JAY JYOTI SAMANTA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the State.

(2.) Initially, this application was filed for quashing of the first information report of Baliapur P.S. Case No. 88 of 2009. Subsequently, order dated 18.02.2012, under which cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477 (A), 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code was taken against the petitioner on submission of the charge, has been challenged to be bad.

(3.) Mr. P.P.N.Roy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that first information report was lodged on the allegation that under the Scheme of NAREGA, amounts were advanced through cheques to different agencies to execute the works. The executing agencies, without completing the works to the extent to which the amounts had been advanced, retained the amounts and, thereby, they have been alleged to have misappropriated the amounts. So far as this petitioner is concerned, it has only been stated in the first information report that this petitioner, being a Programme Officer, had advanced money to several executing agencies for execution of the works of different Schemes under NAREGA.