ORDER : This criminal revision case is filed by the petitioners/A.14 and A.15 aggrieved by the order dated 04.08.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.59 of 2022 in C.C.No.28 of 2015 on the file of III Additional Special Judge for Trial of CBI Cases, Hyderabad. The petitioners herein have filed Crl.M.P.No.59 of 2022 under Section 239 Cr.P.C, praying the trial Court to discharge them from the above criminal case. 2. The facts of the case are that the 1 st petitioner was arrayed as A.14 in his individual capacity, as he was the Managing Director of 2 nd petitioner-Company, which was arrayed as A.15 and represented by its Managing Director in C.C.28 of 2015. The petitioners alleged that based on a complaint given by the Zonal Manager of UCO Bank, Hyderabad to the DIG of Police, ACB, CBI, Hyderabad, a crime was registered in RC.15(A)/2013- CBI/Hyderabad. The CBI investigated the matter and filed a charge sheet against 15 accused attributing specific roles to each of them. The 1 st petitioner, Managing Director of M/s.ARSS Infrastructure Projects Limited, Bhubaneswar, and the 2 nd petitioner- M/s. ARSS Bhubaneswar represented by its Managing Director, entered into a criminal conspiracy with A.2, Managing Director of M/s.SSVG Engineering Projects Pvt. Ltd.- A.3 (for short ‘SSVG’), to cheat UCO Bank, Banjara Hills Branch, Hyderabad. In pursuance of the conspiracy, A.2 obtained a fake Bank Guarantee for Rs.5 Crores in the name of A.15 Company. The 1 st petitioner/A.14 dishonestly invoked the Bank Guarantee and fraudulently received Rs.5 Crores. The investigation revealed that the 2nd petitioner entered into a contract on 21.02.2009 with M/s. SSVG Hyderabad. In this connection, they submitted the Bank Guarantee format, a copy of Civil Contract Volume-1 between the Government of Odisha and Som Datt ARSS J.V. dated 03.11.2008, and other documents such as the Special Power of Attorney given by H.G. Advani dated 13.11.2008 in favour of S.P. Dash, the lawful attorney holder, and the Letter of Acceptance dated 27.09.2008. These documents were made available to M/s. SSVG, which in turn submitted them to UCO Bank, Banjara Hills Branch, Hyderabad. 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 GUARANTEE) for Rs.5 Crores, M/s. ARSS Infrastructure Projects Limited, Bhubaneswar, and M/s. SSVG, Hyderabad, scrapped the sub-contract dated 10.03.2009 and entered into another sub-contract dated 09.04.2009.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. P02, from 0 to 45 km in SH-9 of the Government of Odisha worth Rs.100 Crores to M/s. SSVG, Hyderabad. The investigation further revealed that M/s. ARSS Bhubaneswar had not obtained permission from the employer, Government of Odisha, or from the Chief Engineer of the Project, SMEC International Pvt. Ltd. Thus, M/s. ARSS Bhubaneswar violated the special and general conditions of the main contract.The petitioners further stated that they were innocent of the offences alleged against 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 21.02.2009 and 10.03.2009, there was a separate head titled "Mobilization Advance." In fact, the works contract entered into between the J.V. Company and the Government of Odisha contained Clause 14.2 under the heading "Advance Payment," which provided for mobilization funds. Therefore, the allegation that there was no provision for mobilization advance was false. 3. The petitioners further stated that the acts or defaults were those of the Contractor. Sub-contracting part of the work was permissible, and even the Odisha Government had not complained that the petitioners wrongly entered into a Sub- contract Agreement in violation of the terms of the Contract. Not informing the employer about the name of registered Sub- contractor did not attract penal consequences. Therefore, the petitioners argued that they could not be tried under criminal charges for such a violation. 4. The petitioners further stated that essence of the Sub- contract Agreement dated 21.02.2009, which was placed before the Bank, clearly revealed that one of the terms was that the Sub-contractor had to issue a Performance Bank Guarantee of Rs.5 Crores in favour of A.15 Company. Hence, there was nothing suppressed in this regard. The petitioners submitted that they had no role or knowledge about any suppression of the third Agreement. Hence, there was nothing suppressed in this regard. The petitioners submitted that they had no role or knowledge about any suppression of the third Agreement. The reason for executing the second Sub- contract Agreement dated 10.03.2009 was that the conditions in the first Agreement were not fulfilled. For example, the 5% Bank Guarantee of the Contract value was not provided as agreed, 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 8% royalty on gross bills and 3% survey/pre-tender expenses together amounted to 11% deductions. There was virtually no difference between the first and second Agreements, and hence no malafides could be attributed. It is also alleged that the third Sub-contract Agreement dated 09.04.2009 also did not differ materially from the earlier ones. Since the Sub-contractor failed to comply and 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 with 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 