The Calcutta High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a technical officer accused in an alleged MGNREGS fund misappropriation case, holding that there was no legal basis to prosecute him for a fraud that had allegedly concluded before he joined service.
Justice Uday Kumar delivered the judgment on February 20, 2026, allowing a criminal revision petition filed by Arko Deep Saha. Sataroop Purkayastha
Read also:- Patna High Court Dismisses Plea for Compensation Over Alleged Illegal Detention, Flags Lapses
Background of the Case
The case arose from an FIR registered in 2017 at Harishchandrapur Police Station in Malda district. The complaint, lodged by the Block Development Officer, alleged large-scale misappropriation of public funds allocated under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS).
According to the prosecution, five horticulture and land development projects under Malior-II Gram Panchayat existed only on paper. Though funds were withdrawn, subsequent inspections reportedly found no work on the ground.
Arko Deep Saha, who served as a Skilled Technical Person (STP) between August 2016 and August 2017, was chargesheeted under Sections 406 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution argued that his “technical oversight” was a crucial part of the system and that his failure to report irregularities amounted to criminal connivance.
Read also:- Sikkim High Court Closes NHM Transfer Dispute After Amicable Settlement Between Employee
Petitioner’s Argument: No Entrustment, No Role
Appearing for the petitioner, counsel argued that the projects in question were sanctioned and funds were largely disbursed in 2015 - well before Saha assumed office.
It was also pointed out that Saha’s signature did not appear on Measurement Books, valuation reports, or completion certificates -documents that serve as technical triggers for fund release.
The defence maintained that without “entrustment” or control over funds, the essential ingredients of Section 409 IPC could not be established.
State’s Stand: Willful Blindness
The State opposed the plea, arguing that as an STP, the petitioner was expected to act as the “eyes and ears” of the administration.
The prosecution submitted that the projects were shown as ongoing during Saha’s tenure and that his failure to report non-execution suggested tacit approval. It contended that whether his silence amounted to negligence or conspiracy was a matter for trial.
Read also:- Madras High Court Rules Grandparents Not ‘Family’ for Stamp Duty Concession in Settlement Deeds
Court’s Observations
After examining the case diary and records, the High Court found what it described as a “dominion gap.”
The bench observed, “Entrustment is the lifeblood of an offense under Section 409. If no property or money was ever handed over to the accused, or if he had no dominion over such property, the question of misappropriation is legally dead at its inception.”
The Court noted that funds under MGNREGS were transferred through a Direct Benefit Transfer mechanism controlled by the BDO and the Gram Pradhan. The petitioner neither handled funds nor certified any of the allegedly fraudulent documents.
Significantly, the Court emphasized what it called “temporal impossibility.” The alleged siphoning had reached its financial culmination in 2015, whereas the petitioner joined in late 2016.
“Logic dictates that a newcomer cannot be a conspirator in a fraud that was architected, funded, and siphoned before he even entered the office,” the Court remarked.
The bench also drew a distinction between administrative negligence and criminal intent. It observed that even if the petitioner failed to act as a whistle-blower, such omission would not automatically amount to dishonest misappropriation.
“In a technical-administrative audit chain, an ‘Omission to Certify’ is fundamentally distinguishable from ‘False Certification’,” the Court held.
Read also:- Gujarat HC Sends 17-Year-Old Girl to Mehsana Children Home After She Refuses to Return to
Decision of the Court
Allowing the petition, the High Court quashed the FIR and Charge Sheet No. 368/2021 insofar as they related to Arko Deep Saha.
The Court discharged the petitioner from his bail bonds and released the sureties. However, it clarified that the order would not prevent the department from initiating a departmental inquiry for administrative negligence, if deemed necessary.
The trial court was directed to proceed against the remaining accused persons without delay.
There was no order as to costs.
Case Title: Arko Deep Saha @ Arkadeep Saha vs State of West Bengal & Anr.
Case No.: CRR 1892 of 2022
Decision Date: 20 February 2026
