“Criminal Liability Cannot Flow From Designation Alone”: Calcutta High Court Quashes MGNREGS Misappropriation Case Against Officer

The Calcutta High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a Skilled Technical Person implicated in an alleged MGNREGS fund misappropriation case, holding that “entrustment is the lifeblood of an offence under Section 409 IPC” and that criminal liability cannot be fastened merely on the basis of official designation without proof of dominion over funds or a document-linked overt act.Justice Uday Kumar was dealing with a petition under Section 482 CrPC filed by Arko Deep Saha @ Arkadeep Saha seeking quashing of the charge sheet and proceedings arising out of Harishchandrapur P.S. Case No. 901/17, where he had been charged under Sections 406 and 409 IPC in connection with alleged “ghost works” under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme.The prosecution case stemmed from an FIR lodged by the Block Development Officer alleging large-scale siphoning of public funds in five horticulture and land development projects under Malior-II Gram Panchayat. An administrative enquiry had revealed that although funds were withdrawn, no physical work was executed on the ground. The investigation alleged collusion between the Gram Pradhan, Supervisor and Gram Rojgar Sevak. The petitioner, engaged later as a Skilled Technical Person (STP), was accused of facilitating the fraud through “technical silence” and failure to report the irregularities.Challenging the prosecution, the petitioner argued that the projects were sanctioned and funds primarily disbursed in 2015, whereas his tenure began only in late 2016. He contended that he neither handled funds nor signed any Measurement Books, valuation reports or completion certificates that could trigger fund release, thereby negating the essential ingredient of “entrustment.” The State, on the other hand, claimed that as a technical officer he had a duty to inspect works and that his inaction amounted to willful blindness and tacit conspiracy.Allowing the petition, the Court found a “significant dominion gap” in the prosecution case. It held that while the petitioner may have had technical oversight, he lacked financial control or dominion over funds, which moved through a Direct Benefit Transfer mechanism controlled by other authorities. The absence of his signatures on technical documents showed that he was bypassed altogether. The Court remarked that if disbursing authorities ignored the technical layer, the technical officer could not be criminally blamed.The Bench also noted the “temporal impossibility” of the allegations, observing that the alleged siphoning had reached its financial culmination before the petitioner even assumed charge. In such circumstances, the requirement of a “meeting of minds” for conspiracy could not be satisfied. Drawing a distinction between administrative negligence and criminal intent, the Court said that failure to act as a whistle-blower might warrant departmental action but did not meet the threshold of mens rea for criminal prosecution.Relying on principles laid down by the Supreme Court of India in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Sushil Sethi v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, the Court held that forcing the petitioner to face trial despite the absence of basic ingredients of the offence would amount to abuse of process. It emphasised that criminal law cannot be invoked on a mere “nexus of designation” without a “nexus of deed.”Accordingly, the High Court quashed the FIR and charge sheet insofar as they related to the petitioner, discharged him from bail bonds, and permitted the department to initiate a departmental enquiry, if necessary, while directing the trial to proceed against the remaining accused.Case: Arko Deep Saha @ Arkadeep Saha -Vs- State of West Bengal & Anr.Case No: CRR 1892 of 2022Click here to read order

“Criminal Liability Cannot Flow From Designation Alone”: Calcutta High Court Quashes MGNREGS Misappropriation Case Against Officer

Srinjoy Das

Tags