Case Law Details
Nidhan Singh Kushwaha Vs State Of Chhattisgarh (Chhattisgarh High Court)
1. Heard.
2. These are the two applications filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory to the applicants, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.39/2023 registered at Police Station Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (CG) for the offence under Sections 409, 420, 120B, 34 of the IPC.
3. Prosecution case, in brief, is that RS Verma, Incharge Assistant Director (Horticulture), District Mahasamund lodged an FIR on the basis of an enquiry report submitted by the concerned Department on the complaint of Parliament Secretary namely Mr. Vinod Sevan Lal Chandrakar against applicant – Nidhan Singh Kuchwaha, the then Assistant Director (Horticulture), Jignesh Patel, Proprietor of M/s. Kishan Agrotech and Mr. Satish Jindal (applicant), Proprietor of M/s. Jai Gurudev, alleging that for construction of 17 Shed Net House/Green House and 66 Pack House/Poly House, under the National Agriculture Development Scheme sponsored by the NABARD, a subsidy amount to the tune of Rs.107.178 lakhs was withdrawn in an irregular manner. The concerned farmers produced vouchers regarding grant of payment in respect of firm – M/s. Kishan Agrotech and the same was also taken on record for entry of the stockholder. However, it is alleged that though the bill with regard to above payment was passed by applicant – Nidhan Singh Kushwaha, but the payment was made to the Proprietor (Satish Jindal – applicant) of another firm i.e. M/s. Jai Gurudev. On enquiry, it was found that for a single farmer, only one net house was constructed and that too by two firms and thereby, the applicants’ in a fraudulent manner, committed irregularity by not depositing GST in the account(s) of the Central and State Governments. Based upon which, the offence has been registered.
4. Learned counsel for the respective applicants submit that the applicants have not caused any loss to the Government and its beneficiaries. They would further submit that for construction of only one shed, subsidy was given, which was directly deposited in the beneficiaries’ accounts and thereafter, the beneficiaries placed the order to the concerned firms.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
