Judgment 1. The petitioners in Crl.O.P(MD)No.5465 of 2013 are arrayed as A-8 to A- 25; the petitioners in Crl.O.P(MD)No.5466 of 2013 are arrayed as A-6, A-7 and A-26 and the petitioner in Crl.O.P(MD)No.12306 of 2013 is arrayed as A-5 and they along with A-1 to A-4, are facing the prosecution for the alleged commission of the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 477-A read with Sections 120-B I.P.C. and Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in Special Case No.98 of 2011 on the file of the Special Court for Trial of the cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. Since the petitioners are arrayed as accused in the very same Special Case and that they have filed these Criminal Original Petitions to quash the charge sheet in the said case, these petitions are disposed of by this common order. 3. For the sake of conveni, the petitioners are referred to as accused as per their rank in the charge sheet. 4. The case of the prosecution, briefly narrated, is as follows: 4.1. A-1 to A-4 are the officials of the Agriculture Department, Theni District. A-6 and A-7 are private individuals and also acted as members of the Watershed Development Team of Project Implementing Agency, Periyakulam Block, for the period from March 2004 to February 2005. A-8 to A-25 are the beneficiaries and A-26 is the Secretary of CHANARD, a Non-Governmental Organisation (in short 'NGO'). 4.2. The Government, vide G.O.Ms.No.191, Agriculture (WLD-Cell) Department, dated 08.07.2002, has launched a Comprehensive Waste Land Programme, for the purpose of ensuring soil and water conservation and re- greening of waste land through horticulture, agro-forestry, medicinal plants and fodder spices, etc. and it is to be implemented for a period of five years incorporating Micro Watershed Development Project. 4.3. The cost of development of waste land per hectare had been arrived at by giving subsidy of Rs.8,500/- including Rs.800/- towards fertilizer. The said programme was implemented during the year 2004-2005 in Theni District through 46 Village Development Agencies functioning under the control of 8 Project Implementing Agencies headed by Agricultural Development Officers. The Project Officer of Theni District Watershed Development Agency is the Joint Director of Agriculture, Theni. 4.4. The said programme was implemented during the year 2004-2005 in Theni District through 46 Village Development Agencies functioning under the control of 8 Project Implementing Agencies headed by Agricultural Development Officers. The Project Officer of Theni District Watershed Development Agency is the Joint Director of Agriculture, Theni. 4.4. The Agriculture Development Officers have to form the Village Development Agencies in their jurisdiction and in the said Agencies, all the farmers of the concerned villages, will be the members and two of them will be selected as President and Secretary of the said Agency having a membership of 15 to 20 members. 4.5. Each Project Implementing Agency was entrusted with two or three Watershed Development Team members exclusively for implementing the programme and the said members are deputed by the selected NGO and the honorarium are being paid to the said team members by the Project Implementing Agencies from the administration account and paid through the selected NGO. The members have to work under the control and guidance o the Project Implementing Agencies and the Secretary is to be nominated by the Village Development Association and appointed by the NGOs. 4.6. The prosecution alleges that all the accused had entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat and misappropriate the subsidy amount allotted to the Village Development Agencies by creating false records under the Wasteland Development Scheme. In addition to that, the names of the dead persons and names of the landless farmers have also been used for the purpose of making false claims and thereby, misappropriated the amount and their acts would constitute the commission of the above said offences. 5. Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.K.Appadurai, learned Counsel for the petitioners in Crl.O.P(MD)Nos.5465 and 5466 of 2013 and Mr.I.Pinaygash, learned Counsel for the petitioner in Crl.O.P(MD)No.12306 of 2013, have contended, thus: 5.1. Insofar as A-5/petitioner in Crl.O.P(MD)No.12306 of 2013 is concerned, he has taken the additional charge of the implementing agency only on 21.07.2005, whereas the period of the alleged misappropriation, etc. is relating to the period from 2004-2005 and during that period, the petitioner/A-5 has no role to play. The petitioner/A-5 made a recommendation based on the resolution passed by the Village Development Association to the Project Director and other officials and since he has followed the procedural formalities scrupulously, the ingredients of the offence have not been made out. is relating to the period from 2004-2005 and during that period, the petitioner/A-5 has no role to play. The petitioner/A-5 made a recommendation based on the resolution passed by the Village Development Association to the Project Director and other officials and since he has followed the procedural formalities scrupulously, the ingredients of the offence have not been made out. The petitioner/A-5 did not select the list of beneficiaries and he merely recommended the list of claims based on the resolution passed by the Village Development Association. 5.2. Insofar as A-8 to A-25/petitioners in Crl.O.P(MD)No.5465 of 2013 and A-6, A-7 and A-26/petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5466 of 2013 are concerned, it is contended that absolutely there is no material to connect them with the alleged commission of the offence of conspiracy and other offences and the contents of the F.I.R and the charge sheet are totally contrary to each other. The recovery was also effected from the officials who are arrayed as A-1 to A-4. 5.3. Insofar as the allegation that the names of the dead persons and landless labourers have been utilised for the purpose of misappropriation, it is contended that though the patta has been stood in the names of the dead persons, the fact remains that after their demise, their legal representatives have taken over the possession and became the owners/persons in possession and as such, there is nothing wrong in disbursing the amount. 5.4. It is also contended that the accused are private individuals having a very meagre lands and they are rustic persons and on account of their poor and rural background, they may not know the intricacies and the said fact has been completely overlooked by the prosecution and the persons concerned are also willing to pay back the same. 5.5. Lastly, it is contended that some of the petitioners are in advanced years of age and are suffering due to age related health problems and taking into a sympathetic consideration of the same, the criminal prosecution launched against them, may be quashed. 6. 