JUDGMENT 1. - This is a bail application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. It is submitted by Mr. S.R. Bajwa, learned counsel, that the applicant is an IAS Officer and was posted as Project Director from 14.3.89 to 22.10.89. It is further submitted that the DRDA, District Jaipur, imparts training to Scheduled Caste youths and Rural youths for self-employment under the schemes by name TRYSEM & SCYTE. It is also submitted that some process is necessary before any institution is recognised and registered for the purpose of imparting training to the youths under the above-mentioned both schemes for self employment. It is also submitted that the Project Director usually relies upon the physical verification done by the concerned subordinate officers in this regard. Certain targets are given to the Project Director, which he is expected to achieve to show his efficiency. It is submitted that the allegations in FIR are that one Ramkumar Swami, a Junior Accountant,in collusion with other persons, including some accounts personnel in the office, conspired to prepare forged documents and committed embezzlement of huge amount of one crore & five lacs. It is given out that the FIR was registered at the instance of the successor-in office of the applicant. It is submitted that though Ramkumar Swami has, in his statement fully involved the applicant, but, according to the learned counsel, this should have no effect so far as any allegation against the applicant is concerned. It is also given out that D.K. Gupta and Bhanwarlal Verma, who were also working in the Project, are also said to be involved in the same. It is further submitted that under the TRYSEM scheme, the target was to impart training to 1020 trainess for the year, 1988-89, but the amount drawn was for 3300 trainees and in another scheme SCYTE, the target was to train 725 trainees, but the amount drawn was for 22.0 trainees. It is also submitted that, as per information, the actual training, in both these schemes, was given to only 260 and 165 trainees, respectively. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel that the Project Director is not expected to collect the figures, but it is for the subordinate staff to do this work and, if any excess amount was paid the same can be recovered from the concerned persons and the applicant is in no way involved in the same. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel that the Project Director is not expected to collect the figures, but it is for the subordinate staff to do this work and, if any excess amount was paid the same can be recovered from the concerned persons and the applicant is in no way involved in the same. It is submitted that this responsibility squarely lies upon the Project Manager/Subject-matter Specialist and not on the applicant, who was Project Director at the relevant time and he was expected to supervise the matter and, even if there is any lapse in supervision, no dishonest intention can be put to him on this account. It is also submitted that it is alleged by the prosecution agency that, even though, applicant received his transfer order on 20.10.89, which was Friday, but he handed over charge only on Monday, i.e., 23.10.89. It is further alleged that the applicant wrote two letters dated 21.10.89 to the Banks for releasing the amount of Rs. 34.50 lacs required for purchase of tools at the rate of Rs. 500/- per trainee. It is contended by the learned counsel that the subordinate staff gave necessary notings in the order-sheet and the applicant relying upon the notings of the subordinate staff, merely approved the same and cannot be said to be responsible for any dishonest motive for doing the same. It is also submitted that pay order regarding releasing of this amount may have been signed, even earlier than 23.10.89 on the basis of which letters were written to the Banks for releasing the above-mentioned amount. It is further contended that the applicant was authorised to issue orders only to the extent of Rs. 25,000/- and if any higher amount than that was to be released, it was necessary to get such a pay order counter-signed by the Chairman, DRDA, who is Collector of the District. It is pointed out that the applicant cannot be held to be responsible for not sending the papers to the Chairman, after he signed himself on the pay orders and no adverse inference can be drawn against him on this account. It is pointed out that the applicant cannot be held to be responsible for not sending the papers to the Chairman, after he signed himself on the pay orders and no adverse inference can be drawn against him on this account. It is also contended that it is alleged that co-accused D.K. Gupta, who has been released on bail under Section 439, Cr.P.C., put signature on 4.10.89 on sanction letter and letters written to the Banks for releasing the amount, even after he retired as early as 31.8.89. According to learned counsel, this is wrong and it is quite possible that he may have signed earlier and may have forgotten to put the date on which he signed the papers. It is further contended by the learned counsel that, even though, the applicant may have committed breach in observing certain Financial Rules, but no offence can be made out under the provision of Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC. It is also pointed out that, in this case, there has been sort of investigation by media, which has adversely affected reputation of applicant, even before he approached the Judicial Courts for getting relief in accordance with law. It is also pointed out that the applicant has been interrogated twice and, in fact, he is not needed for any other purpose by the investigating agency. It is also submitted that the institutions, to which the amounts have been released, were registered much earlier in the year, 1978 and thereafter, much earlier than the applicant took over as Project Director. It is, therefore, contended that it is not known why no action has been taken against such previous three IAS Officers, during whose tenure, these institutions were registered and the applicant only continued to rely upon the registration made by earlier officers, who occupied the same post. It is also pointed out that out of Rs. 1 crore 5 lacs said to have been embezzled, Rs. 60 lacs have already been recovered and the remaining amount of Rs. 50 lacs, which the investigating agency wants to