The High Court · 2025

The facts of the case are that 11-t6 l stpetitioner was arrayed 2. as A. 14 in his individual capacity, as he was the Managing Director of 2nd petitioner-Company, which was arrayed as A'15 -2- and represented by its Managing Director in ( .C.2g of 2015. The petitioners alleged that based on a complz i rt given by the Zonal Manager of UCO Bank, Hyderabad to tlt DIG of potice, ACB, CBI, Hyderabad, a crime was registered in I :C. l5(A)/2013- CBl/Hyderabad. The CBI investigated the mar er and filed a charge sheet against 15 accused attributing ; ,ccihc roles to each of them. The I stpetitioner, Managing Direc:r r of M/s.ARSS Infrastructure Projects Limited, Bhubanes.,r rr, and the 2ndpetitioner- M/s. ARSS Bhubaneswar repre;ented b1, its Managing Director, entered into a crimina.l cons: racv with A.2, Managing Director of M/s.SSVG Engineering pr) ects pvt. Ltd_ A.3 (for short 'SSVG'), to cheat UCO Bank, Banjara llills Branch, Hyderabad. In pursuance of the cc,rspiracy, A.2 obtained a lake Bank Guarantee for Rs.S Crores r the narnc of A. 15 Company. The 1$ peLitioner/A. 14 dishonest y invoke<l the Bank Guarantee and fraudulently received Rs. j Crores. The investigation revealed tJ.at the 2"d petitioner I rtercd into a contract on 21.O2.2OO9 with M/s. SSVG Hyde r rba<l. In rhis connection, they submitted the Bank Guarantee Irrmitr, a r:op1. of Civil Contract Volume- l between the Governrr rnt of Oclisha and Som Datt ARSS J.V. dated 03.ll.2OO! and orher documents such as the Special power of Attornel lvcn bv H.C). Advani dated 13.11.2008 in favour of S.p. Da; r. the lau.ful attorne_\' holder, and the trtter of Acceptance dat(,( 27 .Og .2OOg. 3 These documents were made available to M/s. SSVG, which in turn submitted them to UCO Bank, Banjara Hills Branch, Hyderabad. After receiving the Performance Bank Guarantee (PERFORMANCE BANK 6UARANTEE) for Rs.5 Crores, M/s. ARSS Infrastructure Projects Limited, Bhubaneswar, and M/s. SSVG, Hyderabad, scrapped the sub-contract dated 1O.O3.2OO9 and entered into another sub-contract dated 09.O4.2OO9.Under this contract, M/ s. ARSS Infrastructure Projects Limited offered the work of widening and strengthening the existing carriageway to two lanes for Bhadrak-Chandbali part of package No. PO2, from O to 45 km in SH-9 of the Government of Odisha worth Rs.10O Crores to M/s. SSVG, Hyderabad. The investigation further revealed that M/ s. ARSS Bhubaneswar had not obtained permission from the ernployer, Government of Odisha, or from the Chief Engineer of tl-e Project, SMEC International Pvt. Ltd. Thus, M/s. ARSS Bhubaneswar violated the special and general conditions of the main contract.The petitioncrs further stated that they were innocent of the offences alleged ergainst them and that a false case had been foisted. They argued that the allegation regarding the absence of a provision for mobilization advance was incorrect. From the contract agreements dated

21.O2.2OO9 and 1O.03.2009, there was a separatc head titled "Mobilization Advance. " In fact, the works contract entered into between the J.V. Company and the Government of Odisha 4 contained Clause 14.2 under the heading "Advr rce Payment," which provided for mobilization funds. Thereforr , the allegation that there was no provision for mobilization adva I :e was false.

3. The petitioners further stated that the ac.s or defaults were those of the Contractor. Sub-contracting pa t of the work was permissibte, and even the Odisha GoverrLt rent had not complained that the petitioners wrongly enteft ( into a Sub- contract Agreement in violation of the terms of th€ Contract. Not informing the employer about the name of re ;istered Sub- contractor did not attract penal consequences. 'herefore, the petitioners argued that they could not be tried t nder criminal charges for such a violation.

