THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.5128 of 2007 ORDER: This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to call for the records in C.C.No.237 of 2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Venkatagiri, Nellore District and to quash the same. The petitioner has been working as Assistant Project Officer, Velugu Scheme, Rapuru Village and Mandal, Nellore District. The Sub Inspector of Police, Rapur Police Station filed charge sheet against the petitioner (A.1) and another, namely, Yellampatti Rajeswari (A.2) inter alia alleging that the DRDO, Nellore sanctioned an amount of Rs.4,44,800/- to Nellepalli Sanga Banda under Velugu Scheme. Mutyam Lakshmamma (L.W.5) had withdrawn the said amount at the instance of A.2 and deposited in the accounts of beneficiaries. From out of the said amount, Rs.1,20,000/- was deposited in the account of L.W.5 in Syndicate Bank, and she was repaying the amounts properly. It is alleged that though A.2 had withdrawn an amount of Rs.50,000/-, it was not distributed to the members of the Velugu Scheme. It is also alleged that A.2 had taken an amount of Rs.2,500/- for the purpose of insurance from Nimmala Sankaramma and Mutyam Padmamma, L.Ws.7 and 8 respectively. Therefore, L.W.1 informed the matter to A.1, but he did not respond. Then the matter was reported to the Project Director, who enquired into the matter. Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no ingredients of Section 409 I.P.C have been made out as far as the present petitioner is concerned, since there is no entrustment of money to the petitioner and that the Investigating Officer without obtaining sanction from the Government filed charge sheet against the petitioner. On the other hand, Ms.E.Shantha Sree, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor, submits that it was the duty of the petitioner to take necessary action against A.2 and he failed in his duty, which shows that the petitioner was colluded with A.2 and he is also a party to the misappropriation. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner cannot be quashed. As far as not obtaining sanction by the Investigating Officer for prosecuting the petitioner is concerned, the learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor is unable to defend the case of the State. Section 409 I.P.C is as follows: “Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” Admittedly no property was entrusted with the petitioner, which is alleged to have been misappropriated under the relevant fact. It is only alleged that the petitioner did not take any action against A.2. I do not think ingredients of Section 409 I.P.C have been made out. Once it is clear that a bare reading of the charge sheet allegations do not make out the case, continuing of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to futile exercise. Further, no sanction was obtained by the Investigation Officer before filing charge sheet. In the circumstances, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings stand quashed as far as the petitioner is concerned. However, it is made clear that the proceedings may go on against A.2. _____________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 20.04.2010 va