M S FANEESHA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, common in all these cases, calls in question similar but separate charge sheets filed by the Police and all of them are pending as different criminal cases on such charge sheets. In the light of the petitioner being the same and the issue being similar, all these cases are taken up together and considered by this common order. For the sake of convenience the facts obtaining in Criminal Petition No.7507 of 2022 which are similar in all these cases are narrated briefly.

(2.) Heard Sri B.R. Manjunath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. K.P. Yashoda, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 in all these cases.

(3.) The petitioner is an employee of the Department of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj. The employment of the petitioner is not the issue in the lis. During the years 2009 and 2010 certain works under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act ('MGNREGA' for short) were entrusted to several Gram Panchayats of Arkalgud Taluk. The petitioner then was working as Executive Officer of Arkalgud Taluk Panchayat. Alleging that the petitioner had misappropriated funds of MGNREGA, a complaint comes to be registered by the 2nd respondent against several persons/accused. The petitioner is accused No.1. The allegation against the petitioner was that he had executed works without obtaining necessary permission from other Departments concerning the technical implementation of works under MGNREGA. Due to the act of the petitioner in getting the works executed without such clearances from respective Departments, it is alleged that huge loss is caused to Government. The police conduct investigation for five long years and file charge sheets in all these cases. Criminal Petition No.7507 of 2022 concerns C.C.No.673 of 2016 pending before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Arkalgud. In all the cases, the allegations against the petitioner or any other accused, are the offences punishable under Ss. 408 and 409 r/w Sec. 34 of the IPC. Though charge sheets were filed in the year 2016, the petitioner chose not to challenge the same at that point in time.