Court No. - 81
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 47157 of 2019 Applicant :- Dhirendra Pratap Dubey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Amit Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been moved with a prayer to quash the judgment and order dated 12.10.2018 passed in special trial No. 41 of 2007 pending in the Court of Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, arising out of Case Crime No. 915 of 1996 under sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A, 120-B IPC and 13 (2) R.W. 13 (1) of D.P.C. Act, Police station Kotwali Gonda and also a prayer is made to stay the proceedings in this case till the disposal of this application.
Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant was Assistant Engineer in District Rural Development Agency (here-in-after referred to as DRDA) at the relevant time. His name did not appear in the FIR but subsequently he has been made accused in this case during course of investigation by alleging that he had sent report that the project work of Belwa Check Dam had been completed though it had not been completed and the said report was forwarded by him under his signature to ADM (P) and in turn the said report was forwarded to the Government. The allegations in this case are that forged vouchers were prepared with respect to muster roll to the tune of Rs.4,10,000/-. The Irrigation Department did not make the payment of the said amount to the labourers and therefore the accused had no role in this offence. He has been falsely implicated. The matter relates to the year 1988-1989 while FIR has been lodged in the year 1996. The accused-applicant is nearing retirement. The impugned discharge order dated 12.10.2018 needs to be set aside and the accused-applicant deserves to be discharged.
On the other hand learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing the impugned order of discharge of the accused stating that the accused has been clearly assigned the role of having forwarded the completion report of the said project without the work having been completed. It cannot be denied that he was in collusion with the other co-accused in giving effect the present occurrence.
I have gone through the FIR and the evidence collected against the accused-applicant. The applicant was posted as Assistant Engineer in DRDA, Gonda from 1989 to 1990. The DRDA has been traditionally principal organ at District level to oversee the implementation of anti-poverty programmes of Ministry of Rural Development and it was basically created to implement the integrated Rural Development Programme. In 1989-1990, Irrigation Department Gonda had constructed Belwa check Dam, funds for which were released by DRDA,Gonda. In the execution of the said project, Engineers of Irrigation Department, Gonda have been shown to have made false payment to labourers through fake muster rolls regarding which the present FIR has been lodged. The applicant was Assistant Engineer in DRDA and hence was responsible to see the work of the dam. Sanction has been given by the Government against him on the charge that while forwarding the estimate to ADM (P), Gonda, he has put his initials on the note sheet and without actual completion of Belwa check Dam, money has been released by ADM (P), Gonda. On the basis of completion report submitted by the Executive Engineer, payment was made to him through cheque to the tune of Rs.5.1 lacs by ADM (P) Therefore, the involvement of the accused-applicant cannot be ruled out prima-facie as he had forwarded the report of completion of the said project. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order by which the discharge application of the accused-applicant was rejected because even if there is serious doubt of involvement of the accused, charge could have been framed. Hence, impugned order is upheld. Application deserves to be rejected and is accordingly rejected.
Looking to the fact that the accused-applicant is going to retire very soon, the trial court is directed to complete the trial of this case expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year.
Order Date :- 19.12.2019 AU