Performance Security equal to 5% of the Contract amount. Accordingly, they advanced Rs.10.81 Crores to the Odisha Government by way of Performance Security vide Performance Bank Guarantee No.0665708BG0000328 dated 20.10.2008. Since the Sub-contract between A.3 and A.15 was worth Rs.100 Crores, the Performance Guarantee had to be extended by the Sub-contractor to the Main Contractor. Therefore, there was no violation of law. 5. The petitioners further stated that the Bank Guarantee was executed on 02.04.2009. As A.3 failed to commence work even after 9 months, the petitioners requested the Bank to invoke the Guarantee on 18.02.2010. The Guarantee was en- cashed on 09.03.2010. For over 11 months, the Sub-contractor failed to perform despite repeated telephonic discussions. A letter (D45) from the Sub-contractor to UCO Bank confirmed that deliberations regarding non-performance were ongoing. Hence, the allegation that the petitioners did not inform the Sub-contractor before invoking the Bank Guarantee was incorrect. 6. The Guarantee was en- cashed on 09.03.2010. For over 11 months, the Sub-contractor failed to perform despite repeated telephonic discussions. A letter (D45) from the Sub-contractor to UCO Bank confirmed that deliberations regarding non-performance were ongoing. Hence, the allegation that the petitioners did not inform the Sub-contractor before invoking the Bank Guarantee was incorrect. 6. The petitioners referred to Clause 4.4 of the Contract Agreement, which allowed the Contractor to sub-contract part of the work but not the whole. The Contractor remained responsible for the acts or defaults of the Sub-contractor. They argued that if the Sub-contractor had started the work, they would have informed the employer. Sri Manoranjan Misra (LW- 15) stated that action could be taken against the J.V. and its partners for violations, but also confirmed that M/s. SSVG had not furnished any evidence. Since the Sub-contractor never mobilized men, machinery, or materials, there was nothing for the petitioners to report. 7. The petitioners stated that Rs.5 Crore Bank Guarantee offered by the Sub-contractor was en-cashed due to non- performance. The petitioners then offered it to the Odisha Government, which also en-cashed it for non-performance. Therefore, no wrongful gain was caused to the petitioners. The petitioners argued that they had no intention to cheat from the beginning. They had already handed over a Bank Guarantee of Rs.10.81 Crores to Odisha Government on 20.10.2008. The State Bank of India also confirmed this by letter dated 20.07.2008. 8. The Performance Guarantee of A.3 was executed later on 02.04.2009. The Odisha Government eventually invoked the petitioners’ Guarantee, causing them a loss of Rs.10.16 Crores. Since A.3 failed to perform, the petitioners themselves executed work worth Rs.42.60 Crores. The Contract was terminated due to A.3’s non-performance, which caused huge losses to the petitioners. The petitioners finally 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 officials and A.3 officials, those were independent of the petitioners. Therefore, they prayed the trial Court to discharge them in C.C.No.28 of 2015. 9. The petitioners finally 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 officials and A.3 officials, those were independent of the petitioners. Therefore, they prayed the trial Court to discharge them in C.C.No.28 of 2015. 9. The respondent therein filed counter stating that investigation established that 1 st petitioner who is representing 2nd petitioner company entered into criminal conspiracy with other accused persons viz., Gundluri Srinivas, Managing Director of M/s. SSVG, Hyderabad to cheat UCO Bank, Banjara Hills Branch, Hyderabad and in furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy Gundluri Srinivas obtained Bank Guarantee for Rs.5 Crores in the name of 2nd petitioner Company and further 1st petitioner invoked the said Performance Bank Guarantee dishonestly and received a sum of Rs.5 Crores fraudulently. The respondent further submitted that the evidence collected in the form of document and statements revealed that 2 nd petitioner Company was not competent to enter into Sub-contract with M/s. SSVG, Hyderabad as per the terms and conditions of the Main Contract entered with the Government of Odisha and knowing fully well that 2 nd petitioner Company was not competent to enter into Sub-contract with M/s.SSVG, Hyderabad, 1 st petitioner en-cashed the Bank Guarantee for Rs.5 Crores from UCO Bank fraudulently and caused undue loss to the Bank. The respondent further submitted that the above facts have clearly brought out strong prima-facie evidence, documentary and oral to prove that the petitioners and other accused persons had committed the offences as alleged in the charge sheet and 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 and 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 the 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 filed. 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. 11. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision case is filed. 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. 11. 