THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARA CRIMINAL PETITION No.13027 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioners 1 and 2/A1 and A2 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 420 and 409 I.P.C. The 2nd respondent who is Mandal Development Officer, Pedavegi Mandal, gave report against A1 and A2 with regard to misappropriation of amounts during the year 2009-10 in National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS). The work pertains to M.I.R.P. in Janampet Village. A2 is Sarpanch of Janampet Gram Panchayat. A1 is the contractor for supply of material in that work. On the certification made by A2, A1 was given cheque for Rs.8,23,295/- and the amount was withdrawn by A1 on that cheque. It is alleged that subsequently, there was departmental inspection of the work and that the work found on land was only of the value of Rs.89,062/-. Thereupon, notice was issued to the accused for redeposit of excess sum of Rs.7,34,233/- withdrawn by A1 within 10 days of the notice. But, none of the accused responded to the notice. Therefore, the Mandal Development Officer was directed to give report to the Police. The report is dated 15.11.2010. 2. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that under the Andhra Pradesh Detailed Standard Specifications (APDSS), before giving a cheque representing value of the work, the work has to be inspected by the Engineering authorities and details of work have to be noted in Measurement Book (M.Book) and it is only thereafter, payments will be given for the work. It is further contended that before making departmental inspection of the work, no notice was given to the accused and that therefore, the inspection is offended by principles of natural justice. Simply because inspection by the Engineering Department and recording of measurements in M.Book are made prior to passing bill of the contractor, it cannot be contended that it is end of the matter. At any time, inspection can be made by the authorities concerned and in case it is found that excess payment was made, it is liable to be recovered from the contractor. For making departmental inspection, no notice to the contractor is required by law. I am sure that it is not the intention of the petitioners that Engineering staff also should be added as co-accused in this case. The fact that APDSS provides for recovery of excess payment made in respect of any work from the contractor by way of making deductions in other pending bills of the contractor will not prevent the department from taking criminal action for the criminal activity involved in drawing the bill amount without making supply of the material. In this case, though the work done was for Rs.89,062/- for which A1 supplied the material, A1 had drawn Rs.8,23,295/- on certification made by A2 as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat. The department has chosen to give report to the Police only after giving notice to the accused for redeposit of excess amount drawn by them and when the said notice was not complied with by the accused, much less responded by the accused. There are no valid or legal circumstances to stall investigation of this case at its threshold. 3. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ______________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Dt:05.11.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.13027 of 2010 Dt:05.11.2011 ysk