Karnataka High Court
Smt. Thiappamma W/O Obayya vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 July, 2017
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Dated this the 13th day of July 2017
Before
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
Criminal Petition No.101262/2017
Between:
Smt. Thippamma, W/o Obayya,
Age: 48 years, Occ: House wife
And President of Gram Panchayati,
Jummobanahalli Village,
R/o: Jummobanahalli Village,
Kudligi Taluk, Ballari District. ...Petitioner
(By Sri M. M. Hiremath, Advocate)
And:
The State of Karnataka,
Rep. by its High Court Pleader,
Through its Hosahalli PS,
Hosalli, Ballari District. ...Respondent
(By Sri Praveen K. Uppar, HCGP)
This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
seeking to allow the petition and grant anticipatory bail to
the petitioner, who is accused No.2 in Crime No.64 of
2017 on the file before the Hosahalli P.S. for the offences
punishable under Sections 409, 420, 477A read with
Section 34 of IPC.
2
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the
Court, made the following:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent Police to release her on bail in the event of her arrest of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 477A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered in respondent Police Station Crime No.64/2017.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, are that a complaint was filed alleging that the in-charge Panchayat Development Officer, Jummobanahalli Gram Pnahcyat, Kudligi Taluk, under the instructions of the Chief Executive Officer of the Taluka Panchayat, stating that the petitioner herein and accused No.1 during the period 04.04.2016 to 06.01.2017 have misappropriated the 3 funds to the tune of Rs.6,47,000/-, which was granted by the Government under the different schemes. Hence, on the basis of the said complaint, a case came to be registered against the petitioner herein and another accused.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.2 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made the submission that looking to the complaint averments and also other prosecution materials, there is no prima facie case made out as against the present petitioner/accused No.2. He made the submission that whatever amount that was sanctioned by the Government was utilized for the said purpose only and the funds were not at all diverted, and that there is no misappropriation of the said funds by submitting false bills, as made out 4 by the prosecution. Learned counsel submitted that false allegations are made against the petitioner/accused No.2; petitioner/accused No.2 is innocent and she has not at all committed the alleged offences; and even there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner/accused No.2 has committed the said offence; and that only to harass the petitioner, the complaint has been filed against her. It is also the contention of the learned counsel that the petitioner is an illiterate woman and, as per the instructions of the Panchayat Development Officer, she signed the papers; she does not know about the transactions in any manner. Hence the counsel made the submission that looking to the materials placed on record, no case is made out as against the present petitioner and therefore, the petitioner may be admitted to anticipatory bail.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader made the submission that looking to the 5 complaint averments and also the audit report, they clearly go to show that there is misappropriation of the funds belonging to the Panchayat, which funds were sanctioned by the Government for a specific purpose under different schemes like Swach Bharat Abhiyan and other projects. He also made the submission that there is documentary evidence to show misappropriation of the funds by the present petitioner along with accused No.1. Hence, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail. He also submitted that accused No.1 in this case had approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail and this Court considering the merits of the case, has rejected the said petition. Hence, he submitted to reject the present petition.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the petition, FIR, complaint and other materials produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner along with the petition. 6 I have also perused the order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.101189/2017 on 21.06.2017. In the said petition, this Court has discussed the entire merits of the case and ultimately held that there is a prima facie material for the alleged misappropriation. To show that funds were sanctioned by the Government to the said Gram Panchayat under the different schemes like Swach Bharat Abhiyan and Grameen Vikas Yojana and other projects and that said funds were misappropriated, the prosecution relied upon the audit report, which goes to show that there is prima facie of misappropriation of government funds. Therefore, this is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner/accused No.2 and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required in this petition. Hence, the petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE Kms