Former AP Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu remanded to 14-day judicial custody, to be sent to Rajahmundry central jail

VIJAYAWADA: After protracted 13-hour-long nerve-wracking suspense, the ACB court in Vijayawada remanded Telugu Desam Party (TDP) and former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Nara Chandrababu Naidu to 14 days of judicial custody. He will be shifted to Rajahmundry central prison.

The CID presented Chandrababu Naidu before the special court at 6 a.m. on Sunday after the mandatory medical test. While renowned Supreme Court Lawyer Sidharth Luthra defended Chandrababu Nadu, the Additional Advocate General Ponnavolu Sudhakar Reddy defended the remand report on behalf of the CID and the Government.

Argument

The remand report mentioned that even though Chandrababu Naidu was mentioned as accused number 37, he was the chief architect and conspirator in the case. The report said that an amount of Rs 279 crore was siphoned off through shell companies, given towards the 10 percent share of the State Government to establish centres of excellence.

“A project which was conceived to be primarily funded to the extent of 90 percent by Siemens and Designtech, was illegally converted into a government-funded project, contrary to the terms and spirit of the said G.O,” the report mentioned. It further said that an amount of Rs 371 crore was released into the account of Designtech urgently even before the skill development institutions were set up and the valuation of the work was done.

The remand report, mentioning former Minister Atchan Naidu as one of the accused said that the Nara Chandrababu Naidu, through the other accused, fraudulently projected the total project cost as Rs 3,281 crore without any basis or assessment. “N Chandrababu Naidu intentionally did not insist on the 90 percent contribution of the technology partners and did not ask how much they contributed,” the report said.

The report also accused Chandrababu Naidu of helping one of the accused, Pendyala Srinivas to flee to the US on September 6, 2023, and another accused, Manoj Vasudev Pardasany, to the UAE on September 5, 2023.

The CID said that so far seven persons including Ghanta Subba Rao (A1), Soumyadri Sekhar Bose (A6), Vikas Vinayak Khanwelkar (A8), Mukul Chandra Agarwal (A10), Sirish Chandrakanth Shah, Vipin Sharma (A25) and Neelam Sharma (A28), in connection with the case. The CID said that the arrest of Chandrababu Naidu became inevitable after Shirish Shah gave a statement under 164 Cr. P.C confirming kickbacks to the then Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu.

While seeking judicial custody of Chandrababu Nadu, the CID said that the accused was not cooperative after reaching the CID office when asked about his role. He even refused the offer of the police that a helicopter was ready to transport him to Vijayawada from Nandyal. The move, the CID argued, led to the obstruction of the convoy by the TDP workers en route to Vijayawada.

Counterargument

The counsel for Chandrababu Naidu in reply to the remand report, submitted that Chandrababu Naidu was falsely implicated for political gain in the case. The counsel sought rejection of the remand report because there was a clear statutory violation as per Section 17-A of P.C. Act, 1988 which mandated that to conduct any inquiry or investigation relating to offenses relatable to recommendations made or decision taken by a public servant in discharge of official duties, functions, the same has to be done under a sanction as per the sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Sec.17-A of P.C. Act.

“The petitioner was the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh when the alleged offense alleged to have been committed and the person who removes the Chief Minister from office is the Governor of Andhra Pradesh and hence the prosecution has to obtain prior sanction of the Governor even to initiate an inquiry or investigation in the above case. Hence there is a statutory violation and hence the remand has to be rejected limini for the aforesaid violation,” the remand report reject petition mentioned.

The petition mentioned that as per the recitals of the complaint as well as the remand report, no role was attributed to the petitioner in siphoning the funds and there was no allegation in the FIR which was registered on December 9, 2021, moreover, no criminal complaint can be made and maintained relating to acts done in discharge of official duties and if there is any misuse of funds at any level, the same has to be dealt differently but not by way of prosecuting a Chief Minister.

It was further argued that it was well settled legal proposition that a Magistrate, while remanding an Accused under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C., had to see that a prima facie case is made out against the Accused from the material submitted and relied on the prosecution and in the instant case no such material was brought on record by the prosecuting agency even to remand the petitioner to judicial custody.

“In this case, there is a clear statutory violation in not obtaining sanction for conducting investigation which is a legal right of the petitioner herein, and as such the remand has to be rejected in limini. It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to reject the remand of the petitioner which violated the statutory provisions U/s. 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act and without any prima facie accusation in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders as this Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case,” the counsel said.

Much of Sidharth Luthra’s arguments were hinged on IPC 409 slapped on Chandrababu Naidu. He pointed out that the section was pertaining to public servants and not a people’s representative like Chandrababu Naidu. Sec.409 deals with criminal breach of trust by a public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent. Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over the property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Punishment: Imprisonment for Life or 10 Years + Fine, is a non-bailable offence. The offence was triable at Magistrate First Class.

Meanwhile, the Andhra Pradesh police which had ordered a Statewide imposition of section 144 as a precautionaey mesaure, kept a convoy ready for shifting Chandrababu Naidu to Rajamahendravaram Central Jail.