Court No. - 87

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4265 of 2022

Revisionist :- Rajesh Singh

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others

Counsel for Revisionist :- Krishna Mohan Misra,Gopal Das Srivastava

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajitabh Choubey,B.B.Rai

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Ratnendu

Kumar Singh, learned AGA. However, no one has put in

appearance on behalf of respondent no.2 to 5.

2. The present revision is directed against the order dated

27.7.2022 passed by the learned Additional District and Session

Judge/Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Special Court

No.4, Gorakhpur in Misc. Case F.R. No.132 of 2022, arising out of

Case Crime No.118 of 2019, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 471

and 109 IPC and Section 13(1)(D) of Prevention of Corruption

Act, Police Station Bansgaon, District Gorakhpur.

3. The revisionist is the resident of Village Panchayat Baidwali,

Block Bansgaon, District Gorakhpur. He made a complaint in

respect of the execution of the work of a pond in the said village

by the Village Pradhan, Village Panchayat Secretary and other

accused. The said compliant was enquired by the District Rural

Development Agency, Gorakhpur on the direction issued by the

Project Director/Deputy Labour Commissioner.

4. In the enquiry report, it was specifically said that the total cost

of the said pond was sanctioned to be Rs.1,92,168/- In the

documents made available to the enquiry officer by the Village

Secretary/Gram Rozgar Sewak, it was shown that from Muster

Roll Nos.3151 to 3162, total 38 workmen were shown to have

worked and they were paid Rs.85,652/- and from Muster Roll

Nos.3676 to 3687, total 43 workmen were shown to have worked

and they were paid Rs.83,076/- and the total amount of

Rs.1,68,728/- was paid. The pond was sanctioned in dimension of

54 x 45 meters, however, on the spot only 30 x 29 meters was dug.

Only 35% of the pond was dug and for the said work, total cost of

Rs.1,68,728/- was shown to be paid.

5. It was also said that one workman, Ram Naresh Singh informed

that he was performed the work for eighteen days, whereas he was

shown to have worked for 26 days. Ram Naresh Singh also said

that he had completed 10+2 from Batwali Inter College and he had

taken admission in B.A. First Year. The said Ram Naresh Singh

was shown to be employed as muster roll employee from

29.2.2016 to 6.3.2016 for seven days, from 7.3.2016 to 13.3.2016

for seven days and from 15.3.2016 to 21.3.2016 for six days and

from 23.3.2016 to 29.3.2016 for six days, total 26 days, whereas as

per the examination schedule of the Intermediate Board, the papers

were held on 18th and 20th February and 12th, 14^th, 15^th, 16^th,

17^th, 19th and 21st March, 2016. If the said person was giving

Board examination, he could not have worked on muster roll for

which he was made payment. In the enquiry, it was found that the

accused had misappropriated the Government fund in criminal

conspiracy with each other. On the basis of this enquiry report, the

FIR in question came to be registered. The police, however, after

investigation, filed closure/final report under Section 173(2)

Cr.P.C., against which the revisionist filed a protest petition.

However, the same got rejected by the learned trial court vide

impugned order.

6. The enquiry report, which is a fact finding report, would suggest

that the pond was not constructed as per the dimension, which was

sanctioned. The muster roll was a forged document, on the basis of

which the payment was made. Prima facie, there appears to be

evidence for commission of the offence, but the learned trial court

has accepted the report instead of taking cognizance or treating the

protest petition as a complaint.

7. In view of the enquiry report and the protest petition, which is

supported by an affidavit, I am of the view that the view taken by

the learned trial court in rejecting the prote