ANIL PATIL AND ORS. Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(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 Sec. 420 of IPC and investigation has begun.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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 Sec. 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.