recover, can be recovered from other three co-accused persons and the applicant is not involved in recovery of any of the amounts mentioned above. It is also contended that the applicant is said to have signed the documents for release of Rs. 34.50 lacs without obtaining counter-signatures of the Chairman. It is pointed out that Rs. It is also contended that the applicant is said to have signed the documents for release of Rs. 34.50 lacs without obtaining counter-signatures of the Chairman. It is pointed out that Rs. 37 lacs have been already recovered from co-accused Ramkumar Swami, so nothing is to be recovered from the applicant in this respect. It is further submitted, while relying on the case of Gurbaksh Singh v. State of Punjab, ( AIR 1980 SC 1632 ) , that the scope of Section 438 Cr.P.C. is wide enough, which means that no harassment will be caused to persons or officers, who occupy such posts in which they have to perform only supervisory duties and cannot go into details of every order and have necessarily to rely upon their subordinates. 3. It is contended by Mr. B. P. Agarwal learned Advocate Genera] and Mr. M. I. Khan, learned Addl. Advocate General, that preliminary investigations were started by an Executive Officer, who succeeded the applicant as Project Director when, after going through certain records, he realised that some fraud involving huge amount of money has been committed in the Office of DRDA, Jaipur D'strict during the tenure of the applicant. Therefore, FIR was thus lodged by an IAS Officer, who succeeded the applicant, after he was transferred from the post of Project Director. It is, therefore, contended by the learned counsel that the allegations of causing any harassment with mala fide intention by the investigating agency, as alleged by the applicant, have no basis, as at that time, the investigating agency never came into picture. It is also pointed out that in audit report, it has been mentioned clearly that in DRDA, Jaipur District, huge fraud of more than one crore of rupees has been committed. It is pointed out that even at that time the investigating agency was not in picture and it is the audit report, which has pointed out this fraud. It is also submitted that while the bail application of the co-accused Jhabarmal and contempt petition filed by Smt. Manjula were heard, this Court had observed that it will be necessary to record the statement of the applicant, who is in knowledge of several facts. It is also submitted that while the bail application of the co-accused Jhabarmal and contempt petition filed by Smt. Manjula were heard, this Court had observed that it will be necessary to record the statement of the applicant, who is in knowledge of several facts. It is, therefore, contended that this goes to show that the investigating agency was in no case bent upon to harass the applicant, as is wrongly alleged by the learned counsel for the applicant, and even this Court felt that the statement should be recorded by the investigating agency, which had not been done so-far. It is contended by the learned counsel that this is a case of corruption at the highest level and the work of investigating agency is sought to be hampered by way of this application under Section 438. Cr.P.C. It is also pointed out that these two schemes and several other schemes were initiated by the Central Government as well as State Government with a view to help such persons, who live below the poverty line in our country. Both the Governments were anxious to help such persons by imparting them training and also providing them tools, so that, they may able to stand on their own legs. However, by the fraud committed by the other co-accused persons, including the applicant, this whole purpose was washed away and the money meant for poor people of our country, was misused and embezzled. It is further pointed out that certain norms are necessary to be observed and physical verification done before any private institution is registered for the purpose of getting amounts from DRDA, which should have some infrastructure for imparting training. This was over-looked and out of these 18 institutions, 13 are fake institutions, which were never in existence and so far as other 5 institutions arc concerned, they are imparting education of the primary level to the children around 8 years and they do not impart training to the poor persons under the schemes, regarding which, huge amounts were taken by them. It is also submitted that, in fact, not even one person has received any training under these institutions, as is evident from the facts mentioned above. It is also pointed out that payment for the year, 1988-89. was made in the year, 1988-90, by the applicant during the period of few months he was posted as Project Director. It is also submitted that, in fact, not even one person has received any training under these institutions, as is evident from the facts mentioned above. It is also pointed out that payment for the year, 1988-89. was made in the year, 1988-90, by the applicant during the period of few months he was posted as Project Director. These amounts, which are given to various institutions, are given for separate purposes, like salary to teachers, purchase of tools for use in the institution for giving training to the trainees and also purchasing tools to be given to trainees, after they have finished training, so that, they may be able to stand on their own legs and earn a reasonable living for themselves. It is pointed out that usually, the schemes are for 2 or 3 or 6 months, but in this case, all schemes were taken for six months. Apart from this it is pointed out that the training period was ending in the month of January, 1990, whereas, the amount of Rs. 34.50 lacs was released specifically for purchasing the tools on 21st October, 1989 which were to be given to trainees after completion of training in January, 1990, after the applicant had received his transfer orders, i.e., 20.10.1989. It is also submitted that the Rules/Procedure provides that before an instalment is issued, it is necessary to verify whether the funds of previous instalments were properly utilised and only after such physical verification, the amount of second and third instalment is released. It is pointed out that in this case, nothing like this was done. It is also pointed out that the applicant was transferred on 20.10.89, which was Friday but he gave his charge in the afternoon of Monday i.e. 23.10.89. It is, therefore, pointed out that how the applicant signed on two letters sent to the Bank for releasing more than Rs. 34 lacs on 21.10.89, when he had already received his transfer order. It is pointed out that when the applicant was called upon to explain his above conduct, he merely said that he seems to have been cheated by his subordinate staff. