The Supreme Court bench, consisting of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela Trivedi, is hearing the petition of former Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu to dismiss the FIR related to the skill development scam case. On Tuesday, the court will listen to the arguments of the Andhra Pradesh CID, represented by senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi.
During Monday’s hearing, Naidu’s counsel, Harish Salve, presented arguments and sought clarity on the application of section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Salve referred to several High Court judgments that had interpreted 17-A differently.
Salve emphasized the need for the governor’s permission to arrest Naidu and mentioned a recent judgment in the Pankaj Bansal case, stating that an illegal arrest cannot be validated by a subsequent remand order.
Justice Bose asked when the inquiry into the skill scam case had started, to which Salve replied that it was based on a complaint from September 7, 2021, which had nothing to do with Naidu. Salve explained that the complaint alleged that a company called Design Tech had obtained GST credits from another company called Skill Tech, and it accused Siemens, Design Tech, and others of swindling public money.
Salve argued that since the number of preliminary inquiries in 2021 matched with the reference in the FIR, Section 17A of the PC Act should be applicable retrospectively. However, Justice Trivedi reminded Salve that Rohatgi had previously claimed that the inquiry had started before the 2018 amendment that introduced Section 17A.
Salve countered by stating that Rohatgi’s statement was factually incorrect and that a fresh inquiry had been conducted after a previous one was folded up. He urged the bench to dismiss the FIR, highlighting that Section 17A was introduced to prevent politically targeted cases like this.
Justice Bose questioned whether Salve wanted to return to the lower court (AP High Court) if they had not had the opportunity to address a document from July 5, 2018. Salve responded that going back to the lower court would not help since the HC judge believed that the date of the offense should be considered rather than the date of filing the FIR.
The bench also inquired if the CID counsel had submitted all the documents before the AP High Court. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi confirmed that he had produced all the documents.
