The Madras High Court Bench here has discharged a former Deputy Director of Animal Husbandry Department in Sivaganga district and two others from a case registered against them by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) for alleged irregularities in implementing the Cross Breed Heifer Calf Rearing Scheme (CBHCRS) in 1994.
Allowing a joint plea made by them, Justice P.N. Prakash said: “I am convinced that the materials on record are too weak for framing a charge against the petitioners, that too for an alleged occurrence in 1994. The chargesheet has been filed only in 2008 and whatever evidence the accused could have marshalled in their defence would have effaced due to efflux of time.”
The judge pointed out that as per the CBHCRS, the head of the District Livestock Farm should purchase four-month-old heifer calves and rear them in the farm either for 24 months or until six months of pregnancy, whichever was earlier.
Thereafter, the animals should be distributed to people belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes at 50 per cent subsidy.
Even for the rest of the 50 per cent, arrangements would be made for the beneficiaries to obtain bank loans. Accordingly the present petitioner B.T. Manickavel purchased 250 calves.
However, 148 of them died in the farm between 1995 and 2000 due to various reasons. Of the remaining, the authorities were able to distribute only 53 to the beneficiaries and the rest were reared in the farm.
On February 11, 2000, the officials wrote to the government seeking permission for either distributing the 49 calves free of cost to Adi Dravidars or to sell them in an open auction.
Suddenly, on August 29, 2001, the DVAC filed a First Information Report suo motu alleging wholesale irregularities in distributing the calves and filed final report after a lapse of seven years.
“I find that from the totality of the facts of the case, when the accused have distributed totally 53 calves and retained 49 calves which is admitted by the prosecution, the allegation that one beneficiary is a bogus beneficiary and therefore they had entered into a criminal conspiracy would be too much to swallow,” Mr. Justice Prakash observed.