5.5. Lastly, it is contended that some of the petitioners are in advanced years of age and are suffering due to age related health problems and taking into a sympathetic consideration of the same, the criminal prosecution launched against them, may be quashed. 6. Per contra, Mr.C.Ramesh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has invited the attention of this Court to the counter filed by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Theni District and would contend that the petitioners/private individuals are eking out their livelihood as farmers and the Presidents and Secretaries of the respective Agencies in connivance with the officials who are arrayed as A-1 to A-5, have misappropriated the money in respect of the units allotted to them. The recovery of the amount from A-1 to A-5 does not absolve the accused from the criminal prosecution. 7. Insofar as the petitioner in Crl.O.P(MD)No.12306 of 2013/A-5 is concerned, it is contended that during his tenure, on his recommendation, the amounts of Rs.2,41,570/- and Rs.1,74,910/- respectively, were released by A-2 to A-5 and A-5, in turn, released the amount of Rs.4,97,421/- to the concerned Village Development Agencies and has got a specific role in the implementation of the Comprehensive Wasteland Development Programme during 2004-2005 and his duties and responsibilities have also been fixed in the letter dated 16.03.2004. 8. The petitioner in Crl.O.P(MD)No.12306 of 2013/A-5, was holding the additional charge from 21.07.2005 and on his recommendation only, the above said amounts were sanctioned by the Project Director/Joint Director of Agriculture and the said fact has been spoken to by two witnesses who are of the officials of the Agriculture Department. The petitioner in Crl.O.P(MD)No.12306 of 2013/A-5 was also assigned with the role to verify the genuineness of the beneficiaries and without making proper verification, made a recommendation for disbursement of a sum of Rs.4,97,421/- and therefore, he is rightly prosecuted. 9. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.K.Appadurai, learned Counsel for the petitioners in Crl.O.P(MD)Nos.5465 and 5466 of 2013; Mr.I.Pinaygash, learned Counsel for the petitioner in Crl.O.P(MD)No.12306 of 2013 and Mr.C.Ramesh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 10. 9. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.K.Appadurai, learned Counsel for the petitioners in Crl.O.P(MD)Nos.5465 and 5466 of 2013; Mr.I.Pinaygash, learned Counsel for the petitioner in Crl.O.P(MD)No.12306 of 2013 and Mr.C.Ramesh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 10. In Sajjan Kumar v. CBI reported in (2010) 9 SCC 368 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1371, the Honourable Supreme Court has considered the scope of Sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C., and in paragraphs 19 and 21, has laid down the following proposition: "19. It is clear that at the initial stage, if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, then it is not open to the court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The presumption of the guilt of the accused which is to be drawn at the initial stage is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie whether the Court should proceed with the trial or not. If the evidence which the prosecution proposes to adduce prove the guilt of the accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the offence, then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial. ***** ***** ***** ***** Exercise of jurisdiction under Sections 227 and 228 CrPC. 21. On consideration of the authorities about the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge: (i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 Cr.P.C. has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case. (ii) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case. (ii) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. (iii) The Court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. (iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. (v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the Court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible. (vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value discloses the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. (vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal. " 11. This Court keeping in mind the ratio laid down in the above said decision, has carefully scanned the charge sheet filed against the accused. " 11. This Court keeping in mind the ratio laid down in the above said decision, has carefully scanned the charge sheet filed against the accused. The offences alleged against A-1 to A-5/officials and other accused are serious and grave in nature for the reason that the public money intended for the development of the wasteland and to improve the lives of the people living in rural places, has been misappropriated by fabricating and by utilising the names of dead persons and landless labourers. 12. The second respondent/first respondent (as the case may be) in his counter filed in these petitions, had contended that apart from the statements of the witnesses, the documents are also available to substantiate the case of the prosecution. The statements of the witnesses and the documents collected by the prosecution during investigation which form part of the charge sheet, have not been enclosed in the typed set of documents and even if those materials are made available, this Court in exercise of it's inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot test the truth and validity of the statements and documents collected during the investigation. 13. No doubt, the other petitioners who are private individuals may have a rural background and lack of knowledge, but, according to the prosecution, they were beneficiaries and shared the booty of the misappropriated public money. 14. The explanation offered by the petitioners that the revenue records continue to stand in the names of the persons who are no more and since they continue to be in possession as their legal representatives by virtue of the testamentary or intestate succession having enjoyed the benefits, cannot be accepted at this stage. 15. As laid down in the above said decision of the Honourable Supreme Court, the trial Court while framing the charges, is to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case is made out and it would depend upon the facts of each case and the Court at the time of framing the charge, cannot conduct a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if it was conducting the trial. 16. 16. In the light of the factual aspects coupled with the ratio laid down in the above said decision, this Court is not justified in quashing the charge sheet against these petitioners, as the points urged by the respective learned Counsel for the petitioners, have to be thrashed out during the course of the trial. 17. Therefore, all the Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed. It is made clear that the trial Court is to adjudicate the case on it's own merits without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.