Allahabad High Court
Yogendra Singh Son Of Late Sri Brij ... vs State Of U.P. on 18 November, 2005
Author: Ravindra Singh
Bench: Ravindra Singh
JUDGMENT Ravindra Singh, J.
1. Heard Sri R.C. Yadav and Sri Rajiv Singh lfile:/media/floppy/5.10.2005(remaining)earned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A.
2. The applicant has applied for bail in Case Crime No. 19 of 2005 under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 109 I.P.C. and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act P.S. Kotwali Dehat District Gonda.
3. From the perusal of the record, it reveals that in the present case, the F.I.R. was lodged by one Chandra Mohan Srivastava, Sub Inspector of Arthic Apradh Anusandhan Sangathan, Apradh Anusandhan Vibhag, U.P. Lucknow at P.S. Kotwali Dehat District Gonda on 12.2.2005 at 2.30 P.M. against the applicant and other co-accused persons.
4. From the perusal of the record, it appears that the Government of India has undertaken a scheme in the Rural Areas named as 'Sampum Gramin Rojgar Yojna' (herein after referred to as S.G.R.Y. in short). It was to be implemented by the State government officials, for such purpose the State Government had issued necessary Government Orders. The purpose of the aforesaid scheme was to provide employment and food security to the weaker section of the society in rural areas and vide G.O. Dated 30.10.1995 the State Government has disclosed object of the scheme, its implementation, the procedure of the distribution of food grain and other rights and liabilities and the detailed guide lines by which Rs. 28/- and 6 Kg. wheat grain was to be given for a day work to the labourer. The aforesaid scheme was to be implemented on 3 stages namely Zila Panchayat, Chhetra Panchayat and Gram Panchayat.
5. In the present case, a complaint was lodged by the State Irrigation Minister on 27.10.2004 in respect of the misuse of the scheme and for misappropriation of the money by the applicant and other co-accused persons and indicating some other irregularities also. That complaint was handed over to the Economic Offences Wing for doing the proper inquiry. The Economic Offences Wing inquired into the matter by a team of efficient police officers under the supervision of Superintendent of Police,Kanpur Sector and during the inquiry, the aforesaid team made physical spot inspection and collected material and thereafter came to the conclusion that under the Chhetra Panchayat Jhanjhari, one connected road known as Chandwakpur Road via Pure Vidayee, having a distance of 2 Kms. Was to be constructed in the year 2002-2003 for which Rs. 2.90 lacs were sanctioned and 258.60 qtls of wheat grain were given to one Ram Sawal Yadav, a dealer of fair price shop, for the purpose of distribution in accordance with the guide-lines of the scheme. The applicant was Junior Engineer of the R.E.S. Department, posted at Block Jhanjhari. During the inquiry, it was found that the aforesaid road was not constructed and one R.C.C. Puliya was also not constructed but the applicant has shown on papers that road and the Puliya were constructed. It was also found that under the aforesaid scheme, no villagers got any employment and no food grain was given to them. It was also found that a forged muster roll was prepared by the applicant in which the name of one Sant Ram son of Brij Mohan was shown as labourer who had died about 10 years back. His thumb impression was found in the muster roll. The allegation against the applicant is that he has prepared the forged muster roll and he has shown that the allotted work was done by way of preparing the forged papers and making false entries, the applicant and other co-accused persons have misappropriated the aforesaid fund and the wheat grains, thereafter the present F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant and other co-accused person.
6. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the applicant is a Junior Engineer of R.E.S. Department .He was made the Incharge of the implementation of that scheme by which he had to construct a road and a puliya on it. He has constructed the road and the Puliya and on the basis of the guide lines given in the, scheme, the work was done by the labourers. He has prepared and maintained a daily muster roll. He Has clearly mentioned the names of the labourers who were of the different villages, their address and their thumb impressions were also obtained and he has issued the coupons given to him by the B.D.O. and on the basis of the aforesaid coupons, the prescribed money and good grains were given to the labourers by the dealer of the fair price shop. The fair inquiry was not done because the statement of the labourers mentioned in the muster toll were not recorded. From the inquiry, it was found that one labour Sant Ram had died, in fact he is alive. The fair inquiry was not done because it was done under the influence of State Minister of U.P. Government. The allegation of misappropriation of the money and the food grains is absolutely false and baseless.
7. it is further contended that the applicant being the Junior Engineer had done the work under the supervision and proper verification of the Chief Development Officer, Block Development Officer and Pramukh of the Chhetra Panchayat. Nobody has made any cpmplaint against him. It is further contended that the applicant is in jail since 5.4.2005. He is a Government Servant and there is no chance of his absconding or tempering with the witnesses, therefore, he is entitled for bail.
8. It is opposed by the learned A.G.A. by submitting that in the present case, the applicant being the Junior Engineer of R.E.S. Department was incharge of the work in which he has to 'construct road and the R.C.C. Puliya but he has not constructed that road and Puliya. He has prepared forged muster roll even no labourer of that village, where the work was done, was employed. The name of one labour Sant Ram was shown In the muster roll, in fact, he was unable to move freely during that period as he had fell down from a tree and his back bone was fractured. The applicant being the In charge of the scheme, is the main accused. His case is distinguishable with the case of the other co-accused. He has misappropriated the money and food grains by hatching a conspiracy with other co-accused persons and he is in jail for a very short period, therefore, he is not entitled for bail because sufficient evidence has taken collected by the I.O. to show his involvement in the alleged offence and he is involved in other criminal cases of such nature in which F.I.R.'s have been lodged.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A., I am of the view that at this stage, it is not proper to record any finding or any conclusion because, it will be seen at the time of the trial when evidence will be adduced, but considering the fact that the applicant is a public servant and he has frustrated a scheme of, the Government, which was launched in the public interest and the applicant has enriched at the cost of the public by misappropriating the fund. If the corruption is not checked or is not rooted put, the system of the governance of the State will be utterly failed. This offence is not against the individual but it is against the society a whole, therefore,, the applicant is not entitled for bail at this stage.
10. Accordingly this be application is rejected at this stage.