[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Sarala Devi T.C vs State Of Kerala on 3 December, 2025
2025:KER:93946
CRL.A.Nos.45 & 46 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2025/ 12TH AGRAHAYANA,
1947
CRL.A NO. 45 OF 2014
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.12.2013 IN CC NO.29
OF 2008 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
SARALA DEVI T.C.
FORMERLY SECRETARY,SCS LTD NO
4280,THAMARAKULAM(VIJAYAMANGALAM, KURUMBAKARA
MURIYIL, ENATHIMANGALAM,PATHANAMTHITTA DIST
BY ADV SHRI.LALJI P.THOMAS
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REP BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM
SRI.RAJESH.A, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, VACB
SMT.REKHA.S, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, VACB
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
25.11.2025, ALONG WITH CRL.A.46/2014, THE COURT ON
03.12.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.A.Nos.45 & 46 of 2014
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2025/12TH AGRAHAYANA,
1947
CRL.A NO. 46 OF 2014
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.12.2013 IN CC NO.30
OF 2008 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
SARALA DEVI T.C.
FORMERLY SECRETARY, SCS LTD. NO.4280
THAMARAKULAM (VIJAYAMANGALAM,
KURUMBAKARA MURIYIL, ENATHIMANALAM
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT
BY ADV SHRI.LALJI P.THOMAS
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
SRI.RAJESH.A, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, VACB
SMT.REKHA.S, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, VACB
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
25.11.2025, ALONG WITH CRL.A.45/2014, THE COURT ON 03.12.2025
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.A.Nos.45 & 46 of 2014
3
CR
COMMON JUDGMENT
Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2025
Smt.Sarala Devi.T.C., who is the accused in
C.C.Nos.29/2008 and 30/2008 on the files of the Enquiry
Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, has
filed these two appeals challenging the common verdict
rendered in C.C.Nos.29/2008 and 30/2008 dated
18.12.2013. The State of Kerala, represented by the learned
Special Public Prosecutor, is the respondent.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the
accused/appellant as well as the learned Special Public
Prosecutor in detail. Perused the records of the Special Court
as well as the common verdict impugned.
3. The prosecution case in C.C.No.29/2008 is that,
the accused, while working as Secretary of the Service Co-
operative Society Ltd. 4280, Thamarakkulam, during the
CRL.A.Nos.45 & 46 of 2014
period from 07.01.1986 to 03.11.2004, abused her official
position and dishonestly misappropriated an amount of
₹1,500 (Rupees one thousand five hundred only) paid by
Sri.K.I.Aney, the former Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan,
Thamarakkulam, on 16.06.2001, on behalf of the Krishi
Bhavan in connection with the implementation of a Project,
viz., Integrated Development of Vegetables including Root
and Tuber Crops 2000-2001, without entering the said
amount in the cash book and day book of the Society.
4. In C.C.30/2008, the prosecution allegation is that, the
accused, while working as Secretary of the Service Co-
operative Society Ltd. 4280, Thamarakkulam, during the
period from 07.01.1986 to 03.11.2004, abused her official
position and dishonestly misappropriated an amount of
₹14,000 (Rupees fourteen thosuand only) paid by
Sri.K.I.Aney, the former Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan,
Thamarakkulam, on 26.02.2003, on behalf of the Krishi
CRL.A.Nos.45 & 46 of 2014
Bhavan in connection with the fertilizers subsidy amount in
the implementation of project viz., Macro Management 2001-
2002, without entering the said amount in the cash book and
day book of the Society.
5. On this premise, the prosecution alleges
commission of offences punishable under Sections 409, 465
and 477A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as
'IPC') as well as under Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) r/w
Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
(hereinafter referred to as 'PC Act, 1988') by the accused in
both cases.
6. The learned Special Judge jointly tried these cases
and recorded the evidence. PW1 to PW6 were examined and
Exts.P1 to P13 were marked on the side of the prosecution.
