Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
An Application For Anticipatory Bail vs Unknown on 29 July, 2015
Author: Ashim Kumar Roy
Bench: Ashim Kumar Roy
29.07.15 CRM No. 17790 of 2014
With
CRM No.17141 of 2014
In the matter of: An application for anticipatory bail
under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure &
apprehension of arrest in connection with Sitalkuchi Police
Station Case No.302 of 2014, dated 30.10.2014 under
Sections 406/409/419/420/468/471/120B/34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
In Re: Subhas Dutta & Anr.
Mr. Prantick Ghosh
.... for the petitioner
CRM 17790/14
Mr. Madhusudan Sur
.... for the State
Mr. Prabir Mitra,
Mr. Pinak Kumar Mitra
.... For the petitioner
CRM 17141/14
Mr. Sabir Ahmed
.... For the State
Apprehending arrest in connection with Sitalkuchi
Police Station Case No.302 of 2014, dated 30.10.2014 under
Sections 406/409/419/420/468/471/120B/34 of the Indian
Penal Code, the petitioners have come before this Court for
anticipatory bail by filing separate applications.
Since both the applications arose out of the self same
F.I.R. those were taken up for hearing together in terms of
our order dated 22.07.2015.
Petitioner Soumik Chakraborty in C.R.M. No.17141/2014
is the Technical Assistant employed and working on
contractual basis at Sitalkuchi Block of Mathabhanga Sub-
Division in the District of Coochbehar. Petitioner Subhas
Dutta is an Assistant Programme Officer of the said Block.
The prosecution case against the petitioners is that
receiving complaint of anomalies and financial
irregularities in implementation of M.G.N.R.E.G.A. Schemes
the Block Development Officer, Sitalkuchi, constituted an
enquiry team. The said team found serious anomalies which,
as alleged in the F.I.R., are as Follows:-
1.Excess payments were made compared to actual works executed.
2. Payments were not received by the beneficiaries and were drawn by un-known persons by fraud and impersonation.
3. Bulk payments were made to some un-known persons from Chottosalbari Post Office.
4. Violation of mandatory provisions of M.G.N.R.E.G.A. during implementation.
5. Mandatory documentation has not been maintained at the Office of Block Development Officer, Sitalkuchi. Further allegation is that the Technical Assistant conspired to allow Scheme execution and undue payment, might have orchestrated preparation of fake Muster- Roll, its approval and recommended for payment. It is also alleged against the petitioner Soumik Chakraborty, Technical Assistant of preparing Measurement Books without physical verification of sites and without taking proper Measurement resulting in full payment against the partially completed or works not at all taken up. Measurement Book and field Measurement did not match. Further allegation against him is that he fragmented the Schemes without approval and vetting by Competent Authority and also might have indulged in forgery, fraud and criminal conspiracy for misappropriation of Government money. The allegation, insofar as the other petitioner Subhas Dutta is concerned is that, he had recommended faulty Schemes and payments against fake Muster-Rolls without proper application of mind and field visits, failed to monitor the works of field Supervisors and Technical Assistant and failed to maintain proper documentation and obtain approval of Competent Authority thereby facilitating the misappropriation of Government Fund.
The Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner Soumik Chakraborty vehemently contended that a mere glance at the F.I.R. will go to show that the allegation against Soumik Chakraborty is vague, without any basis and false. It was argued that even taking for granted for a moment that the allegations in the F.I.R. are true in that event also the same does not make out a case of misappropriation of Government Fund but at best it can establish a dereliction of duty on his part. It was argued that there is no even a chit of paper to show that at any point of time any amount of money was entrusted to him and that he misappropriated such amount. The Learned Advocate also added that the Block Development Officer concerned is not above doubt and to save herself he trade the petitioner a scape goat. It was submitted that the petitioner is a bright young man and a new entrant in the Government Service, has no chance of abscondance and should be granted anticipatory bail. It was submitted that the local Post-Master, a co- accused has been granted anticipatory bail.