4. The petitioncrs further stated that essen,) of the Sub- contract Agrcement dated 21.O2.2OO9, which was placed before the Bank, clearly revealed that one of the term s was that the Sub-contractor had to issue a Performance Ban.< (iuarantec o[ Rs.S Crores in favour of A.15 Company. Her < :, there u'as nothing suppressed in this regard. The petitiolr, rs submilted that they had no role or knowledge about any s :ppression of the rhird Agreement. The reason for executing tf ( second Sub- contract Agreement dated 10.03.20O9 was that tht conditions in the first Agreement were not fulfilled. For examplc the 57o Bank Guarantee of the Contract value was not provirl d as agrced, i I -5- and certain facts regarding the Work Agreement between the J.V. Partner and M/s. Som Dutt Builders were missing. They explained that expenditure clauses such as 87o royalty on gross bills and 37o survey/pre-tender expenses togetier amounted to 11% deductions. There was virtually no difference between the first and second Agreements, and hence no malahdes could be attributed. It is also alleged tJlat the third Sub-contract Agreement dated O9.O4.20O9 also did not differ materially from the earlier ones. Since the Sub-contractor failed to comply ald the work was delayed, the petitioners themselves took up the work. At that stage, A.3 Company came forward with the requisite Performance Bank Guarantee and offered to execute the job. The petitioners accepted the Performance Bank Guarantee in line w-ith the first Sub-contract Agreement and agreed to enter into a formal Agreement, as per the condition that a complete Agreement would be executed upon submission of the Performance Guarantee. The petitioners stated that Clause 4.2 of the Main Contract required the Main Contractor to provide Performalce Security equal to 5%o oi the Contract amount. Accordingly, they advanced Rs. lo.8l Crorcs ro the Odisha Government. by way of Performancc Securitv vide Performance Bank Guarantee No.O6657O8BGOOOO328 dated

20. 1O.2O08. Since ttre Sub-contract between A.3 and A.15 was worth Rs. 100 Crores, the Performance Guarantee had to be 6 extended by the Sub-contractor to the Mair Contractor' Therefore, there was no violation of law.

5. The petitioners further stated that the Be: k Guarantee was executed on O2.04.20O9. As A.3 failed to cc'l tmence work even after 9 months, the petitioners requested the Bank to invoke the Guarantee on I8.O2.201O. The Guara ltee was en- cashed on O9.O3.2OIO. For over 11 months, the il rb-contractor failed to perform despite repeated telephonic rl scussions' A letter (D45) from the Sub-contractor to UCO Br rk confirmed that deliberations regarding non-perfofinance v ere ongoing' Hence, the allegation that the petitioners did rLr t inform the Sub-contractor before invoking the Bank Gu erantee was incorrect.

6. The petitioners referred to Clause 4.4 ol the Contract Agreement, which allowed the Contractor to sub-( ( ntract part of the work but not the whole. The Contra<;l lr remained responsible lor the acts or defaults of the Sub-cc I tractor' They argued that if the Sub-contractor had started tl e work, they u,ould have informed the employer. Sri Manoran; z n Misra (LW- l5) stated that action could be taken against t].t J-V. and its partners for violations, but also confirmed that tvt s' SSVG had not furnished any evidence. Since the Sub-co:t -ractor never b 7 mobilized rnen, machinery, or materials, there was nothing for the pelitioners to report.

7. The petitioners stated that Rs.S Crore Bank Guarantee offered by the Sub-contractor was en-cashed due to non- performance. The petitioners then offered it to the Odisha Therefore, no wrongful gain Government, which a-lso en-cashed it for non-performance. .we,s caused to tle petitioners. The petitioners argued that they had no intention to cheat from the beginning. They had already haaded over a Bank Guarantee of Rs. 10.81 Crores to Odisha Government on 20.1O.20O8. The State Bank of India also confirrned this by Ietter dated

20.07.2008.

