ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner/accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.10 of 2016 pending on the file of the Court of III Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad.

2. It is pertinent to mention that on an earlier occasion, the petitioner/accused No.1 has filed Criminal Petition No.14825 of 2016 before this Court seeking to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.10 of 2016 on the file of I Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 120B r/w 420, 468 & 471 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the PC Act’). This Court vide order dated 04.04.2019 partly allowed the said Criminal Petition by setting aside the cognizance order insofar as the IPC offences are concerned for want of sanction and by not interfering with the cognizance order in respect of the offence punishable under Section 13 of the PC Act and left open to the petitioner to put forth all his defenses during trial. It was also made clear that none of the observations in the said order will prejudice any of the rights and defence of the accused during the course of trial.

3. This is the second round of litigation. The petitioner/accused No.1 has filed the present petition seeking to quash all further proceedings against him in C.C.No.10 of 2016 pending on the file of the Court of III Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, insofar as the offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the PC Act are concerned.

4. It is the specific contention of the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI that the second application to quash the proceedings in the Calendar Case is not maintainable and therefore, the present Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed in limine on the ground of maintainability.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that M/s. NCC Limited (formerly Nagarjuna Construction Company Limited), represented by its Senior General Manager (P&M), filed C.O.S.Nos.25, 26 and 27 of 2021 on the file of the Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar, against National Institute of Technology, Kazipet, Warangal, represented by its Director. In the said suits, Guduru Ramesh, who is the prime witness and who is L.W.2 in the charge sheet, was examined as D.W.1. In the cross- examination, he deposed that he was authorized to depose evidence; that the suit contract work was awarded with the approval of Board of Governors; that Board of Governors was consisting of two persons from the defendant Institute i.e., Professor and Associate Professor, Director and Registrar along with representatives from Ministry of Human Resources Development (MHRD), IIT and Industry, but not from CPWD as suggested and that the National Institutes of Technology Act, 2007 (for short, ‘the NIT Act’) provides for constitution of Board of Governors. He further deposed that the suit works were awarded after following the prescribed procedure i.e., with the approval of the Building and Works Committee and thereafter, with the approval of Finance Committee and Board of Governors;

that the suit works awarded were unconscionable, as the works awarded at higher tender premium with the approval Board of Governors and that the approval of Board of Governors is binding on the NIT. It is further testified by L.W.2 that “It is true as per NIT Act, the Director has to implement the recommendations of the Board of Governors and he cannot go beyond the decision of the Board of Governors. It is true that the Registrar of defendant institute is responsible for all financial activities and all the bills for payments will go through Registrar. Registrar is empowered to stop payment of bills in case irregularities and in other aspects. The estimates will also be approved by the Board of Governors. It is true that the Director will issue letter of awards bas