Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J
N.G. Kamalrajan – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The petitioner/A10 in Spl. C.C. No.10 of 2023 who is facing trial for the offence under Sections 120(b), 420, 409, 468, 471 r/w. 109 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act [PC Act] filed a discharge petition in Crl. M.P. No.3114 of 2024 and the same was dismissed by the Trial Court by order dated 06.11.2024. Against which, the present revision petition is filed.
2. The gist of the case is that in Thalayamangalam Panchayat, Mannargudi Taluk, Tiruvarur District during the year 2016-2020, 143 beneficiaries were selected for construction of houses under Pradhan Mantri Awaas Yojana-Gramin [PMAY(G)] and 513 beneficiaries were selected for construction of toilets under Swachh Bharat Mission(Gramin) [SBM(G)]. While implementing the above projects, the officers who are in the capacity of Block Development Officer [BDO], Engineers, Overseers during the said period, who are arrayed as A1 to A7 and A10 to A12, conspired with A8 and A9/unregistered contractors colluded with each other, failed to issue the subsidy amount to the beneficiaries and the subsidy amount was remitted to the private contractors and in some cases to the persons whose names are not se
The court held that a Block Development Officer cannot be held liable for misappropriation when acting in good faith and following prescribed procedures, and the prosecution failed to establish a cas....
The Block Development Officer is responsible for ensuring proper implementation of government schemes, but procedural adherence and lack of substantial evidence can lead to discharge from criminal ch....
The involvement of a public servant in misappropriating funds under a government scheme, facilitated by fraudulent actions, constitutes a serious breach of trust deserving denial of bail.
Public servants can be charged with conspiracy and misappropriation for fraudulent actions under specific schemes without a need for prior sanction after retirement, if substantial evidence supports ....
The judgment establishes the importance of proving foundational facts and providing substantial evidence to support allegations in a corruption case.
Prosecution of public servants for corruption does not require sanction when actions are not related to official duties.
The court found that the petitioner, lacking direct responsibility for the schools' financial management, could not be held liable for the alleged misappropriation or forged documentation.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