No evidence was adduced on the side of the defence.
On analysis of the evidence, the learned Special Judge found
that the accused committed offences punishable under
Sections 409 and 477A of IPC as well as under
CRL.A.Nos.45 & 46 of 2014
Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the PC
Act, 1988. Accordingly, the accused was convicted and
sentenced as under:
"36. Point No.10 in C.C.29/2008 : ........
Therefore, for the offence under S.13(1)(c) and
S.13(1)(d) r/w S.13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988, the
accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one year each and to pay a
fine of ₹1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only)
each. Fine, if not paid, accused shall undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a further period of
one month each. For the offence under S.409
I.P.C. also the accused is sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year
and to pay a fine of ₹1,000/- (Rupees One
Thousand only). Fine, if not paid, he shall
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further
period of one month. For the offence under
S.477-A I.P.C. accused is sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
37. The substantive sentences awarded
to accused shall run concurrently.
CRL.A.Nos.45 & 46 of 2014
38. Set off under S.428 of Cr.P.C. is
allowed for the period of detention under gone
by the accused, i.e., from 22nd August 2008 to
22nd October 2008.
39. Point No.10 in C.C.30/2008: .........
.......... Therefore, for the offence under
S.13(1)(c) and S.13(1)(d) r/w.S.13(2) of
P.C.Act, 1988, the accused is sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year
each and to pay a fine of ₹1,000/- (Rupees
One Thousand only) each. Fine, if not paid,
accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment
for a further period of one month each. For the
offence under S.409 I.P.C. also the accused is
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for one year and to pay a fine of ₹1,000/-
(Rupees One Thousand only). Fine, if not paid,
he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
further period of one month. For the offence
under S.477-A I.P.C. accused is sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
40. The substantive sentences awarded
to accused shall run concurrently.
41. Set off under S.428 of Cr.P.C. is
allowed for the period of detention undergone
CRL.A.Nos.45 & 46 of 2014
by the accused, I.e, from 22nd August 2008 to
22nd October 2008.
42. Considering the fact that the accused in
this case is a widow and mother of two
unmarried female children, I hereby direct
under S.427 Cr.P.C, that the substantive
sentences passed in this case shall run
concurrently with the substantive sentence
passed in C.C.29/2008."
7. While impeaching the common verdict as
unsustainable, the learned counsel for the accused/appellant
zealously argued that the entire case is foisted. According to
the learned counsel for the appellant, PW3 examined in this
case, Sri.K.I.Aney, was the former agricultural officer, Krishi
Bhavan, Thamarakkulam, and he initially arrayed as the 1 st
accused in this FIR and thereafter, the case against him was
split up. It is pointed out that, during examination of PW3, he
had deposed regarding the payment of ₹1,500 from Krishi
Bhavan directly to the Secretary of the Co-operative Society
CRL.A.Nos.45 & 46 of 2014
and issuance of Ext.P1(b) receipt for ₹1500 and PW3 also
deposed regarding the issuance of Ext.P3(ab) receipt where
₹14,000 was received from Krishi Bhavan directly to the
Secretary on 26.02.2003, being the fertilizers subsidy amount
in the implementation of project viz., Macro Management
2001-2002. The point argued by the learned counsel for the
appellant/accused is that the evidence of PW3 as a co-
accused could not be believed. The specific case of the
accused/appellant is that Ext.P1(b) and Ext.P3(ab) receipts
were forged by PW3 with the aid of PW2, who is the
President of the Society, to save PW3 from the prosecution.
It is also submitted that the amounts collected by the
accused, as per Ext.P1(b) and Ext.P3(ab), were not
deposited in Ext.P7 cash book and Ext.P8 day book is
correct, since the accused never accepted any amount by
issuing Ext.P1(b) and Ext.P3(ab). It is also submitted that in
Ext.P1(b) and Ext.P3(ab) were not properly proved by the
CRL.A.Nos.45 & 46 of 2014
prosecution. In such view of the matter, the verdict would
require interference by this Court.
