Calcutta High Court Quashes Case Against Village-Level Entrepreneur Accused Of Siphoning Funds Allotted Under Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana
The Calcutta High Court has recently quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner, who had been accused of siphoning off funds, which were allotted under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana, a rural housing project under the Union government. Petitioner had been working as a Village Level Entrepreneur (VLE) since 2018 under Baraturigram Gram Panchayat, Mayureshwar-I Development Block...
The Calcutta High Court has recently quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner, who had been accused of siphoning off funds, which were allotted under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana, a rural housing project under the Union government.
Petitioner had been working as a Village Level Entrepreneur (VLE) since 2018 under Baraturigram Gram Panchayat, Mayureshwar-I Development Block and Panchayat Samity Office.
Unbeknownst to him, the BDO, in 2021 filed a complaint regarding fund transfer issues to beneficiaries under the scheme against one Naba Kumar Let, a Gram Panchayat member and the present petitioner based on an enquiry report of the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat.
On such basis, the petitioner was charged under Sections 420, 406, and 409 for the offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust.
In quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, a single bench of Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta noted:
This Court finds the case initiated against him is purely on the basis of suspicion as appears in the FIR as well as in the charge-sheet. Case alleging cognizable offences without specific allegation or disclosing materials against the petitioner cannot be continued. There must be direct allegation and/or material or involvement in the alleged offence but that is entirely missing. Allegation against him is only on the basis of doubt or suspicion.
Petitioner submitted that he was only engaged in his role for the Geotagging of the project, which is the process of adding geographical identification metadata to various media such as a geotagging photograph or video, websites, SMS messages, QR Codes or RSS feeds and is a form of geospatial metadata, and that he had taken photos of the ongoing construction under the scheme.
It was argued that under the Awas Yojana, which was a rural housing project, applications were made to the office of the Block Development Officer ("BDO") who would verify the same, followed by another verification by the District Magistrate, who would then allot funds which would be distributed by the BDO to the beneficiaries.
A sum of Rs 60,000 would be initially transferred to the beneficiaries' bank account as a first settlement out of the total sum of Rs 1,20,000.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that after receiving the aforesaid amount, the beneficiaries began the process of construction, and thereafter applied for the second instalment of Rs 50,000.
It was argued that this second instalment had been allegedly siphoned off or misappropriated by one Naba Kumar Let, a member of the Gram Panchayat, by transferring the same to the accounts of his relatives.
Petitioner submitted that the said fact was admitted by Let, who after detection by the authorities, admitted his guilt to the pradhan and paid a sum of Rs 4,40,000 and undertook to pay the remaining Rs 20,000 within a week.
Petitioner argued that despite these facts, Let had still not been arrested by the police. It was submitted that the petitioner was innocent in the entire case and not involved in the exchange of funds since his job was to only take photographs of the houses.
It was argued that his name in the FIR was only included out of suspicion in order to harass him and without any evidentiary basis.
Counsel for the State on the other hand produced the case diary and argued that the FIR was lodged only due to suspicion around the petitioner's involvement in the siphoning of funds.
It was submitted that on such basis, charges had been framed and the same had been taken cognizance of by the trial court, hence the plea for quashing could not be entertained.
Upon hearing the parties, the Court looked at the FIR, Charge sheet and case diary and noted that while the petitioner's role had been labelled suspicious, there was no mention of any direct role played by him in the siphoning of funds.
Court observed that the petitioner had only been taking photos of incomplete constructions of houses, and tagging them in a centralised software to verify whether the allotted funds were being utilised properly.
There is no other role played by the VLE except their current houses’ location. He has no role to transfer the funds to the accounts of the beneficiaries or relatives of the another accused Naba Kumar Let, it observed.
Court further observed that the co-accused, Naba Kumar Let had voluntarily come forward and admitted his guilt, by returning the money and thus there was not any specific allegation against the present petitioner for misappropriation of funds or breach of trust or siphoning of the fund as alleged by the Block Development Officer.
Accordingly, in finding that the present proceedings against the petitioner were initiated solely on the basis of suspicion without any specific allegation or materials, the Court quashed the same.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 337
Case: Tarun Kumar Pal Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Case No: CRR 395 of 2022