8. The Performance Guarantee of A.3 was executed later on O2-O4.2OO9. The Odisha Govemment eventually invoked the petitioners' Guarantee, causing thern a loss of Rs. lO. 16 Crores. Since A.3 failed to perform, ttie petitioners themselves executed work worth Rs.42.6O Crores. The Contract was terminated due to A.3's non-performance, which caused huge losses to the petitioners. The petitioners frnally submitted that they had nothing to do with UCO Bank. They were not customers of the Bank and had no transactions with it. If there were any illegal dealings between UCO Bank ofiicials and A.3 officials, those 8 (: were independent of the petitioners. Therefore, tF :y prayed the trial Court to discharge them in C'C.No.2S of 2O 15

9. The respondent therein hled counter stating that investigation established that lstpetitioner who i: representing 2nd petitioner company entered into criminal c: rspiracy with othtr accused persons viz., Gundluri Srinivr s, Managing Director of M/s. SSVG, Hyderabad to cheat UCO I lank, Banjara Hills Branch, Hyderabad and in furtherance of tht said criminal conspiracy Gundluri Srinivas obtained Bank Guar rntee for Rs'S Crores in the name o6 2na petitioner Compar5 and further invoked the said Performance BtLr k Guarantee lst p€titioner dishonestly and received a sum of Rs.5 Crores frz r dulently. The respondent further submitted that *re evidence r:' llected in the form of document and statements revealed lha- 2nd petitioner Company was not competent Lo enter into Sutn:ontract with M/s. SSVG, Hyderabad as per the terms arrd cor litions of the Main Contrat:t entered with thc Government o Odisha and knowing fullY r.r,elt that 2nd petitioner Compi ny was not competent to enter into sub-contract witt M/s.ssvG, Hyderabad, 1{ petitioner en-cashed the Bank ( 'uarartee for Rs.S Crores from UCO Bank fraudulently and < eused undue Ioss to the B.rnk. The respondent lurther subn tted that the above facts have clearly brought out strorrl prima-facie 9 evidence, documentar5r and oral to prove that the petitioners and other accused persons had committed the offences as alleged in the charge sheet alld that the bald statement of petitioners stating that there is no case, cannot be considered at this stage, as the same is the subject matter to be decided at the time of trial, as there is a prima-facie case made out with the material on record ald hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the petition. After hearing the parties and the evidence on record, the trial Court dismissed the petition stating that t-Ile issue requires trial and there is prima-facie evidence against the petitioners for framing the charge. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision case is hled.

10. Heard Sri B.Chandrasen Reddy, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri T.Srujan Kumar Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI appearing for the respondent. I l. The contention of learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that the trial Court erred in dismissing the petition and it has not considered the material on record in right perspective, The entire allegations in the complaint arose out of contract agreement d,ated 2L.O2.2OO9 wherein the petitioners have subcontract the part of works to M/s.SSVG Engineering Projects Pvt. Ltd., and they are no way connected to the atleged -10- r-l offences raised against the petitioners. As per 11e terms and conditions in the civil works contract entered by r re petitioners to the joint venture the petitioner and ARSS nfrastructure Projects Ltd., has entered into a Contract Aer:ement dated 2l.O2.2OOg. Subsequently, the terms was modi[l :d and frnally the subcontract agreement dated 09.04.2009 is er 'ered between the petitioners and M/s.SSVG Engineering Prolr cts Pvt Ltd', and it was specifically mentioned in the sub c rntract dated O9.O4.2OO9 that the main contractor is the I rvernment of Odisha and sub-contractor is M/ s.SSVG Engine :ring Projects Pvt. Ltd., and it shall furnish irrevocable bank gue -antee of Rs'5 Crores towards performance security with a cor < ition that the bank guarantee may be revoked anytime by the r rrt of ttre first party without assigning any reasons to the ban k rr if the sub- contractor fails to perform the work fully to the ;atisfaction of contractor. M/s. SSVG Engineering Projects Pvt Ltd. entered into a sub-contract agreement with the ::titioners on Og.O4.2OOg but faited to start the work entrttril :d under the agfeement. The petitioners senl. several notices il M/s. SSVG informing them o[ their failure to comrnence $': 'k as per the schedule. Finally, on 18.02.201O, the petitio'r:rs issued a termination notice and informed that they are invc <ing the bank guarantee of Rs.5 Crores. He furthe r contenc:d that after receiving the termination notice dated 18.02 , ) 10 and the - 11- caution notice about invoking the bank guarantee, M/s. SSVG Engineering Projects Pvt. Ltd. did not ta_ke any steps to obtain a restraining order from the cornpetent court to prevent invocation of the guaraltee. Having no other remedy, the petitioners invoked the bank guarantee issued towards performance security by M/s. SSVG Engineering projects pvt. Ltd. on 09.03.2010. After invocation of the bank guarantee, the Chairman of M/s. SSVG Engineering Projects Rrt. Ltd., Mr. G- Srinivas, engaged henchmen and kidnapped tlle Chairman of lst petitioner Subash Agarwal, his brother Shankar La.l Agarwal, and their driver. A crime was registered in CT Case No.66l of 2O13 and all accused were arrested except A.l-G. Srinivas. He obtained anticipatory bail from the High Court of Odisha. Aggrieved, by the same petitioners approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in sLP (Crl) No.7191l2013. On O9.O5.2016, the Supreme Court allowed the SLP and rejected the anticipatory bail. Subsequently, the SDJM Court, Bhubaneswar issued a non-bailable warrant on 29 .08.2016 against G. Srinivas and another- Since then, G. Srinivas has been absconding. Meanwhile, UCO Bank, Banjara HiUs Branch, lodged a complaint. The petitioners were arrayed as Accused Nos. 14 and 15 and charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 1208, 42O, and, 47 | IPC along with G. Srinivas and certain bank officials. The allegation was that the petitioners had not -12- (l obtained permission from the Government of ( rdisha or the project consultant, SMEC lnternational Pvt. L d., and had violated special conditions by entering into a srrl contract with A.3, whose Managing Director was A.2.

12. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 allegedly availed loel facilities and bank guarantees from UCO Bank by furnislr ng false and fabricated documents, thereby cheated th: bank. The petitioners argued that ttrey were falsely implicat: l, as they had no direct nexus with tJre allegations except awarding the subcontract to Accused Nos. 2 and 3. The petitr( I ers submitted that in contractual matters, contractors cannot 'xecute works within the time schedule without awarding sub r ontracts. Due to the non-performance of Accused Nos. 2 and l the princiPal contractor invoked the bank guarantee of Rs. lO,li ,16,OO0/-.

13. The petitioners argued that their rel r ionshrp with Accused Nos. 2 and 3 was that of contra: or and sub- contractor. The trial court erred in dismissinp the discharge petition, holding that the issue of subcontract I g part of the main contract should be determined during a hr l-fledged trial- As per clause 4.4 of the contract agreement, 're petitioners were permitted to subcontract part of the awa-, t:d s'ork. The petitioners contended that the trial court errct in observing that, based on the charse sheet. theJ conspire,i with Accused -13- Nos. 2 and 3 to fraudulenfly invoke the Bank Guarantee of Rs.S Crores and caused wrongful loss to UCO Bank, requiring a full trial.

14. The petitioners argued that the trial court failed to consider that the Chairman of petrtioners (A14 and A15) was abducted by henchmen of Accused No.2, against whom a crime was registered, and who remains absconding. Further the allegation that Accused No. 15 did not serve notice upon Accused No.3 before invoking the Bank Guarantee was incorrect. The Bank Guarantee was executed on O2.O4.2OO9. As A.3 failed to commence work even after 9 months, the petitioners issued several letters and hnally a termination notice on 18.02.201O. The petitioners emphasized that they were engaged in the business of road and railway construction with an annual turnover of approximately Rs.300 Crores and a strong market reputation. They argued that the allegation of conspiring with Accused Nos.2 and 3 for a meagre amount of Rs.5 Crores was baseless and intended to falsely implicate them.

