Anil Patil and Others vs The State

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—1. All the above said matters arising out of a common Crime No. 6/2016 on the file of Sadar Bazar Police Station, Raichur. The petitioners in Criminal Petition No. 200138/2016 by name Anil Patil, Syed Mobin and Shivaraj as well as the petitioner Basavaraj in Criminal Petition No. 200156/2016 were working as Assistant Executive Engineers at different places particularly Syed Mobin was working as Project Executive in Deodurga taluka, Anil Patil was working as Assistant Engineer Grade-1, at Sindhanoor and Shivaraj working as Project Executive Officer, Deodurga and Basavaraj was working as Assistant Engineer, Grade-1, Lingasugur. The petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 200159/2016 Appaji is a retired Executive Engineer, Raichur. A complaint came to be lodged by a person by name Mukkanna Karigar, Deputy Secretary, Zilla Panchayat, Raichur, making allegations that the petitioners during their tenure of service working as noted above during the year 2011-12, 2012-13 have not completed work entrusted to them at different areas with regard to the rejuvenation of the small tanks at different areas and they have also not furnished the proper documents for completion of the work and spending of the amount released in that regard to the extent of 198.97 lakhs. Therefore a complaint lodged that they have misused and misappropriated the said amounts, as such complaint registered under Section 420 of IPC and investigation has begun.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Crl. P. No. 200138/2016 submitted that the Managing Director KRIDL, Bangalore, has conducted an enquiry into the matter for the purpose of taking action against the above said petitioners and others with respect to initiation of any departmental enquiry. During the course of his report he has submitted that the petitioners Appaji, Syed Mobin and Shivaraj, on examination of the records and papers pertaining to the work entrusted to them, it was found that they have completed the work and there is no material to show that they have committed any misappropriation or they have committed any offence as alleged. Therefore it is suggested in the said report dated 29.01.2016 that they have done their duty and they have given details with regard to the work entrusted to them. So far as it relates to the petitioner in Crl. P. No. 200156/2016, Basavaraj is concerned, the report says that, the record shown that an amount of Rs. 120 lakhs have been released to the Asst. Engineer for the purpose of rejuvenating eight tanks at Raichur and Manvi. The said person Basavaraj has not produced any materials to show the completion of the work and as well as he has not given any vouchers with regard to the amount spent for the said work. Therefore, he suggested that is a fit case to take appropriate action under the KCSR Rules, 1957. Likewise the report also disclose that the petitioner in Crl. P. No. 200159/2016 Appaji was entrusted with the supervision work to be executed by other petitioners and for release of the amount, but he has not properly executed his work by properly supervising the work done by other petitioners, particularly Basavaraj. Therefore, the report also suggested that action can be taken against him also under the relevant rules.

Sri Baburao Mangane, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl. P. No. 200156/2016, submits that all the work completion reports have been earlier submitted to the said Appaji, the Executive Engineer, in turn he has not submitted the same during the course of enquiry before the Managing Director, KRIDL. By producing certain documents i.e. completion report alleged to have received by Appaji and submitting that it is the mistake committed by said person for not having produced these materials before the said Managing Director, KRIDL. Therefore, he wanted this Court to rely upon those documents for the purpose of granting anticipatory bail. Further he submitted that Section 420 of IPC is not attracted as there is no materials that at the time of entrustment of the work to this petitioner he has any intention to cheat the Government or to the exchequer of the Government. Therefore, for all these reasons he prayed for granting anticipatory bail.

The learned counsel who is appearing for the petitioner - Appaji in Crl. P. No. 200159/2016 submitted that in the report there are no specific allegations made against the petitioner. Therefore he is entitled for bail.

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader has submitted that the petitioners have committed serious offence under Section 420 of IPC as they have not given properly utilized amount and virtually misappropriated huge amount, therefore they have not given proper accounts of execution of the work in this regard. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the petitions.

I have carefully gone through the records produced before this Court. The First information report discloses gist of the offence committed by the accused persons to the extent of Rs. 198.97 lakhs though details have not been furnished, however, the report produced before the Court by all the petitioners is relied upon by both the parties, given by the Managing Director, KRIDL, Bangalore, which is not denied by the petitioners herein. It clearly discloses that he has made thorough examination of the work entrusted to the petitioners and also the materials and documents available pertaining to the release of the amount and spending of the amount for the purpose of rejuvenating the tanks at different areas. Though learned counsel has submitted the report but he has not submitted any report before the said Managing Director, KRIDL. If really the documents were there in the office of the first accused Appaji, the Managing Director could have secured that documents and given report in accordance with those documents. According to the petitioner Basawaraj, the said report was submitted by the petitioner Basavaraj to Appaji long back in the year 2015, therefore, he has not done any mistake. If really it has been submitted why it has lost the sight of Managing Director, KRIDL. Further added to that how petitioner came to the possession of the documents which are xerox copies produced before the Court is not also properly explained. If he had these documents much earlier to the year 2015, why he has not produced the said documents before the Managing Director, KRIDL, who has enquired into the matter. Therefore under the above said circumstances, I am not satisfied with regard to the explanation offered so far as the petitioner Basavaraj is concerned. However, the report discloses that the petitioners in Crl. P. No. 200138/2016 that they have given completion report and no suggestions have been made for initiation of any departmental enquiry against them. The said Appaji has also not come with any specific plea before this Court as to whether Basavaraj has submitted any report before him and if so why he has not produced them before higher authorities. In the above said circumstances, at this stage in my opinion, facts are sufficient to show prima facie materials against Appaji and Basavaraj who have in fact withheld the documentary materials so far as to the Managing Director, KRIDL who has enquired into the matter. There is no explanation offered so far as this aspect is concerned. The intention is hidden that intention can be explained during the course of investigation by the prosecution. The learned counsel Sri Baburao Mangane, also submits that, one of the accused was arrested and released on bail by the jurisdictional magistrate. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the said person was released on bail only after his arrest and he being produced before the Court and after the interrogation by the police. Therefore, it may not be taken as a ground of parity for the purpose of releasing these two petitioners on bail with regard to the misappropriation or mismanagement of Rs. 197 lakhs. The intention has to be gathered only after investigation is complete.

In the above said circumstances, the following order required to be passed.

Petitions in Crl. P. No. 200156/2016 and Crl. P. No. 200159/2016 are hereby rejected.

So far petition in Crl. P. No. 200138/2016 is hereby allowed. Consequently, the petitioners therein shall be released on bail in the event of their arrest by the Investigating Officer in connection with Crime No. 6/2016 for the alleged offence, on following conditions:

"1) The petitioners shall surrender themselves before the Investigating Officer within one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order;

2) They shall execute personal bonds for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- each with two sureties each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;

3) They shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or temper the prosecution witnesses;

4) They shall appear before Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of investigation, interrogation etc."