-Galla S Kiran Kumar,Bureau Chief Telagana (Andhra Pradesh)
Former Chief Minister Chandrababu filed a quash petition in the AP High Court on Tuesday seeking to set aside the judicial remand order passed by the Vijayawada Anisha Court on the 10th of this month based on the case (FIR 29/2021) registered against him by the CID for alleged irregularities in the utilization of AP State Skill Development Corporation (APSSDC) funds. .
It is known that political opponents are trying to end
Z+ security and they are trying to keep it away. Even though there is no prima facie evidence , they have filed a case
against me.
Today, Amaravati: TDP chief and former Chief Minister Chandrababu Chandrababu on Tuesday sought to set aside the judicial remand order passed by Vijayawada Anisha Court on 10th of this month based on the case (FIR 29/2021) registered against him by the CID for alleged irregularities in the utilization of AP State Skill Development Corporation (APSSDC) funds. A quash petition was filed. Anisha requested to stay the trial process against her in the court until this lawsuit is resolved. Mangalagiri CID SHO and complainant/APSSDC Chairman K. Ajay Reddy have been named as defendants in the suit. At the opening of the High Court on Tuesday, senior counsel for Chandrababu Dhammalapati Srinivas said that under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, prior approval from the Governor is mandatory for filing a case or investigating a petitioner (public servant). He mentioned to Justice K. Srinivasa Reddy that the CID is acting against the provisions of the law without any such thing. He sought to allow an urgent hearing (lunch motion). The judge will conduct the hearing on Wednesday.
My role is not mentioned in the complaint
An agreement was signed between APSSDC and Siemens for setting up skill development centres. The CID registered an FIR on December 9, 2021 based on the complaint given by the chairman of APSSDC that there were irregularities in the utilization of funds. My character is not mentioned in that complaint. My name was brought to the fore after a year that an accused had said. The CID and the state government acted with the sole aim of framing me in a false case and arresting me. There is no valid evidence in the remand report.
All the allegations against me are politically motivated. It is understood that the allegations were made with the aim of making me a victim of a crime I did not commit. Even though there is no prima facie evidence, I am accused. Proceeding further in this case would be an abuse of process.
Those sections are invalid
All other sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act, except Section 13, IPC Section 409 (criminal breach of trust by a public servant), are punishable with imprisonment of up to seven years. I am not specifically accused of committing an offense under section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 409 IPC. Section 420 is not applicable to me. There is no evidence of any collusive agreement. In that case Section 120B is invalid. I am not accused of any criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(c),(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In this background, registration of case under that section is not valid.
That is the decision of the senior officers
The senior officers discussed and took a decision about setting up the skill development project. They examined the operations of Siemens in Gujarat. Taking into account the reports, the AP Government implemented the Skill Development Project. A public servant is guilty of breach of trust only when the investigating agency concludes that the project was not implemented. CID is making speculative allegations without checking the facts on the ground.
Governor did not approve
According to Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, prior approval from the competent authority is mandatory for filing a case or investigating a public servant. In the present case no approval was obtained from the Governor. Therefore CID has no authority to register the case and investigate. The state government did not act according to the law. CID has no power to investigate, no power to arrest me, no right to request judicial remand in this case. The FIR was registered against me under section 17A without the permission of the Governor, so it is invalid.
The Supreme Court has said that prior permission is necessary
Section 17A of the Anti-Corruption Amendment Act came into force on 26 July 2018. In 2021, the Supreme Court gave a key verdict that henceforth, prior permission from the competent authority is mandatory to register a case and investigate against public servants. Prior consent must be taken in this context. In the case of the FIR registered on December 9, 2021, the entire process without the Governor’s approval is illegal. CID has no jurisdiction to investigate this case. Anisha court has no scope of inquiry and no power to remand. The special court of Anisha ignored the fact that the governor did not get approval and remanded it. This case falls under the purview of a special court that hears cases against MPs and MLAs. So strike the case registered against me.
With political revenge..
After 22 months of registration of this case.. I was framed deliberately and at the instigation of the present Chief Minister even though there was no prima facie evidence. The central government has given me JD+ security because there is a threat to life. Political opponents keep trying to finish me off. It is not safe to be kept in prison. I came to know that the ruling party, especially the party leader, was looking to keep me away from JD+ security so that the opponents could easily achieve the target.
The court did not say why the remand
‘The court failed to consider Anisha’s request to allow house remand. The police did not follow the law during the arrest. He was not produced before the Magistrate at the specified time with political orders. In the remand order, the Anisha court omitted some key points. It is not stated why remand is necessary in the present case. Failed to consider our objections on remand. Generally dismissed. Taking all these factors into consideration, strike down the FIR registered by the CID and the order passed by the court remanding Anisha. Chandrababu asked in the petition to stop the trial process in Anisha’s court.
The High Court found that 2.13 lakh students were benefited
While granting bail to an accused in the same case, the High Court found that 2.13 lakh students had benefited from the skill development project. APSSDC also received a letter of appreciation in recognition of those services. It was recalled that the prosecution could not show any evidence to prove that there was any financial loss to APSSDC.
