Purushottam Kabra v. State Of Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRCA No. 951 of 2016 • Purushottam Kabra S/o Shri Ramgopal Ji Kabra Aged About 35 Years Assistant Development Extension Officer, Janpad Panchayat Bagbahara, District Mahasamund, Permanent R/o Village & Post Madeli, Tahsil Chhura, District Gariyaband, Civil & Revenue District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner

Versus

• State of Chhattisgarh through the Station House Officer, Police Station Bagbahara, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent For the applicant :

Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate.

For the State : Mr. Anil S.Pandey, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board 07.10.2016

1. Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 147/2016 registered at Police Station Bagbahra, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G) for the offence punishable u/ss 120(B), 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC, the applicant has filed this application u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. As per the prosecution case, a report was made by the Development Officer of Janpad Panchayat, Bagbahra that with respect to distribution of amounts to different beneficiaries under the Indira Awas Yojna which was meant for construction of the houses, the applicant who is working as an Assistant Development Extension Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bagbahara, in connivance with other co-accused allowed withdrawal of instalments in favour of beneficiaries. It is alleged that the second

instalment was allowed to be withdrawn without there being completion of required phase of construction which ought to have been completed before withdrawal of the second instalment.

3. Shri B.P. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for applicant would submit that the applicant was newly appointed as Assistant Development Officer, Bagbahra and he assumed charge on 03.12.2012. It is submitted that prior to his joining, the first instalment was allowed to be withdrawn in favour of beneficiaries Goverdhan and Murli, when second note sheet was put up the applicant believed that earlier release of the amount was done in discharge of official capacity, therefore, the applicant allowed the sanction of second instalment and the said act would amount to official negligence but not criminality and hence the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.

5. Perused the case diary as also the statement recorded during departmental enquiry which was initiated against the applicant. The case diary shows the names of Gajanand, Tikeshwar, Banmali, Dharmu, Goverdhan & Murli as beneficiaries. It appears that certain amounts were allowed to be given to them and few of the beneficiaries withdrew the amounts. The applicant while allowing the second sanction has not made any spot inspection and despite there being non-completion of required phase of construction the second instalment was allowed to be withdrawn. In the departmental

enquiry it was held that the applicant along-with other co-accused in connivance with each other by opening different accounts of beneficiaries allowed the first instalment to reach but the second was not allowed to the beneficiaries.

6. Taking into such facts situation of the consideration, it is not a case where the benefit of section 438 Cr.P.C., can be extended to the applicant. Accordingly, it is rejected. Sd/- GOUTAM BHADURI JUDGE R a o