M. BABU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE applications arise from Crime No.23 of 2014 of the Upputhara Police Station for the offences punishable under Secs.409, 465, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. B.A.No.1617 of 2014 is filed by the third accused while B.A.No.1757 of 2014 is filed by accused Nos.1, 2 and 4.

(2.) LEARNED Public Prosecutor has opposed the applications. It is submitted that as per the Indira Awas Yogana (IAY Scheme) funds were to be allotted to suitable persons for construction of house and accordingly, the grama panchayath decided to allot funds to one Lakshmi Rajan. The first accused is the former President of the panchayath. The second accused was the Village Extension Officer in charge at the relevant time. The third accused is also the Village Extension Officer but he took charge on 09.07.2010. The 4th accused is Lakshmi Guruswami, mother of the first accused. The accused pursuant to the criminal conspiracy committed forgery of documents and diverted the funds allotted to Lakshmi Rajan to the 4th accused, Lakshmi Guruswami and misappropriated Rs.94,625/- without constructing any house even in the name of Lakshmi Guruswami. These facts were revealed in the vigilance enquiry and pursuant to that, a case is registered against these accused.

(3.) TH accused does not stand in her exclusive name as she is a co -owner of the entire property including the 10 cents. 4. Learned counsel for the accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 has argued that at no point of time the fund was decided to be allotted to Lakshmi Rajan and the fund was made available to the 4th accused where she constructed a house as aforesaid. Learned counsel submits that the police has not verified the records of the panchayath/village office to find out whether there was any such person as Lakshmi Rajan in the word concerned, whether she owned property and whether the allotment was to Lakshmi Guruswami (4th accused).