15. The respondent frled counter denying the averments of the petition and alleged that Shri Rajesh Agaru,al was the Managing Director of M/s. ARSS lrrfrastructure Projects -Ltd., Bhubaneswar. ARSS entered into a joint venture with M/s Som -14- Dutt Builders to execute a road widening project a varded by the Government of Odisha. Som Dutt was the lead r rember of the joint venture. As per the contract, Som Dutt v'i s required to obtain permission from the Government of ( 'disha before entering into any sub-contract. However, ,\ lSS, without authority, entered into a sub-contract wit r M/s.SSVG Engineering Projects hrt. Ltd. for executing go r rnment work without the knowledge or consent of the Governrl :nt of Odisha. In connivalce, Gundluri Srinivas, MD of SSVG o: ained a Bank Guarantee of Rs.S Crores in ttre name ol ,\ lSS. The l st petitioner, MD of ARSS, dishonestly invoke I the Bank Guarantee and en-cashed Rs.S Crores, causinl loss to UCO Bank. During investigB.tion, it was revealed lrat Gundluri Srinivas conspired with ARSS. In pursuance of tt is conspiracy, SSVG fraudulently entered into sub-contract it I eements with ARSS, despite ARSS knowing it was not comF( :ent to do so under the terms of the main contract signe 1 between lhe Government of Odisha and t].e Som Dutt-ARSS . \ .

16. SSVG fraudulently submitted these sub-contract agreements to UCO Bank and obtained a Per t rmance Ilank Guarantee of Rs.S Crores on 03.04.2009 in lz'our of ARSS. ARSS fraudulently invoked the Bank Guarar.t :e, and Rs.5 Crores was paid to ARSS (A- I 5) vide Demar,t Draft clated -15- O9.O3.2O1O. The amount was en-cashed at SBI, Industrial Branch, Bhubaneswar. InvestigaLion further revea-led that Rs.3.75 Crores was debited from the Term Loan account of SSVG, and Rs.1.25 Crores was adjusted from the Margin Money Deposit given while issuing the Bank Guarantee. The Som Dutt- ARSS JV had submitted a hnancial guarantee equal to 57o of the project cost and availed mobilization advance up to 5%. The frnancia-l guarantee was invoked by the Government of Odisha to adjust the mobilization advance. The JV also submitted a performance bank guarantee of 5olo of the project cost. However, t].e Government of Odisha did not invoke the Performance Bank Guarantee, as the JV appealed to arbitration against termination of the contract for slow progress. Though ARSS received mobilization advance from the Government, it did not extend the benefit to SSVG. ARSS did not serve any notice to SSVG before invoking the Bank Guarantee. The sub-contract agreements dated 21.O2.2OO9, LO.O3.2OO9, and O9.O4.2OO9, along with realization of the Performance Bank Guarantee of Rs.S Crores, were executed without the knowledge or consent of the Government of Odisha or the project consultant, M/s. SMEC International Pvt. Ltd. This violated both the special and general condilions of the main contract. The claim of the petitioners/accused was found vague and untrue. ARSS had demanded Rs.S Crores from UCO Bank, Banjara Hills, under -16- the Bank Guarantee issued on O2.O4.2OO9. '' re petitioners' averments were irrelevant and outside -l e scope of investigation. Investigation established that petitioners/ accused, as part of the Som I ) ttt-ARSS JV, conspired with UCO Bank olhcials to obtain and lr ter invoke the Bank Guarantee, violating. contract terms and f I ling to inform the Government of Odisha. The charge sheel vas filed after thorough investigation, and the evidence was tLr .ly considered by the court. Realization of the Performance Bar,l Guaranlee of Rs.S Crores was done without the knowledge an(L lonse nt of the Government of Odisha and the project cons .l tanl, thereby violating the contract conditions. Hence, praye J this Court to dismiss this revision case. 17 . Considering the submissions made by b< t r parties and the material on record, the allegation against tl^( petitioners is that they obtained a performance bank guarantec r[ Rs.5 Crores from the respondent bank. This was in connectrr I with a sub- contract they had entered into with SSVG Engir ( ering Projccts Pvt. Ltd. According to the statement of LW. I-I); (iM' Personal Services Dept., UCO Bank, HO, Kolkrr a, on the recommendation of the branch, Sri N. Kumarsv'i my, who was then the FGM at the Circle OfEce in Chennai, sart ltoned a Cash Credit Limit of Rs. 15 Crores and Bank Guarz r tee Limits of -t7 - Rs.7 Crores for M/s. SSVG Engineering Projects Pvt. Ltd., on

