The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Tuesday, September 19 reserved its judgement in the Andhra Pradesh State Skill Development Corporation (APSSDC) scam case, in which TDP president N Chandrababu Naidu has been arrested as the prime accused.
The court has posted the judgement for September 21. The arguments concerning Naidu's plea, in which he contested the CID's FIR against him, were heard for about four and a half hours.
Former Attorney General Mukul Rastogi, Advocate Ranjith Kumar and Andhra Pradesh Advocate Additional General P Sudhakar Reddy argued on behalf of the state, with Senior Advocate Harish Salve and Supreme court advocate Siddharth Luthra appearing for Chandrababu Naidu.
The single bench judge, Justice K Sreenivas Reddy, heard the petition filed by Naidu challenging the Anti Corruption Bureau court's order which remanded him to 14-day judicial custody. In his plea, Naidu claimed that the CID did not follow the laid down procedure (Section 17(A)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) 2018) while taking him into custody and argued that according to the Act, the FIR shouldn't have been filed without the prior Governor’s approval investigation related to decisions made by a public servant. Naidu’s Counsel claimed that the Counsel for the state had submitted the counter only half an hour before the proceedings.
Senior Advocate Harish Salve began his arguments virtually on behalf of Naidu around 1 pm contending that the FIR was completely illegal and no permission was granted under section 17 A of the PC. “ This FIR was investigated and only in 2023, a memo was filed. It is now common ground that no permission under Section 17A (sanction) was granted. We submit, as far as the CM is concerned, the Governor needs to give permission.” He continued and said, “This is an open and shut case. This is 'Regime Revenge'. We know the 2024 General Election is coming. It's ironic that he would tamper with witnesses.”
He argued that since the project in question was already underway and it could not be claimed that public funds were misused, there is no case to be made against Naidu.
Advocate Sidharth Luthra supplementing Salve’s arguments stated that the FIR registered prior to 2018 amendment, would not be considered for sanction, but since the FIR was filed in 2021 which is after the amendment in 2018, it applies for sanction.
Arguing on behalf of the state, Mukul Rastogi said that the investigation is still in its early stage and only 10 days have passed. "Given that the petitioner has requested bail it would be impossible for the investigation to be finished in such a short amount of time," he said.
Rastogi contended that the application of section 17A of PC Act in this context is entirely misplaced and argued that engaging in actions like fabricating records and misappropriating funds cannot be categorized as 'official duty' under scope of the Act. "To put it plainly just because something has received approval from a civil servant does not make it a part of public duty if the money from the government has been misused," Rastogi said.
Additional AG P Sudhakar contended that preliminary inquiry began on 5, June 2018, which is prior to the amendment. "When IPC offenses are there, there is no need to get sanctioned," P Sudhakar said.
He continued to argue that the MOU between the state government and two companies (Siemens and Design Tech) does not talk about the subcontract where a shell company named Skillar sent the money to six shell companies all of them taking money without services rendered.
Advocate Ranjith Kumar continued the arguments and said, "The arrest is not based just on an FIR here. We are talking about skill development and their developing a 'different kind of skill."
The Bench asked the counsel to explain the role of Naidu in selection of the subcontractor to which advocate Kumar replied that income tax notices were issued to the petitioner which shows similar transactions from different projects. "This shows the Modus operandi," Kumar said.
Interrupting Kumar, Salve said that the project was successfully delivered and "Siemens need not give anything in cash. 90% was kind. Six institutions have been set up and are running. If that is so then the resources of the state have been utilized. " He added, "What design tech might have done to save taxes is where the problem started to involve the petitioner is malafide. That's the case."
Salve added that arguments of the council of state were contradictory and said, "We heard that the investigation is at an inception stage. Then they said the inquiry started in 2018." Highlighting the Rafale case, Naidu's council stated the issue was the same where the state has claimed that the actions of petition do not warrant a Section 17A sanction.
The justice concluded the arguments at 5 PM and reserved the final Judgment for Thursday.
The court has earlier provided interim relief to Naidu, the Judge has also directed Vijayawada ACB Court not to consider CID’s petition seeking custody of Naidu, and not to insist Naidu to file counter before September 19.
In connection with his alleged involvement in the Andhra Pradesh Skill Development scam, Naidu is currently being held in Rajamundhry Central Jail on a 14-day judicial remand until September 22. According to the state CID's remand report, Naidu, his family, and TDP party members allegedly received misappropriated government funds of around Rs 271 crore that were diverted to shell companies.
The Vijayawada ACB Court will hear Naidu's interim bail and bail petition on Wednesday, September 20.