GAUTAM DAS Vs. ABDUL MATIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By making this application under Section 482, Cr.PC, the petitioners, who are accused in complaint case, which has been registered as CR Case No. 1540/2009, seeks to get set aside and quashed the complaint, which has given rise to the registration of a police case.

(2.) The accused-petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are Block Development Officer, Mandia Development Block, Barpeta, Secretary, Rajmika Gaon Panchayat and Junior Engineer, Jaleswar Development Block, respectively. While in his capacity as Block Development Officer, the accused-petitioner No. 1 has been working as Programme Officer under the provisions of National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 ('the NREGA'), the accused-petitioner No. 2 has the responsibility of executing the schemes framed under the NREGA and the accused-petitioner No. 3 has the responsibility of preparing estimate of various schemes, supervise execution of the schemes and prepare bills for the execution of the schemes. All the accused are employees of the Government of Assam and are, according to the petitioners, public servants within the meaning of Section 21, IPC.

(3.) The opposite party herein, who is President of Kha unit of Sramik Santhi of village Rajmita, under Rajmita Gaon Panchayat of Jaleswar Block, has lodged a complaint, his case being, in brief, thus: The accused-petitioners engaged labourers along with the complainant for the earth filling work of the said village. For the said work, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 was sanctioned. As against the amount so sanctioned, the work worth Rs. 48,000 was executed. In the same village, for the earth filling works of the road from the PWD Tinali (i.e., PWD tri-junction) to Goalpara Tinali (i.e., Goalpara tri-junction), a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 was sanctioned and against the amount so sanctioned, work worth Rs. 80,000 was executed. Thereafter, in the said village, for the earth filling work from Gaspara Masjid to Pantai Beel, earth filling work worth Rs. 40,000 was executed as against the sanctioned amount of Rs. 1,00,000. Thus, out of the total sanctioned amount of Rs. 4,00,000, earth filling work worth Rs. 1,68,000 was executed and the rest of the amount, namely, Rs. 2,32,000, was misappropriated. In order to misappropriate the said money without executing any work, accused-petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, at the instructions of the accused-petitioner No. 1, wanted job card from the labourers. The labourers, on good faith, gave their job cards to the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. In the said job cards, while engagement of 8/10 days had been shown, wages withdrawn were for as many as 30-35 days, In fact, in some of the job cards, while engagement shown are 20-25 days, wages had been withdrawn showing as if the work had been taken place for 50-60 days and, in some of the job cards, no daily wages was shown as withdrawn for even a single day. On completion of the earth filling work of the said three roads, when the labourers wanted their wages and also their job cards, the accused persons kept avoiding to return the job cards on one pretext to another for a period of one year and after preparation of forged muster roll, taking signatures/thumb impressions thereon of some labourers, the accused person misappropriated the entire amount of money of unexecuted works. In the year 2008, when the complainat and the witnesses, mentioned in the compliant, put pressure on the accused persons to return their job cards, accused No. 2 returned their job cards and it is only then that the modus operandi of the accused persons came to light. This apart, when the complainant and witnesses went to meet accused Nos. 2 and 3 at Lakhipur and asked for payment of the wages due to them, accused persons threatened them to kill if they come for the second time.