29.12.2008. In March 2010, the State Bank of India took over a Working Capital Limit of Rs.l5 lakhs and an un-invoked Bank Guarantee limit of Rs.2 lakhs, both supported by collateral securities. Currently, tJ:e outstanding Cash Credit Limit is nil, but the outstanding Bank Guarantee stands at Rs.3.75 Crores. Since the parLies failed to make regular installment payments, the account was declared a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on

30.06.20 1 1. The bank then initiated proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securier lnteresr (SARFAESI) Act, 2OO2. However, during this process, it was discovered that Vijaya Balk had also clairned possession of the same properties. Upon legal verifrcation, it was found that the collateral securities were fake, involving multiple fraudulent title deeds. This resulted in a loss of Rs.3.75 Crores to the bank under the Bank Guarantee. The complaint further alleges that Sri P.K. Pattnaik recommended tJle sanction of Rs. 15 Crores as working capital and Rs.7 Crores as a bank guarantee without proper verihcation, thereby viola.ting banking guidelines and causing firnancial loss to the bank.

18. LW.2- Chief Manaqer of UCO Bank, Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, stated that upon reviewing the agreement dated -18-

21.O2.2OO9 between ARSS and SSVG Engineering it was found that ARSS Infrastructure was the main contrat:' rr and SSVG was the sub-contractor. The Odisha Governmer: t had awarded the civil works contract to ARSS. On 18.(t1 .201O, ARSS informed UCO Bank that SSVG had failed tc perform the contract satisfactorily as per the sub-contrac I terms. As a result, ARSS decided to invoke the bank 3 rarantee. On 2O.O2.2OLO, the bank notified SSVG about t:r s invocation. SSVG requested the bank to stop tl.e invocatior, but the bank proceeded to pay Rs.5 Crores to ARSS. This amoL ot was settled by adjusting Rs. 1.25 Crores from SSVG's margin I roney and the remaining Rs.3.75 Crores was paid by opening a loan account in SSVG's name. The Odisha Government hac not permitted the joint venture or its partners to sub-contract he work. Due to delavs in project execution, the contract t 'ith the joint vcnture was terminated. The government wat not informed zrbout the cngagement of a sub-contractor, and t.1 : sub con t rac t hzrd no ofllcial bearing on t]re main corrtract. 'hese ar(: the allegations made against the petitioners in L\[. l's statement. LW.3, Chief Manager of UCO Bank, Banjara Hillt, stated that as pcr a lettcr dated 26.12.2013, SSVG had availe 1 Rs.S C ro res performance bank guarantee in the name of ARi i. LWs.4 and 5 did not make any statements against the pt I tioners, LW.6 statcd that SSVG had availed Rs.7 Crore bank 11 rarantee [imit, t -19- out of which Rs.S Crores was invoked by ARSS. LW.14 stated that Rajesh Agarwal (Managing Director of ARSS) and R.K' Patnaik (Director of Finance) were authorized to operate the account. On 12.03.201O, Rs.S Crores was credited to ARSS's account through clearing, which reduced their debit balance of Rs.65 Crores. LW.15 stated that ARSS was not authorized to obt"in a performance bank guarantee in its name to release mobilization advances to a sub-contractor. ARSS was also not authorizrd to engage a sub-contractor on its own and failed to inform the Odisha Government about such engagement. Furthermore, SSVG did not make any inquiry with the complainant bank before issuance of the performance bank guarantee in ARSS's name.

19. LW.26, Soumendra Keshari Pattnaik, Director of Finance at ARSS Infrastructure Projects Ltd., stated that Rajesh Agarwal is the Managing Director of ARSS. ARSS had entered into a joint venture with M/s Som Datt Builders Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. This joint venture was awarded a World Bank-funded project for widening and strengthening the state highway from Anandpur to Chandbali. On 21.02.2009, ARSS signed a sub-contract agreement with M/s SSVG. Under this agreement, no payment was made to SSVG, and SSVG did not provide any financial bank guarantee to receive a mobilisation advance from ARSS' t \ -20- ARSS depended on SSVG to execute and compl:te the project. However, SSVG failed to meet its obligations b5 lanuary 2010, taking 11 months to complete work worth only rround Rs. 100 Crores. As a result, ARSS terminated the contr € :t. SSVG had submitted a performance bank guarantee of Rs. i Crores dated O2.O4.2OO9, valid for one year, which was rer:r ived by ARSS around May 20O9. ARSS verihed the guarantee by sending a letter to UCO Bank, Banjara Hills, on 13 ( 5.2OO9. On