The Learned Advocate for the petitioner Subhas Dutta contended that his client being the Assistant Programme Officer did not have any role to play in the matter of implementation of Schemes. The petitioner himself had made some preliminary enquiry in accordance with the order of his superior and submitted his enquiry report. It was argued that the Superior Officers in order to save themselves have made a scapegoat of the present petitioner. He has no chance of abscondance and should be granted anticipatory bail. The Learned Advocate further added that the petitioner was directed by the District Magistrate, Coochbehar to submit his reply in the matter of complaint regarding financial irregularities and violation of norms of M.G.N.R.E.G.A. in implementation of several Schemes and he accordingly submitted his reply to the District Magistrate, Coochbehar explaining that he being the Assistant Programme Officer was not consulted and the Block Development Officer and the Programme Officer ordered the Technical Assistant for execution of work under M.G.N.R.E.G.A. The Learned Advocate submitted that in the said reply the petitioner indicated that the Schemes were recommended by the Programme Officer and the Block Development Officer and they never asked him to verify the Schemes and never allowed him any vehicle for site visit. It was argued that in the said reply it was clearly spelt out that the petitioner never approved any illegal Muster-Rolls and his job was only to verify Muster-Rolls arithmetically and that it was not within his knowledge when and how the work started and it was impossible on his part to ascertain whether the Supervisors and Technical Assistants actually performed their duties or not. The Learned Advocate also submitted that petitioner Subhas Dutta by reason of his physical sufferings is almost like a physically challenged person and he never indulged himself in any kind of corruption.
The Learned Advocate appearing for petitioner Soumik Chakraborty inviting our attention to the supplementary affidavit submitted that the petitioner duly answered the show-cause notice served upon him and he never handled any Government Money.
The Learned Counsels appearing for the State Submitted that there are enough incriminating materials against both the petitioners and seems both of them played their part to facilitate unauthorized payment in implementation of various Schemes by their acts of omission and commission they cannot escape from the liability. It was argued that actual physical entrustment of money is not required for attracting misappropriation because both of them had full control and domain over the public money in question and theywere instrumental in the matter of release of Government Fund violating established norms under the M.G.N.R.E.G.A. The Learned Counsels drew our attention to the reply given by petitioner Soumik Chakraborty against the show-cause where he himself had admitted his fault. In this regard the Learned Counsel opposing the application for Soumik Chakraborty, invited our attention to the reply to the show-cause which is at page 63 and submitted that the petitioner himself replied that he without visiting the sites and simply on the basis of the Muster-Roll prepared the Measurement Book and signed the Muster- Roll. It is also in his reply that subsequently, he realised that excess payment was made against work not actually done. It was submitted that thorough enquiry was conducted by the team constituted for making enquiry.
The Learned Counsels contended that co-accused Post-Master was granted anticipatory bail since he was not supposed to challenge the propriety of issuing cheques for payment but to make payment as per the cheques.
This submission has force and substance. We have perused the C.D. The enquiry report is at pages 40, 41, 42 of the C.D. The other enquiry reports are there at pages 40-60 of the C.D. Apart from such enquiry reports, we have also carefully gone through the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code which are at pages 78, 79, 80, 90, 91, 97,122,123 and 125. Further statements recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code are also at pages 134 and 138 of the C.D. After going through the aforesaid statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal procedure Code, the Enquiry report and other materials in the C.D. we find and hold that both the petitioners indulged themselves in preparation of fake Measurement Book and Muster-Roll thereby facilitating unauthorized payment and draining out of Government Money particularly when payments were released in excess of work actually done and even in few cases without any work being done. So considering the serious nature of the allegation and the complicity of the accused/petitioners transpiring from the materials on record as discussed here-in-above we do not consider this to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.
Both applications are accordingly rejected.
(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Malay Marut Banerjee, J.)