Kerala High Court
Lalitha Jayachandran vs C.B.I. Of India on 11 February, 2025
2025 : RER : 11328
IN THE HIGH counT OF RERAIA AT EENAKulaM
PRESENT
THE HONOuRABLE in. 4usTlcE p.G. AJITHKUBnR
TUESDAY, THE iiTH DAY oF REBRunR¥ 2o25 / 22ND RAGHA, 1946
CEL.APPEAI. NO. 1933 0F 2005
ACIAINST THE ORDER/JUI)co4ENT DATED 22.10.2005 IN CC NO.lop
1999 0F SPECIAI. COURT SPE/CBI- 11, EENAKULAM
APPEIILENT /ACCUSED :
I,AI.IIHA dAracllENDRAN
cl[ERK, CANARA BANK, cANTchnGNT BENCH,
THIRuvANANTHApuRm4.
BY ADVS.
S.M.P"
p. RrmcHANI>RAN (PALAKKAD)
K . P . SENTHI
C . G . PREETHA
DR.ABHIIiASH O.U.
RESPONDENT/CcOOIAINZLNT:
C.B.I. oF IuelA
SPE/CBI, rocHI.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.p.vlTA¥AKunmR, ASG oF INDIA
MINI coplNATH, cee
SREEI.AI, N.OmRRIER, spl..punl.Ic pROsEcuTOR, CBI
2025 : KER: 11328
Crl.Appeal Nos.1933,1944 & 1945 of 2005
THIS CRIMINAI. APPEAli HZIVING CORE UP FOR FIltAII
HEARING ON 08.01.2025, AlioNG WITH CEL.A.1944/2005,
1945/2005, THE COURT ON 11.02.2025 DEI.IVERED THE
FOLLO"ING :
2 0 2 5 : KER : 113 2 8
Crl.Appeal Nos.1933,1944 & 1945 of 2005
IN THE HIGH cOuRT OF RERAIA AT ERNAKulnM
PRESENT
THE HONOuRABLE MR.eusTlcE p.G. ATITHKumR
TUESDAY, THE iiTH DAY oF FEBRunR¥ 2o25 / 22ND MAGHA, 1946
CEL.APPEAII NO. 1944 0F 2005
AGAINST THE OEDER/JUD®4ENT DATED 22.10.2005 IN CC NO.7 0F
1999 oF spEclEL ccounT SPE/CBI-II, EENAKul.AM
APPELIIANT /ACCUSED :
IIAIIITHA IAYACIIANDBAN
cu=RK, CANARA BZINK, cANTomGNT BENCH, ,
I H I RUVANANTHAPURAM .
BY ADVS.
S . M . PEqEN
p. RrmcHANDRAN (PAI.AKKAD)
K . P . SENTHI
c . G . pREElm
DR.JDHILASH 0.U.
REspcneENT/ ccneIAINANT :
C.B.I. OF INDIA
SPE/CBI, KOCHI.
BY AVS.
SHRI.p.vlJAyAKurm, ASG OF IroIA
MINI GOPIRATH, CGC
SREELAL N.tmRRIER, spl,.puBLlc pROsEcuTOR, CBI
THls cRIMINaL AppEAL HAVING COME up FOR FINAI.
HEARING Ow 08.01.2025, AIONG WITH CRII.A.1933/2005 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT CAN 11.02.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOIJLC-C :
2025 : KER: 11328
Crl.Appeal Nos.1933,1944 & 1945 of 2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RERAIA AT EENAKUIAM
PRESENT
THE HONOuRABI.I in.dusTlcE p.G. AJITHKumR
TUESDAY, THE llTH DAY OF REBRUAIY 2025 / 22ND RAGHA, 1946
CRE.APPEAL NO. 1945 0F 2005
AGIAINST THE ORI)ER/JUD®GNT DATED 22.10.2005 IN CC NO.8 0F
1999 0F SPECIAL COURT SPE/CBI- 11, EENAKtJIIAM
APPElillANT /ACcusED :
IIAI.ITHA IAYACHANDRAN
CANTONMENT BENCH , THIRuvANZENTIIApuRn4.
BY ADVS.
S . M . PEE
p. RZDmcHANDRAN (pAILAKKAI>)
K . P . SNIHI
C . G . PRETEIA
DR.ABHILASH O.U.
RESPONDENT /COMPIAINANT :
C.B.I.OF INDIA
SPE/CBI, KOCHI.
Bi Ays.
SHRI.p.vl-A¥AKurm, ASG oF INDIA
MINI GK)plNATH, car
SREEliAII N.VVARRIER, SPL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, CBI
THls CRIMINAL AppEAI, HAVING COOG up roR FINAI,
HEARING CAN 08.01.2025, AlioNG WITH CRL.A.1933/2005 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 11.02.2025 DEI.IVERED THE
roLLCNING :
2025 : KER: 11328
Crl.Appeal Nos.1933,1944 & 1945 of 2005
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.