8. Dispelling this argument, the learned Special
Public Prosecutor submitted that, as deposed by PW3, the
accused reached Krishi Bhavan and issued Ext.P1(b) receipt
for ₹1500 and Ext.P3(ab) receipt for ₹14,000. Even though
PW3 was arrayed as co-accused, later, the case was split up
and on trial, he was acquitted finding that he did not commit
any offences. According to the learned Special Public
Prosecutor, apart from the evidence of PW3, independent
evidence as that of PW2, the President of the Society, is
available to establish that Ext.P1(b) and Ext.P3(ab) receipts
were issued by the accused to PW3 on receipt of ₹1,500
and ₹14,000 respectively. It is also pointed out that the
evidence of PW2 is categorical with respect to the non-
recording of the amounts collected as per Ext.P1(b) and
Ext.P3(ab) in Ext.P7 cash book and Ext.P8 day book. Thus,
CRL.A.Nos.45 & 46 of 2014
entrustment of ₹1,500 and ₹14,000 with the accused, as per
Ext.P1(b) and Ext.P3(ab), are proved and then the accused
has to account for. But the accused has no explanation in
this regard. Therefore, the accused misappropriated the said
amount and the prosecution case in this regard is proved
beyond reasonable doubts. Therefore, the common verdict
would not require any interference.
9. In view of the rival submissions, points arise for
consideration are,
1. Whether the Special Court rightly entered
into conviction for the offence punishable
under Section 409 of IPC in
C.C.No.29/2008?
2. Whether the Special Court rightly entered
into conviction for the offence punishable
under Section 477-A of IPC in
C.C.No.29/2008?
3. Whether the Special Court rightly entered
into conviction for the offence punishable
CRL.A.Nos.45 & 46 of 2014
under Section 13(1)(c) r/w. Section 13(2)
of the PC Act, 1988 in C.C.No.29/2008?
4. Whether the Special Court rightly entered
into conviction for the offence punishable
under Section 13(1)(d) r/w. Section 13(2)
of the PC Act, 1988 in C.C.No.29/2008?
5. Whether the Special Court rightly entered
into conviction for the offence punishable
under Section 409 of IPC in
C.C.No.30/2008?
6. Whether the Special Court rightly entered
into conviction for the offence punishable
under Section 477-A of IPC in
C.C.No.30/2008?
7. Whether the Special Court rightly entered
into conviction for the offence punishable
under Section 13(1)(c) r/w. Section 13(2)
of the PC Act, 1988 in C.C.No.30/2008?
8. Whether the Special Court rightly entered
into conviction for the offence punishable
under Section 13(1)(d) r/w. Section 13(2)
of the PC Act, 1988 in C.C.No.30/2008?
CRL.A.Nos.45 & 46 of 2014
9. Whether the impugned verdict would require
any interference by this Court.
10. Order to be passed.
10. In this case, the allegation of the prosecution is that,
the accused worked as Secretary of the Service Co-operative
Society Ltd. No.4280, Thamarakkulam from 07.01.1986 to
03.11.2004. While so, she had misappropriated ₹1,500 and
₹14,000 after she got entrustment of the same on issuing
Ext.P1(b) and Ext.P3(ab) receipts at her volition. The accused
did not dispute her status as that of a Secretary. Otherwise, as
deposed by PW2, supported by Ext.P5 minutes book, it could be
gathered that the accused worked as Secretary of the Service
Co-operative Society Ltd. No.4280, Thamarakkulam, during the
relevant period. During 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(hereinafter referred to 'Cr.P.C') questioning also, towards
question No.17, the accused answered in the affirmative,
That apart, as deposed by PW2, as per Ext.P5(a) minutes, the
accused was dismissed from service and this
CRL.A.Nos.45 & 46 of 2014
aspect also admitted by the accused while answering
question No.20 during 313 Cr.P.C. questioning.