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the applicant has been evading arrest for more than one month. It is pointed out that when the applicant was called upon to explain his above conduct, he merely said that he seems to have been cheated by his subordinate staff. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the applicant has been evading arrest for more than one month. It is also pointed out that after interim bail was granted to the applicant by this Court on 25.5.90, the investigating agency could not contact him/trace him out for interrogation during this period. The learned counsel produced for perusal of the Court a document, which is a sanction for release of amount sent to Bank signed by D.K. Gupta, on which the date is 4th October, 1989, even though, as stated earlier, D.K. Gupta has retired on 31st August, 1989. This document also bears signature of the applicant. It is, therefore, contended that this shows that the applicant with full knowledge of retirement of Shri D.K. Gupta, allowed him to sign this and other such documents and also signed himself and was instrumental in getting the amount of Rs. 34.50 lacs released from the Bank for private institutions. It is also submitted that in the order passed by the Sessions Judge on the bail application of Shri D.K. Gupta, it is clearly mentioned that it was asserted on behalf of Shri D.K. Gupta that the staff was terrorised on account of the applicant and Shri D.K. Gupta had to sign even on blank papers, as instructed by the applicant.It was further stated on behalf of the co-accused Jhumar Mal that the applicant demanded 20 to 36% of he amount and Rs. 16 lacs were paid to him. It is, therefore, contended by the learned counsel that no counter-signature was ever obtained from the Chairman of DRDA, i.e., Collector, which was necessary for getting all such sanctions, which were beyond the amount of Rs. 25,000/-. In the order-sheet dated 21.10.89, which was produced for perusal of this Court, it is mentioned that as per verbal instructions of the applicant, two letters for payment of Rs. 34.50 lacs were prepared, which were later on signed by the applicant himself. 25,000/-. In the order-sheet dated 21.10.89, which was produced for perusal of this Court, it is mentioned that as per verbal instructions of the applicant, two letters for payment of Rs. 34.50 lacs were prepared, which were later on signed by the applicant himself. It is also pointed out that no payment can be made to any private institution as per the Rules/Procedure by way of pay order but, in this case, the norm was ignored and payments byway of pay orders were made to several private institutions. It is also contended that, even though, there may be breach of Financial Rules, the applicant is liable to be punished under the provisions of Section 13 (d) (1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and also under other relevant provisions of IPC. It is also pointed out that ten co-accused are still absconding. The learned counsel has placed reliance on Pokar Ram v. State of Rajasthan ( AIR 1985 SC 969 ) , Pokar Ram v. State of Rajasthan (1985 RLW 5) , Ashok Dhariwal v. State of Rajasthan (1982 RLR 523 = 1982 Cr.L.J. 2335) , Mahanthagouda v. State of Karnataka (1978 Cr.L.J. 1045) in support of the arguments raised by him. 4. I have heard both the parties and also perused documents and other bail orders, in which certain remarks have been made by the Judicial Courts. From the arguments raised and the facts & circumstances, I am not able to convince myself that any un-necessary harassment is being caused by the investigating agency to the applicant. The mere fact that the applicant was interrogated twice and still allowed to go shows that the investigating agency did not arrest him. After interrogation any ground is made out and question of arresting him will come only thereafter. Apart from this, there are serious allegations, regarding embezzlement of huge amount, certain orders are said to have been signed and letters are said to have been issued by the applicant, even after he received transfer orders. Certain norms which are necessary to be followed before any instalments are issued have also not been observed, even though the applicant has supervisory duty, it does not mean there is no responsibility on him. I do not want to express any opinion on the merits of the matter and it will be for the investigating agency to establish the guilt, if there is any. I do not want to express any opinion on the merits of the matter and it will be for the investigating agency to establish the guilt, if there is any. In the facts and circumstances, mentioned above, I am not inclined to grant indulgence of the provisions of Section 438, Cr.P.C. to the applicant. The bail application is, therefore, rejected. 5. Before I part with this application I am constrained to remark that certain responsible newspapers print & publish the orders of this Court not in right perspective. These days all outstanding newspapers have their legal correspondents, who can obtain necessary information from the Court by way of obtaining certified copies of orders pronounced and the news should be published after the relevant orders have been seen, but this has not been done several times. So far as the order passed on 25.5.90 is concerned, in which interim bail was granted to the applicant by this Court, shews two Deputy Government Advocates were present before the Court when the interim bail was granted and they requested for time to argue the matter, as they wanted the learned Additional Advocate General to argue the same, but the way, in which the matter has been reported, the less said is better. It is only expected in our democratic country where the media has full liberty of reporting, no institution, more so, judicial institution, should be denigrated in the of public by making mis-reporting and wrong reporting advertently or inadvertently. 6. The application for anticipatory bail is rejected.Bail Rejected. *******