VIJAYAWADA: The ACB court in Vijayawada on Thursday adjourned the hearing of former Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu’s bail plea and CID’s custody petition in connection with the skill development case to Friday.
Appearing for the CID, Additional Advocate-General (AAG) P Sudhakar Reddy submitted documents related to bank transactions and emails as proofs of the alleged swindling of funds through shell companies. Referring to the documents, he said that an amount of Rs 27 crore was transferred to the bank accounts of the TDP from the shell companies after funds were transferred to them from Andhra Pradesh State Skill Development Corporation (APSSDC).
Sudhakar Reddy argued that there was a variance between the Cabinet decision and the MoU signed later for the skill development project, and that Naidu was responsible for the lapses in the MoU. He said that there was a need for the CID to question Naidu on a few other financial transactions related to the alleged scam. The AAG informed the court that the concerned auditor had been asked to appear before the investigating agency for questioning on October 10.
Citing Article 14 of the Constitution, the AAG stated that a chief minister and a common man are equal before the law and one can’t swindle public money by using his position.
“The skill development case is a serious economic offence and Naidu has misused his position as the Chief Minister,” he contended in the court. Opposing the petition to grant bail to Naidu, the AAG said that the former Chief Minister orchestrated and executed the scam in the APSSDC and sought extension of Naidu’s custody for deeper investigation.
Earlier in the day, Naidu’s counsel Pramod Kumar Dubey stated the TDP chief wasn’t involved in the case. When the judge asked about the bank guarantees given by the previous government to the APSSDC, Dubey responded saying that Naidu’s role ended with the approval of the skill development project. The bank guarantees were given to the corporation by the government and it was APSSDC which entered into an agreement with Siemens India and DesignTech.
“How can Naidu be held responsible for any corruption or irregularities in APSSDC,” Dubey argued in court.
He maintained that the case was registered against Naidu after two years only on political grounds. Dubey reiterated that the CID had filed the custody petition only to delay the hearing in the case. As the arguments continued till evening, the court posted the matter to Friday afternoon.
Order reserved in Fibernet case
The AP High Court reserved its judgment on Naidu’s anticipatory bail petition in the Fibernet case after the conclusion of arguments on Thursday