A. KRISHNA REDDY Vs. C.B.I.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition the Petitioner seek setting aside of the order dated 15th June, 2011 as also the order dated 23rd May, 2011 and quashing of initiation of proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C in R.C. No. DAI -2010 -A -0044 under Section 420/467/468/471 IPC read with 120 -B IPC and 13 (1) (d) read with13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act (in short 'PC Act').

(2.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that the Petitioner was sub -contractor of M/s. Gem International which was itself a sub -contractor of M/s. Swiss Timing Ltd. (in short 'SLT'). The Petitioner entered into an agreement with M/s. Gem International on the 29th June, 2010 for laying of cables and related civil works for the TSR contract for the 17 stadiums. The Petitioner was never into picture when the Organizing Committee entered into agreement with the STL. The Petitioner entered belatedly because the work had to be completed in time as it was lagging behind and due to torrential rains extra work force, materials etc. were required. Despite the Petitioner neither being named in FIR nor having any connection with either M/s. STL or M/s. Gem International the premises of the Petitioner at Hyderabad were raided on 7th February, 2011 and documents were sought under Section 91 Cr.P.C. which were immediately handed over to the CBI. The Respondent's officers intensively interrogated the Petitioner at Hyderabad and their queries were satisfactorily answered. On 10th February, 2011 CBI sent a fax message to the office of the Petitioner directing him to furnish certain more documents and to bring some more witnesses to Delhi. As per the oral instructions, on 11th February, 2011 the Petitioner appeared before the CBI officers and was subjected to a gruelling interrogation till late hours. He was again asked to appear on the 12th February, 2011. When he again appeared on the 12th February, 2011 at about 8.00 PM, he was asked to sign a notice purportedly issued under Section 160 Cr.P.C. directing him to appear on 13th February, 2011. The Petitioner had to leave for Hyderabad in early hours of 13th February, 2011 as his wife was seriously ill. This information was given by the Petitioner to the Investigating Officer on fax on 13th February, 2011.

(3.) ACCORDING to the Petitioner, the Petitioner had sufficiently joined the investigation and submitted all documents. The learned Trial Court erred in not considering the fact that the Petitioner was not named in FIR and for the first time he was named as an accused in the charge -sheet filed by the CBI on 20th May, 2011 and, thus, there was no deliberate intention to hide or abscond from the process of law. Even on 31st March, 2011 the CBI conducted search at the residential as well as office premises of the Petitioner and it was clearly disclosed that the Petitioner was at work site at Madhya Pradesh. Reliance is placed on Jayant Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 7 SCC 104 to contend that learned Trial Court failed to appreciate what "abscondence" meant. It is, thus, prayed that the impugned order be set aside.