11. Here, the questions to be decided are, whether the
accused issued Ext.P1(a) receipt for ₹1,500 and Ext.P3(a b)
receipt for ₹14,000 got entrustment of the said amount and
failing to account for by debiting the same in the account of
the Society and whether the both amounts entrusted to her
from the Krishi Bhavan Office, Thamarakkulam, were
misappropriated by her.
12. PW2 examined in this case is the President of the
Society. He deposed that Ext.P1(b) and Ext.P3(ab) receipts
were in the handwriting of the accused and the signatures
therein were also as that of the accused on ascertaining that
he was familiar with the handwriting and signatures of the
accused while working together as President and Secretary.
The evidence of PW2 further is that, as per Clause 47 of
Ext.P6 Bye-law, the custodian of the properties and
CRL.A.Nos.45 & 46 of 2014
documents of the Society is the Secretary and she had the
custody of the letter head and seal of the Society. PW2's
evidence further is that, Ext.P7 is the cash book and Ext.P8
is the day book of the Society during the relevant period and
the entries therein were written in the handwriting of the
accused with her signatures. He categorically identified the
handwriting and signatures of the accused in Ext.P1(b),
Ext.P3(ab) as well as in Ext.P7 and Ext.P8. According to
PW2, even though the accused collected the amounts
covered by Ext.P1(b) and Ext.P3(ab), she did not remit the
same to the account of the Society by making the necessary
entries in Ext.P7 cash book and Ext.P8 day book.
13. Even though PW3 also supported the evidence of
PW2 as regards the issuance of Ext.P1(b) and Ext.P3(ab)
receipts by the accused after visiting the Krishi Bhavan and
receiving the amounts covered by the same, as evident from
records, PW3 was arrayed as a co-accused and his case
CRL.A.Nos.45 & 46 of 2014
was split up thereafter, which ended in acquittal. Even
eschewing evidence of PW3, the unshaken version of PW2
sufficiently supports the prosecution case. Apart from that
PW6 - the Investigating Officer, testified that, he had seized
Exts.P1 to P4 from Krishi Bhavan, Thamarakkulam, on
20.10.2006 as per Ext.P11 inventory. Exts.P1 and P3, the
files maintained at the Krishi Bhavan so recovered by PW6,
would show that in Ext.P1 file in sheet No.5 manure cash bill
issued from Service Co-operative Society Ltd.No.4280,
Thamarakkulam, dated 28.03.2001 in the name of
Raghavan, Convener is present. Sheet No.6 of Ext.P1 file is
permit for the issue of fertilizers, i.e., permit No.1 pm/1/2000.
Sheet No.7 of Ext.P1 file is the claim submitted by the
Secretary Service Co-operative Society Ltd. 4280,
Thamarakkulam against permit issued on 1 pm vegetable.
This would show that the claim put forward as per sheet No.7
of Ext.P1 file is in respect of permit seen in sheet No.6 of
CRL.A.Nos.45 & 46 of 2014
Ext.P1 file. If that be so, from sheet No.5, 6 and 7 of Ext.P1
file, it is clear that there was transaction in between
Thamarakkulam Krishi Bhavan and Service Co-operative
Society Ltd. No.4280, Thamarakkulam in respect of manure
and pesticides.
14. In this connection, it is necessary to refer the
ingredients to attract offence under Section 409 of IPC.
Section 409 of IPC is extracted as hereunder:
"409. Criminal breach of trust by public
servant, or by banker, merchant or agent:
Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with
property, or with any dominion over property in his
capacity of a public servant or in the way of his
business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker,
attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in
respect of that property, shall be punished with
imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years,
and shall also be liable to fine."
CRL.A.Nos.45 & 46 of 2014
15. Section 409 is pari materia to Section 316(5) of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (`BNS' for short) and
Section 316(5) of BNS reads as under:
"316(5): Criminal breach of trust: Whoever,
being in any manner entrusted with property, or with
any dominion over property in his capacity of a
public servant or in the way of his business as a
banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent,
commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that
property, shall be punished with imprisonment for
life, or with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to ten years, and shall also
be liable to fine.""