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 dated 21.02.2009 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 alleged offences raised against the petitioners. As per the terms and conditions in the civil works contract entered by the petitioners to the joint venture the petitioner and ARSS Infrastructure Projects Ltd., has entered into a Contract Agreement dated 21.02.2009. Subsequently, the terms was modified and finally the subcontract agreement dated 09.04.2009 is entered between the petitioners and M/s.SSVG Engineering Projects Pvt. Ltd., and it was specifically mentioned in the sub-contract dated 09.04.2009 that the main contractor is the Government of Odisha and sub-contractor is M/s.SSVG Engineering Projects Pvt. Ltd., and it shall furnish irrevocable bank guarantee of Rs.5 Crores towards performance security with a condition that the bank guarantee may be revoked anytime by the part of the first party without assigning any reasons to the banker if the sub- contractor fails to perform the work fully to the satisfaction of contractor. M/s. SSVG Engineering Projects Pvt. Ltd. entered into a sub-contract agreement with the petitioners on 09.04.2009 but failed to start the work entrusted under the agreement. The petitioners sent several notices to M/s. SSVG informing them of their failure to commence work as per the schedule. Finally, on 18.02.2010, the petitioners issued a termination notice and informed that they are invoking the bank guarantee of Rs.5 Crores. He further contended that after receiving the termination notice dated 18.02.2010 and the caution notice about invoking the bank guarantee, M/s. SSVG Engineering Projects Pvt. Ltd. did not take any steps to obtain a restraining order from the competent court to prevent invocation of the guarantee. 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. 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 Pvt. Ltd., Mr. G. Srinivas, engaged henchmen and kidnapped the Chairman of 1 st petitioner Subash Agarwal, his brother Shankar Lal Agarwal, and their driver. A crime was registered in CT Case No.661 of 2013 and all accused were arrested except A.1-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.7191/2013. On 09.05.2016, 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 Hills Branch, lodged a complaint. The petitioners were arrayed as Accused Nos. 14 and 15 and charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 120B, 420, and 471 IPC along with G. Srinivas and certain bank officials. The allegation was that the petitioners had not obtained permission from the Government of Odisha or the project consultant, SMEC International Pvt. Ltd., and had violated special conditions by entering into a subcontract with A.3, whose Managing Director was A.2. 12. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 allegedly availed loan facilities and bank guarantees from UCO Bank by furnishing false and fabricated documents, thereby cheated the bank. The petitioners argued that they were falsely implicated, as they had no direct nexus with the allegations except awarding the subcontract to Accused Nos. 2 and 3. The petitioners submitted that in contractual matters, contractors cannot execute works within the time schedule without awarding sub-contracts. Due to the non-performance of Accused Nos. 2 and 3, the principal contractor invoked the bank guarantee of Rs.10,81,16,000/-. 13. The petitioners argued that their relationship with Accused Nos. 2 and 3 was that of contractor and sub- contractor. The trial court erred in dismissing the discharge petition, holding that the issue of subcontracting part of the main contract should be determined during a full-fledged trial. As per Clause 4.4 of the contract agreement, the petitioners were permitted to subcontract part of the awarded work. The petitioners contended that the trial court erred in observing that, based on the charge sheet, they conspired with Accused Nos. As per Clause 4.4 of the contract agreement, the petitioners were permitted to subcontract part of the awarded work. The petitioners contended that the trial court erred in observing that, based on the charge sheet, they conspired with Accused Nos. 2 and 3 to fraudulently invoke the Bank Guarantee of Rs.5 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 petitioners (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 02.04.2009. As A.3 failed to commence work even after 9 months, the petitioners issued several letters and finally a termination notice on 18.02.2010. 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 filed counter denying the averments of the petition and alleged that Shri Rajesh Agarwal was the Managing Director of M/s. ARSS Infrastructure Projects Ltd., Bhubaneswar. ARSS entered into a joint venture with M/s Som Dutt Builders to execute a road widening project awarded by the Government of Odisha. Som Dutt was the lead member of the joint venture. As per the contract, Som Dutt was required to obtain permission from the Government of Odisha before entering into any sub-contract. However, ARSS, without authority, entered into a sub-contract with M/s.SSVG Engineering Projects Pvt. Ltd. for executing government work without the knowledge or consent of the Government of Odisha. In connivance, Gundluri Srinivas, MD of SSVG obtained a Bank Guarantee of Rs.5 