11.O3.2O10, ARSS invoked the Rs.S Crore performance guarantee, citing SSVC's failure to execute the :roject as per World Bank standards and specifications. The I uarantee was invoked as a prccaution to cover tJle financial irr I act caused by the year-long dclay. However, ARSS did not isr re any formal notice to SSVG regarding the cancellation of the ontract dated 09:04.2009

20. As pcr thc main contract between the I overnment of Odisha and the Joint venture, Som Datt Build: s is the lead member. Nt-'ither Som Datt Builders nor ARSti informed the Government ol Odisha or SMEC, the Project Engi:r :er, about the engagement ol SSVG as a subcontractor. ARSS e rgaged SSVG independentll, t() complete the project on time rs per World Bank specifications. ARSS provided SSVG with :opies of the project spr:r:rlication volumes but did not she -e the main I -2L- contract between the Govemment of Odisha and ttre joint venture for their review. The other witnesses have not stated anything against the petitioners herein. Though Lw.26 stated that ARSS has not intimated about tlre sub-contract, the letter submitted by the petitioners show that it was informed on

18.O2.2O 10 to SSVG and after informing they terminated the contract. Further, ttre petitioners herein addressed letter to the UCO Bank stating that as the sub-contract is terminated they are invoking bank guarantee and t.I,e Bank accepted the same and after deducting tJre amount, tJrey gave demand draft in favour of petitioners and the szune was converted into loan. Further when the loan was declared as NPA tJley came to know that the property which are given as security was already given as securit-v to other bank and tJrey were cheated which shows that \.\,hatever the action done by the petitioners herein are with the permission of Bank and Bank permitted them for invoking the bank guarantee and converted the bank guarantee into loan. As such, it cannot be said that petitioners herein have colluded with other accused and cheated the bank. Further, petitioners herein filed criminal case against SSVG and the samc was registered in Odisha and NBW was also issued against A. l-G.Srinivas which shows that there is no collusion between petitioners and other accused and all the allegations are against SSVG. Though the said balk guarantee was { o converted into loan, the documents given as sec rriry by SSVG are false documents. Therefore petitioners cann: be held liable for the same and the submission of learned Star r ing Counsel is that there is no permission from Government of , contract to SSVG. If there is no permissior )disha to sub- , the Odisha Government has to take action against the petiti r rers herein for giving sub-contract to SSVG and it will not corr.t in the way of invocation of bank guarantee. Viewed from , ny angle the allegation levelled against the petitioners herein hat they have colluded with SSVG and cheated the Bank har; no weightage. Therefore, the order of trial Court is liable to set :l ide.

21. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is r llowed setting aside the order dated O4.OA.2O22 in Crl.M.p.Nr,. \9 of 2022 in C.C.No.28 of 2O15 on the file of III Additional S1x cial Judge for Trial of CBI Cases, Hyderabad and the petition, rs herein are discharged from tl-re above criminal case. Miscellaneous petirions, if any, pending shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/- ]. GOWRI SHANKAR )EPUTY REGISTRAR ,/. /<- L'-- SECTION OFFICER

1. The lll Additional Special Judge for Trial of CBI Cases lyderabad. 2. One CC to M/s CHANDRASEN LAW OFFICES Advor:i tes [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI T SRUJAN KUMAry-REDDY SC FOR ( Bl Advocate [OPUCI 4. Two CD Copies ASR,/PSI, HIGH COURT I DATED:2211212025 ORDER CRLRC.No.522 of 2022 l-r : ,,i* u,. '..'l( ,; )t) 't ( * DF, :,'l'a'i * ALLOWIN(; TIIE CRLRC -1 ,-- ,-)fr'\ z,'r,,i. ,- "/.-