16. Analysing the ingredients to attract offence under
Section 409 of IPC, its applicability is as held by the Apex
Court in [(2012) 8 SCC 547 : AIR 2012 SC 3242], Sadhupati
Nageswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, as pointed
out by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
CRL.A.Nos.45 & 46 of 2014
17. In Sadhupati Nageswara Rao v. State of
Andhra Pradesh's case (supra), the Apex Court, while
upholding the conviction held that, where the appellant, an
agent entrusted with the distribution of the rice under the
"Food for Work Scheme" to the workers on production of
coupons, was charged with misappropriation of 67.65
quintals of rice, the evidence proves that there was
entrustment of property to the accused
18. In order to sustain a conviction under section 409
of the IPC, two ingredients are to be proved; namely, (i)
the accused, a public servant or a banker or agent was
entrusted with the property of which he is duty bound to
account for; and (ii) the accused has committed criminal
breach of trust. What amounts to criminal breach of trust is
provided under Section 405 IPC. The basic requirements to
bring home the accusation under Section 405 IPC are to
prove conjointly; (i) entrustment and (ii) whether the accused
CRL.A.Nos.45 & 46 of 2014
was actuated by a dishonest intention or not,
misappropriated it or converted it to his own use or to the
detriment of the persons who entrusted it, as held by the
Apex Court in the decision reported in Sadhupati
Nageswara Ra v. State of Andhra Pradesh's case (supra).
19. The gravamen of the offence under Section 409 of
IPC is dishonest intention on the part of the accused but to
establish the dishonest intention, it is not necessary that the
prosecution should establish an intention to retain
permanently, the property misappropriated. An intention,
wrongfully to deprive the owner of the use of the property for
a time and to secure the use of that property for his own
benefit for a time would be sufficient. Section 409 of IPC
cannot be construed as implying that any head of an office,
who is negligent in seeing that the rules about remitting
money to the treasury are observed, is ipso facto, guilty of
CRL.A.Nos.45 & 46 of 2014
criminal breach of trust; but something more than that is
required to bring home the dishonest intention.
20. Tracing the ingredients of the offence punishable
under Section 477A of IPC, Section 477A provides as under:
"Section 477A - Falsification of Accounts :
"Whoever, being a clerk, officer or servant, or
employed or acting in the capacity of a clerk, officer
or servant, willfully, and with intent to defraud,
destroys, alters, mutilates or falsifies any book,
electronic record, paper, writing, valuable security or
account which belongs to or is in the possession of
his employer, or has been received by him for or on
behalf of his employer, or willfully, and with intent to
defraud, makes or abets the making of any false
entry in, or omits or alters or abets the omission or
alteration of any material particular from or in any
such book, electronic record, paper, writing, valuable
security or account, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with
both."
CRL.A.Nos.45 & 46 of 2014
21. Section 344 of BNS is corresponding to Section
477A of IPC. The same reads as under:
"344. Falsification of accounts:- Whoever,
being a clerk, officer or servant, or employed or
acting in the capacity of a clerk, officer or servant,
wilfully, and with intent to defraud, destroys, alters,
mutilates or falsifies any book, electronic record,
paper, writing, valuable security or account which
belongs to or is in the possession of his employer, or
has been received by him for or on behalf of his
employer, or wilfully, and with intent to defraud,
makes or abets the making of any false entry in, or
omits or alters or abets the omission or alteration of
any material particular from or in, any such book,
electronic record, paper, writing, valuable security or
account, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to
seven years, or with fine, or with both."