Crores in the name of ARSS. The 1 st petitioner, MD of ARSS, dishonestly invoked the Bank Guarantee and en-cashed Rs.5 Crores, causing loss to UCO Bank. During investigation, it was revealed that Gundluri Srinivas conspired with ARSS. In connivance, Gundluri Srinivas, MD of SSVG obtained a Bank Guarantee of Rs.5 Crores in the name of ARSS. The 1 st petitioner, MD of ARSS, dishonestly invoked the Bank Guarantee and en-cashed Rs.5 Crores, causing loss to UCO Bank. During investigation, it was revealed that Gundluri Srinivas conspired with ARSS. In pursuance of this conspiracy, SSVG fraudulently entered into sub-contract agreements with ARSS, despite ARSS knowing it was not competent to do so under the terms of the main contract signed between the Government of Odisha and the Som Dutt–ARSS JV. 16. SSVG fraudulently submitted these sub-contract agreements to UCO Bank and obtained a Performance Bank Guarantee of Rs.5 Crores on 03.04.2009 in favour of ARSS. ARSS fraudulently invoked the Bank Guarantee, and Rs.5 Crores was paid to ARSS (A-15) vide Demand Draft dated 09.03.2010. The amount was en-cashed at SBI, Industrial Branch, Bhubaneswar. Investigation further revealed 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 financial guarantee equal to 5% of the project cost and availed mobilization advance up to 5%. The financial guarantee was invoked by the Government of Odisha to adjust the mobilization advance. The JV also submitted a performance bank guarantee of 5% of the project cost. However, the 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 21.02.2009, 10.03.2009, and 09.04.2009, along with realization of the Performance Bank Guarantee of Rs.5 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 conditions of the main contract. The claim of the petitioners/accused was found vague and untrue. ARSS had demanded Rs.5 Crores from UCO Bank, Banjara Hills, under the Bank Guarantee issued on 02.04.2009. The petitioners’ averments were irrelevant and outside the scope of investigation. The claim of the petitioners/accused was found vague and untrue. ARSS had demanded Rs.5 Crores from UCO Bank, Banjara Hills, under the Bank Guarantee issued on 02.04.2009. The petitioners’ averments were irrelevant and outside the scope of investigation. Investigation established that the petitioners/accused, as part of the Som Dutt–ARSS JV, conspired with UCO Bank officials to obtain and later invoke the Bank Guarantee, violating contract terms and failing to inform the Government of Odisha. The charge sheet was filed after thorough investigation, and the evidence was duly considered by the court. Realization of the Performance Bank Guarantee of Rs.5 Crores was done without the knowledge and consent of the Government of Odisha and the project consultant, thereby violating the contract conditions. Hence, prayed this Court to dismiss this revision case. 17. Considering the submissions made by both parties and the material on record, the allegation against the petitioners is that they obtained a performance bank guarantee of Rs.5 Crores from the respondent bank. This was in connection with a sub- contract they had entered into with SSVG Engineering Projects Pvt. Ltd. According to the statement of LW.1-Dy.GM, Personal Services Dept., UCO Bank, HO, Kolkata, on the recommendation of the branch, Sri N. Kumarswamy, who was then the FGM at the Circle Office in Chennai, sanctioned a Cash Credit Limit of Rs.15 Crores and Bank Guarantee Limits of 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.15 lakhs and an un-invoked Bank Guarantee limit of Rs.2 lakhs, both supported by collateral securities. Currently, the outstanding Cash Credit Limit is nil, but the outstanding Bank Guarantee stands at Rs.3.75 Crores. Since the parties failed to make regular installment payments, the account was declared a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 30.06.2011. The bank then initiated proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002. However, during this process, it was discovered that Vijaya Bank had also claimed possession of the same properties. Upon legal verification, 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. However, during this process, it was discovered that Vijaya Bank had also claimed possession of the same properties. Upon legal verification, 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 the sanction of Rs.15 Crores as working capital and Rs.7 Crores as a bank guarantee without proper verification, thereby violating banking guidelines and causing financial loss to the bank. 18. LW.2- Chief Manager of UCO Bank, Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, stated that upon reviewing the agreement dated 21.02.2009 between ARSS and SSVG Engineering, it was found that ARSS Infrastructure was the main contractor and SSVG was the sub-contractor. The Odisha Government had awarded the civil works contract to ARSS. On 18.02.2010, ARSS informed UCO Bank that SSVG had failed to perform the contract satisfactorily as per the sub-contract terms. As a result, ARSS decided to invoke the bank guarantee. On 20.02.2010, the bank notified SSVG about this invocation. SSVG requested the bank to stop the invocation, but the bank proceeded to pay Rs.5 Crores to ARSS. This amount was settled