Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Chinta Sivakumari, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 21 January, 2020
Author: U. Durga Prasad Rao
Bench: U. Durga Prasad Rao
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO
Criminal Petition No.5106 of 2013
ORDER:
In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner- accused seeks to quash the proceedings against her in Cr.No.2/2013 of Rajam Police Station, Srikakulam District, registered for the offence under Sections 420, 406, 409 & Section 38(4) of the A.P. Mutually Aided Co-operative Societies Act.
2. A private complaint filed by the Additional Project Director (APD), DRDA/IKPA, Srikakulam before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajam alleging that the complainant is having control and supervision over the societies like Village Organizations Societies (VOs) and Mandal Mahila Samakhya Societies (MMS), Zilla Mahila Samakhya Societies (ZMS). All the Self Help Groups (SHG) of the villages formed into V.O. and all the V.Os of the mandal are formed into MMS and all the MMS in the District are formed into ZMS and complainant is supervising over the above organizations in Srikakulam District. It is further stated that the V.O. is used to appoint a Community Facilitator (CF) for maintaining the records and accounts in respect of collections from the SHGs in the village. The Project Director IKP/DRDA, Srikakulam appointed the Assistant Project Managers (APMs) and Accountants for maintaining the 2 records of the mandal as well as supervision and running of the VOs. The complainant and the Project Director will control the above Societies under the instructions of the District Collector, Srikakulam who is the Chairman & Executive Director.
3. It is further averred that the accused worked as Community Facilitator of the VO of Gadimudidam Village in Rajam on Honorarium basis since 2005 i.e., for the last seven years and she used to maintain the records and accounts of the VO for the said village. The accused used to collect the monthly savings, loan repayments of the SHGs of Gadimudidam Village and used to credit the collection amount in the concerned bank accounts of SHGs. In that course the accused misappropriated the funds to a tune of Rs.1,83,735/- with regard to the Bank Linkage Recovery, Savings and Repayments. She also misappropriated the Government funds i.e., the scholarship funds to a tune of Rs.21,000/- relating to 19 Pupils. Therefore, the villagers of Gadimudidam village gave a report to the District Collector, Srikakulam against the accused and he in turn ordered the complainant to make enquiry and submit a report. The complainant made enquiry and submitted the report to the District Collector as well as to the Project Director, according to which the accused misappropriated an amount of Rs.1,83,735/-. The District Collector 3 gave permission to the complainant to lodge complaint against the accused.
Hence, the complaint.
4. Learned Magistrate referred the complaint to police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which was registered as Cr.No.2/2013 and investigated into and the investigation is reportedly pending.
5. Heard Sri S.R.Sanku, learned counsel for petitioner, and learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the 1st respondent- State.
6. Denying the complaint allegations as false to the core and motivated, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner passed S.S.C. and she worked as Community Facilitator of Gadimudidam Village from 2005-2012 but no appointment order was served on her and no service conditions were stipulated and no statutory duties were attached to her post. She was given Honorarium of Rs.800/- per month. Her assigned duties were to educate the people about the welfare schemes and availability of the bank loans etc. to be processed through VOs. Her duty was only to fill up the cheque for beneficiaries such as students. She was not given the cheque power. In those circumstances, it is not possible for the petitioner to misappropriate any amounts. She was implicated in the 4 case by political parties who are enemically disposed towards Secretary, President and Treasurer of the V.O. It is argued that she is an innocent and was victimised. He thus prayed to quash the proceedings.
7. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that since the Additional Project Director conducted enquiry and submitted the report and thereafter the District Collector, Srikakulam directed him to lodge the complaint, the complaint allegations need to be viewed seriously and investigation has to be conducted.
8. A perusal of the copy of report dated 03.09.2012 submitted by the Additional Project Director i.e., the complainant shows that there is prima facie material against the petitioner in respect of the allegations levelled against her. For instance, he mentioned that in respect of the amount of Rs.2,12,757/- relating to Bank Linkage Reschedule, the petitioner/accused allegedly admitted about her involvement in respect of Rs.2,05,946/-. There are such other allegations also. However, genuineness of the allegations, veracity of the documents and oral evidence have to be decided only after a thorough investigation. Therefore, in my considered view, investigation must lead to its logical conclusion to unearth the truth.
9. In the result, this Crl.P. is dismissed.
5
Interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
_________________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J 21.01.2020 MVA