Prakash Singh and Another vs State of U.P. and Others

M. Katju, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Counsel.

This case discloses a shocking state of affairs as it shows what is happening in our country in large scale.

The petitioner has challenged the impugned F.I.R. dated 20-2-2001 Annexure 1 to the writ petition in case crime No. 43 of 2001 under Sections 467 468 471 419 420 409, I.P.C. police station Meh Nagar, district Azamgarh. The aforesaid F.I.R. reads as follows :

^^dk;kZy; ftyk lekt dY;k.k vf/kdkjh] vktex< i=kad 3720 vkfCyd 28 ld vkfCyd ,Q- vkbZ- vkj- @2000&2001@fnukad 20&2&2001 Fkkuk/;{k Fkkuk esguxj vktex< voxr djuk gS fd ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd dk;kZy; vktex< ds i= �ekax Nk=ofRr fnukad 6&3&2000 )kjk Jh xksfoUn lfag m- ek- fn- jkeiqj rFkk j?kqukFk flag m- ek- fo- dknhiqj vktex< ds vuqlwfpr tkfr ds Nk=ksa dh lwph izfr gLrk{kfjr djrs gq, v/kksgLrkf{kfjr ds dk;kZy; dks miyC/k djk;h x;h Fkh A ftlds vk/kkj ijmijksDr fo|ky; dks �ek% 70]000 ;w- ih- vkbZ flag iqj [kkrk la- 5005 esa rFkk la- 58]000 eq[; ''kk[kk Mkd?kj vktex< esa [kkrk la- 397257 esa Hksth x;h Fkh A [k.M fodkl vf/kdjh fcyfn;k xat mi ftykf/kdkjh esguxj vktex< rFkk ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd vktex< ls mijksDr nksuksa fo|ky;ksa dk lR;kiu djk;s tkus ij nksuksa fo|ky; vfLrRoghu ik;s x;s A mijksDr fo|ky;ksa esa ls xksfoUn flag m- ek- fo- jkeiqj ds rFkkdfFkr iz/kkukpk;Z Jh fot; izrki flag rFkk budk ifjp; cSad esa Jh izdk''kflag iq= Jh f''ko iwtu flag fuoklh xzk- iks- flagiqj tuin vktex< )kjk fd;k x;k gS A blh izdkj ''kghn j?kqukFk flag m- ek- fo- dkjhiqj vktex< rFkk dfFkr iz/kkukpk;Z Lo;a Jh izdk''kflag gSa A ftudk ifjp; eq[; Mkd?kj esa Jh v?;oj ;kno fuoklh MdMkSjk iks- gkfQtiqj vktex< us fn;k gS A pwWfd mijksDr nksuksa fo|ky; vfLrRoghu gSA vr% mijksDr nksuksa O;fDr;ksa )kjk izkIr fd;k /kujkf''k �ek% 70]000 rFkk 58]000 dqy feykdj :- 12800 dk i=ksa izi=ksa ds vk/kkj ij fd;k x;k gS A rFkk rRdkyhu ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd vktex< muds iVy lgk;d ds fo:) izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ntZ dj fof/kd dk;Zokgh djus dk d"V djsa A lEcfU/kr vf/kdkfj;ksa dh tkWp vk[;k cSad rFkk iks- vkWfQl ls izkIr rFkk Jh v/;oj ;kno dk c;ku rFkk fujh{kd dk;kZy; ls izkIr izfr izi=ksa dh Nk;k izfr layXu dj vki ds ikl izsflr dh tk jgh gS A layXud mijksDr vuqlkj 28 iUus Hkonh; ,l- Mh- vaxszth viBuh; A �vkj- ih- ''kqDy� ftyk lekt dU;k.k vf/kdkjh vktex<] i`Bkadu la[;k �6 ;k 9� fnukad**

A perusal of the F.I.R. shows that the allegations are that the petitioner No. 2 Vijay Pratap Singh is running an allegedly nonexistent school along with his son, petitioner No. 1, Shri Prakash Singh and they have embezzled Rs. 1,28,000/- of the scholarship fee of scheduled caste students. It is shocking that though there is no school in existence yet the scholarship funds are being given to a non-existent school and it is only after an enquiry by the B.D.O., Bildiaganj, A.D.M. Azamgarh and the D.I.O.S. that this great fraud was discovered. What ''tehelka'' type scandles are happening at the national level ''mini tahalka'' scandles in thousands of cases are occurring at the lower level. This is not an isolated case but a large number of cases are coming before this Court against Principals and teachers etc. who embezzled the scholarship fees and other school funds. The principals and teachers are supposed to be ideals for the students but today they are often regarded as thieves. This just shows the level of degradation to which this country has sunk.

We are not inclined to interfere in this matter as the allegations in the F.I.R. certainly discloses committing of an offence. The petition is dismissed. However the observations made herein will not influence the Court hearing the bail application or the trial.

We were inclined to pass a detailed direction to the Chief Secretary to hold a thorough enquiry into the allegations where the funds were issued to non-existent institutions and where the school fees, funds etc. were embezzled by the principals, managers or teachers of the educational institution but we are informed by Sri Arvind Tripathi, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate that in another writ petition such enquiry has already been ordered by another bench of this Court and that enquiry is still going on. Hence it is not necessary to pass a similar order for holding enquiry, in this case.