1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1645 OF 2009 (Vaijanti w/o Kallappa Bongarge vs. The State) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. Amit Mukhedkar, Adv., for the applicant. Mrs. B.R.Khekale, APP for respondent State. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE: 11/8/2009 P.C.:- 1. The applicant, a woman, claims pre-arrest bail in Crime No.I-44/2009. Counsel informs that the applicant is a fair price shop dealer and she has distributed the food grains meant for the labours and there are no allegations of selling or distributing the same in black market or making any earning extraneously. According to him, the permits, which were issued, have been adhered to in its terms and the coupons are given back to the office of the Tehsil and hence no role or so called chain of 2 misappropriation or lifting of the food grains meant for the labours. 2. It was a Central Government scheme under the banner Sampurn Gramin Rojgar Yojana ( Complete Village Employment Scheme) which formulated, apart from monetary consideration food grains to be distributed to the labours who worked on the Employment Guarantee Scheme in the respective Talukas. The Tehsil office was the implementing authority for the said scheme. The permits were to be issued as per the demand of the Block Development Officer. Such permits or demand letters were collected by the shop keepers and processed at the Tehsil level. In almost all the cases it is seen that the figures are changed and without any authority food grains meant for 100 labours, totalling 2,000 kg is made 12,000 kg. Indeed, such distribution could not have been effected by the present accused/applicant as the strength of the labour was fixed and could 3 not have been multiplied, as is done. In the situation, the role of the accused/applicant prima facie appears in the racket, to facilitate siphoning off Government goods meant for labour. Consequently, no protection. Application rejected. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... agp/1645-09crapl