22. The three ingredients to prove the offences are:
(i) That at the relevant point of time, the accused should
be a clerk or officer or servant or acting in that capacity ;
CRL.A.Nos.45 & 46 of 2014
(ii) That he should destroy, alter, mutilate or falsify
any book, electronic record, paper, writing, valuable security
or account, which belongs to or was in the possession of his
employer and
(iii) The act should have been done willfully and with
an intention to defraud. To convict a person under section
477A of the IPC, the prosecution has to prove that there was
a willful act, which had been made with an intent to defraud
and while proving "Intention to defraud", the prosecution has
to further prove the two elements that the act was an act of
deceit and it had caused an injury. In the present case, there
may be an injury, but there is no deceit.
23. For the offence under Section 477A of IPC, what
has got to be proved is twofold viz., that the person who
commits the offence is a clerk, officer or servant, and
secondly, that there was intent to defraud. It is sufficient, to
satisfy the words of the section, to prove that the person
CRL.A.Nos.45 & 46 of 2014
charged under this section is one who undertakes to perform
and does perform the duties of a clerk or servant whether in
fact he is a clerk or servant or not, and though he is under
no obligation to perform such duties and receives no
remuneration. The emphasis is upon the words "in the
capacity of a clerk, officer or servant".
24. To attract Section 477A, the-employee concerned
must destroy, alter, mutilate or falsify book or accounts etc, of
the employer, inter alia, with intent to defraud. The term
"intend to defraud" has already been explained in Section 25
of IPC. It contains two elements, viz., deceit and injury. A
person is said to deceive another when by practising
suggestio falsi or suppressio veri or both, he intentionally
induces another to believe a thing to be true. "Injury" defined
in Section 44 of IPC means any harm whatever illegally
caused to any person in body, mind, reputation and property.
In the decision reported in [1976 CrLJ 913 (SC) : 1976 Cr LR
CRL.A.Nos.45 & 46 of 2014
(SC) 178 : (1976) 2 SCC 819 : AIR 1976 SC 2140], Harman
Singh v. Delhi Administration, the Apex Court held that
whenever the words "fraud" or "intent to defraud" or
"fraudulently" occur in the definition of a crime, two elements
at least are essential to the commission of the crime; namely,
firstly, deceit or an intention to deceive or in some cases
mere secrecy; and, secondly, either actual injury or possible
injury or an intent to expose some person either to actual
injury to a risk of possible injury by means of that deceit or
secrecy. Where the accused prepared a false travelling
allowance bill, presented it to a sub-treasury and withdrew
the amount, it meant securing an advantage by deceitful act
and causing corresponding loss to the State. The offence will
fall under section 477A and the fact that the accused
subsequently paid over the entire amount is not a matter to
be considered.
CRL.A.Nos.45 & 46 of 2014
25. As per Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the PC Act,
1988, a public servant is said to come under the offence of
`criminal misconduct', if he dishonestly or fraudulently
misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any
property entrusted to him or under his control as a public
servant or allows any other person so to do; or if he,-- (i) by
corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other
person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (ii) by
abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself
or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary
advantage; or (iii) while holding office as a public servant,
obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary
advantage without any public interest.
26. In order to find the commission of offence under
Section 409 of IPC, the prosecution requires to entrustment
of money at the hands of the accused. In the instant case, as
per Ext.P1(b) and Ext.P3(ab), supported by the evidence of
CRL.A.Nos.45 & 46 of 2014
PW1, PW2 and PW6, the accused collected money from
Krishi Bhavan, as could be borne out from Exts.P1 to P4
documents and as could be seen from Ext.P1(b) and
Ext.P3(ab) receipts and it is the duty of the accused to
account for the same. It could be seen that, naturally the
accused on receipt of the amount covered by Ext.P1(b) and
Ext.P3(ab) should have remitted to the Society by showing
necessary entries in Exts.P7 cash book and Ext.P8 day
book. However, no corresponding entries pertaining to
Ext.P1(b) and Ext.P3(ab) could be found in Exts.P7 and P8.
