IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.P.NO.3480 OF 2010. Date:20.04.2010 Between:- Sk.Ahmad Basha and another ..Petitioners And The State of A.P., rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. at Hyderabad and another .. Respondents ORDER:- The petitioners 1 and 2 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C. in Crime No.20 of 2010 of Chejerla Police Station. The second respondent, who is the Mandal Parishad Development Officer, is the complainant. 2. Subject matter of this crime is misappropriation of funds of Rs.12,80,883/- under National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. The first petitioner is the Field Assistant. The second petitioner is resident of Perumallapadu. It is alleged that the first petitioner recorded fake names of wage seekers in muster rolls and recorded muster rolls with bogus names in the works, which were not actually taken up. Allegations against the second petitioner are that she made less payment to the wage seekers and the drawal of wage amount against fake musters and for works, which have not been taken up. 3. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that application of funds under the N.R.E.G. scheme is monitered by social audit as contemplated under N.R.E.G.Act, 2005 and that there is detailed procedure contemplated for social audit including conducting of Grama Sabha and that the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.550 Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (RD.II) Department dated 06.12.2007 prescribing checks and measures to be taken up by higher officials regarding the implementation of this scheme and payment of amounts thereunder. It is contended that even though a social audit was conducted in the year 2008, the said social audit is in question before this Court in a writ petition, which is pending. It is further contended that leaving higher officials, the report was given against the Field Assistant, Technical Assistant and Sangabandam leader. 4. Simply because report was given only against lower level officials and leaders, nothing prevents the police/investigating officer to bring higher officials under the scheme also into the net in case they are also found to have joined hands with the present petititoners. Since direct allegations are made against the petitioners 1 and 2 in the report, which attract relevant penal provisions under I.P.C., prima facie, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the investigation at the threshold. 5. Hence, the petition is dismissed. _​_________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 20th April 2010 AMD