by adjusting Rs.1.25 Crores from SSVG’s margin money and the remaining Rs.3.75 Crores was paid by opening a loan account in SSVG’s name. The Odisha Government had not permitted the joint venture or its partners to sub-contract the work. Due to delays in project execution, the contract with the joint venture was terminated. The government was not informed about the engagement of a sub-contractor, and the sub-contract had no official bearing on the main contract. These are the allegations made against the petitioners in LW.2’s statement. LW.3, Chief Manager of UCO Bank, Banjara Hills, stated that as per a letter dated 26.12.2013, SSVG had availed Rs.5 Crores performance bank guarantee in the name of ARSS. LWs.4 and 5 did not make any statements against the petitioners. LW.6 stated that SSVG had availed Rs.7 Crore bank guarantee limit, out of which Rs.5 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 12.03.2010, Rs.5 Crores was credited to ARSS’s account through clearing, which reduced their debit balance of Rs.65 Crores. LW.6 stated that SSVG had availed Rs.7 Crore bank guarantee limit, out of which Rs.5 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 12.03.2010, Rs.5 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 obtain a performance bank guarantee in its name to release mobilization advances to a sub-contractor. ARSS was also not authorized 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. ARSS depended on SSVG to execute and complete the project. However, SSVG failed to meet its obligations by January 2010, taking 11 months to complete work worth only around Rs.100 Crores. As a result, ARSS terminated the contract. SSVG had submitted a performance bank guarantee of Rs.5 Crores dated 02.04.2009, valid for one year, which was received by ARSS around May 2009. ARSS verified the guarantee by sending a letter to UCO Bank, Banjara Hills, on 13.05.2009. On 11.03.2010, ARSS invoked the Rs.5 Crore performance guarantee, citing SSVG’s failure to execute the project as per World Bank standards and specifications. The guarantee was invoked as a precaution to cover the financial impact caused by the year-long delay. However, ARSS did not issue any formal notice to SSVG regarding the cancellation of the contract dated 09.04.2009. 20. As per the main contract between the Government of Odisha and the joint venture, Som Datt Builders is the lead member. Neither Som Datt Builders nor ARSS informed the Government of Odisha or SMEC, the Project Engineer, about the engagement of SSVG as a subcontractor. 20. As per the main contract between the Government of Odisha and the joint venture, Som Datt Builders is the lead member. Neither Som Datt Builders nor ARSS informed the Government of Odisha or SMEC, the Project Engineer, about the engagement of SSVG as a subcontractor. ARSS engaged SSVG independently to complete the project on time as per World Bank specifications. ARSS provided SSVG with copies of the project specification volumes but did not share the main contract between the Government of Odisha and the 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 the sub-contract, the letter submitted by the petitioners show that it was informed on 18.02.2010 to SSVG and after informing they terminated the contract. Further, the petitioners herein addressed letter to the UCO Bank stating that as the sub-contract is terminated they are invoking bank guarantee and the Bank accepted the same and after deducting the amount, they gave demand draft in favour of petitioners and the same was converted into loan. Further when the loan was declared as NPA they came to know that the property which are given as security was already given as security to other bank and they were cheated which shows that whatever 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 same was registered in Odisha and NBW was also issued against A.1-G.Srinivas which shows that there is no collusion between petitioners and other accused and all the allegations are against SSVG. Though the said bank guarantee was converted into loan, the documents given as security by SSVG are false documents. Therefore petitioners cannot be held liable for the same and the submission of learned Standing Counsel is that there is no permission from Government of Odisha to sub- contract to SSVG. If there is no permission, the Odisha Government has to take action against the petitioners herein for giving sub-contract to SSVG and it will not come in the way of invocation of bank guarantee. If there is no permission, the Odisha Government has to take action against the petitioners herein for giving sub-contract to SSVG and it will not come in the way of invocation of bank guarantee. Viewed from any angle the allegation levelled against the petitioners herein that they have colluded with SSVG and cheated the Bank has no weightage. Therefore, the order of trial Court is liable to set aside. 21. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the order dated 04.08.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.59 of 2022 in C.C.No.28 of 2015 on the file of III-Additional Special Judge for Trial of CBI Cases, Hyderabad and the petitioners herein are discharged from the above criminal case. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.