had taken contradictory stands regarding the nature of services. An in-depth scrutiny into the records by the A.D.G.G.I revealed that training software developed including various sub-modules shown as supplied by Skillar to DesignTech were purchased by Skillar from five companies and all those companies are shell/defunct companies and they were issuing invoices
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.