PW1, the Agricultural Officer, deposed in support of the
prosecution. According to her, Ext.P3(a) is the certified copy
of the file in respect of cashew under Macro Management
Scheme for Cashew Development Programme and Ext.P3
(ab) is the receipt issued by the Secretary of the Service Co-
operative Society to the Agricultural Officer at the time of
effecting payment of ₹14,000 on 26.2.2003. PW1 also stated
CRL.A.Nos.45 & 46 of 2014
before the special court that Ext.P3(aa) is the Contingent Bill
of ₹44,000 which was prepared in respect of Macro
Management Scheme for Cashew Development Programme
and ₹14,000 which was paid as per Ext.P3(ab) receipt is a
portion of ₹44,000 mentioned in Ext.P3(aa) contingent bill.
PW1 also stated that the payment of ₹14,000 from
Thamarakkulam Krishi Bhavan to Thamarakkulam Service
Society was entered in Ext.P4. Ext.P4 is the certified copy of
page No.66 of the Cash Book maintained in Thamarakkulam
Krishi Bhavan on 26th February 2003 and Ext.P4(a) is the
relevant entry. Thus, from the evidence of PW1 Agricultural
Officer coupled with Ext.P1 file, Ext.P2(a) entry in the cash
book of Krishi Bhavan and from Ext.P1(b) receipt it could be
seen that ₹1,500 mentioned in C.C.29/2008 was given to the
Secretary, Co-operative Society Ltd. No.4280,
Thamarakkulam on 16.6.2001. From the evidence of PW1
coupled with Ext.P3(a) file and Ext.P4(a) entry in the cash
CRL.A.Nos.45 & 46 of 2014
book of Krishi Bhavan, Thamarakkulam, it can be also seen
that ₹14,000 was paid to the Secretary, Co-operative Society
Ltd.No.4280, Thamarakkulam on 26.2.2003, ie. the amount
mentioned in C.C.30/2008. But at the same time, Ext.P3(ab)
receipt issued by the Secretary of the Society is dated
03.03.2003, i.e, after five days of the payment of ₹14,000.
27. On evaluation of the prosecution evidence,
collection/entrustment of ₹1,500 and ₹14,000 by issuing
Ext.P1(b) and Ext.P3(ab) receipts respectively by the
accused is established and the accused had no explanation
how the money failed to be accounted or otherwise the
amounts were remitted in the account in any other manner.
Even though the learned counsel for the accused argued
that the accused did not receive the amounts covered by
Ext.P1(b) and Ext.P3(ab), the evidence discussed in detail
above would show that this argument is not acceptable.
Thus, from the prosecution evidence discussed in detail
CRL.A.Nos.45 & 46 of 2014
herein above, it is crystal clear that the prosecution case as
to commission of offences punishable under Sections 409
and 477A of IPC as well as under Sections 13(1)(c) and
13( 1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988, by the
accused is proved beyond reasonable doubts. In such view
of the matter, the finding of the Special Court recording
conviction in both cases is liable to be confirmed.
28. Coming to the sentence, it could be seen that the
maximum punishment imposed by the special court is
rigorous imprisonment for one year, which is the minimum
sentence for the offence under Section 13(1)(c) as well as
under Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the PC Act,
1988. The Special Court imposed the same sentence of
rigorous imprisonment for one year each for the offence
punishable under Section 409 and 477A of IPC. Thus, the
sentence is, in fact, confined to the statutory minimum.
CRL.A.Nos.45 & 46 of 2014
Therefore, the sentence also does not require any
interference.
29. In view of the above, these criminal appeals fail
and are accordingly dismissed.
30. The orders suspending sentence and granting bail
to the accused stand cancelled and the bail bonds executed
by the accused also stand cancelled. The accused is directed
to surrender before the Special Court, forthwith, failing which,
the Special Court is directed to execute the sentence, without
fail.
Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment
to the Special Court, forthwith, without fail, for information
and compliance.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN,
JUDGE
nkr
