Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Skc Ramesh Mahato & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal on 1 September, 2014
Author: Joymalya Bagchi
Bench: Joymalya Bagchi
01.09.2014 C.R.R. No. 3829 of 2013
Court No.28
Item No.20
skc Ramesh Mahato & Ors.
vs.
The State of West Bengal
None appears.
Proceeding being Barikul P.S. Case No.27 of 2012 dated 30.09.2012 under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 4(3) of MGNREG Act, 2005 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 675 of 2012 pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khatra, Bankura, has been challenged.
It has been alleged in the First Information Report that Pradhan, Shyamsundarpur Gram Panchayat, was the executing agency for implementation of the scheme under MGNREGA namely, "Land Development of Football Ground at Barapacha Village" at Village Barapacha under Barikul Police Station. The scheme had duly been approved by the defacto-complainant as Block Development Officer. The scheme was to be implemented by using manual labour and estimate was prepared and vetted by competent technical person and administrative approval for implementation of the scheme as per the vetted plan and estimate was accorded. The estimated cost of the scheme was fixed at Rs.4,79,420/-. On 29.10.2012 complaint was received by the defacto-complainant that JCB machine was used for implementation of the scheme instead of manual labour. There is no provision to use such machine in the vetted plan and estimate. On 30.09.2012 enquiry was held in the matter where allegations were found to be true. The petitioner was a supervisor of the scheme and accordingly First Information Report was lodged against the petitioner and Nirman Sahayak, the then Prodhan.
The allegations in the First Information Report prima facie disclose violation of the terms of the scheme vetted and sanctioned under the MGNREG Act, 2005. Truthfulness or otherwise the allegation can be determined in the course of investigation. The matter is at the stage of investigation and therefore judicial interference is not called for. The petitioner shall be at liberty to agitate the issues canvassed herein before the learned Magistrate in the event the investigation results in filing of police report against the petitioner.
With the aforesaid observations, the revisional application is disposed of.
(Joymalya Bagchi, J)