-I-------------I---------I---------------------------------
Crl.Appeal Nos.1933,1944 & 1945 of 2005
------------------I--I---I----I--------------,----------I--
Dated this the llth day of February, 2025
JUDGMENT
The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the
Special Judge (SPE/CBI)-II, Ernakulam in C.C.Nos.1 of 1999,
7 of 1999 and 8 of 1999. The conviction is for offences
punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and Section
420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). In each of the
cases, she was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-with
a default sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of six
months for each of such offences.
2. The appellant was a Clerk in charge of savings
bank section in the Cantonment Branch of the Canara Bank at
Thiruvananthapuram during the period from 29.05.1993 to
17.02.1998. She had SB account No.35522 and an overdraft
account No.1128. She along with her husband
2025 : KER: 11328
Crl.Appeal Nos.1933,1944 & 1945 of 2005
(Sri.Jayachandran) had a I.oint SB account No.72275. Her
brotherlin-law (Srj.K.P.Dinachandran) had SB account
No.36838; all in the same branch. Sri.Dinachandran availed a
loan of Rs.10,000/-from the bank.
3. On 10.02.1998, PW23 Sri.Abdul salam reached the
bank and complained that there were unauthorised
withdrawals from the account of his daughter, Smt.Latheefa
Ashraf. Pwl was the Senior Manager to whom PW23
complained. On that day, the appellant was on leave, She
being the person dealing with SB accounts, Pwl contacted her
over phone and enquired about the said discrepancy. She
assured Pwl that she would explain about it on the next day.
In the ensued verification, discrepancies like unauthorised
withdrawals, particularly from inoperative accounts; totalling
21 accounts, were found. On the next day, i.e., 11.02.1998
the appellant reached the bank. It is alleged that on that day
she gave Ext.P2 statement admitting such withdrawals and
she remitted Rs.2,18,000/-. On the next day ie. on
12.02.1998 she remitted Rs.21,000/- also and thereby
2 02 5 : KER : 1132 8
Crl.Appeal Nos.1933,1944 & 1945 of 2005
refunded the entire amount she had unauthorisedly
withdrawn.
4. On the premises that the appellant unauthorisedly
withdrew amounts from several accounts and misappropriated
such amount a crime was registered by PW33. Ext.P71 is the
FIR. The appellant was placed under suspension on
17.02.1998. After investigation, final reports were filed, based
on which the three cases were instituted.
5. The appellant denied the charges framed against
her. Hence, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 33 and
proved Exts.Pl to P82. After closing the prosecution evidence,
the appellant was examined under Section 313(1)(b) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code) in all the cases. She
denied the incriminating circumstances appeared against her
in evidence. She claimed that she was innocent. She further
stated that she was on duty from 11.02.1998 till 16.02.1998.
On 12.02.1998, she was asked to write down a few debit slips
and credit slips saying that those documents were required in
order to correct the mistakes that occurred on the part of the
2025 : KER: 11328
Crl,Appeal Nos.1933,1944 & 1945 of 2005
members of the staff. Believing the words of PW1, PW20,
PW21 and PW32, who were her senior officers, she wrote and
signed in such debits and credit slips. It was thereafter, she
was placed under suspension. Ext.Dl was produced on her
side. No witness was, however, examined by her.
6. The Special Court, after considering the evidence
on record, and hearing both sides, rendered a common
judgment convicting the appellant in all the three cases. The
Special Court took the view that amounts were illegally
withdrawn from the seven accounts in question and
misappropriated the same by the appellant. The appellant
assails the said findings on various grounds and contends that
the Special Court went totally wrong in convicting her.
7. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and
the learned.Standing Counsel for the CBI.
8. Pwl deposed that discrepancies and unauthorised
withdrawals from 21 accounts, most of which were inoperative
ones, were detected in the verification by the special team
following the complaint by PW23, which is Ext.P1. Pwl added
2025 : KER: 11328
Crl.Appeal Nos,1933,1944 & 1945 of 2005
that in regard to nine such instances prosecution was
initiated. PW33, the investigating officer also deposed that
nine instances of misappropriation out of 21 accounts were
subjected to investigation and resultant prosecution; while
departmental action was suggested with respect to other
accounts. Details of the accounts from which amounts were
allegedly withdrawn by the appellant, the sums withdrawn and
the date corresponding to each of the three cases are
tabulated below:
CC No. Accounts holder and account No. Amount debited with date
P.Kamala Amma Rs.26,102.63
SB 1230 21.07.1997
Pattabhiraman Rs.7,500/-
1 of 1999
S820118 27.08.1997
Ponnamma Simon Rs.10,000/-
SB 10338 27.08.1997
C.N.Madhavi Rs.18'000
SB 2445 05.11.1997
George Joseph Rs.18'000/-
7 of 1999
SB 1135 01.08.1997
Catherine Morais Rs.7,000/-
SB 29043 13.12.1997
Rs.25,00030.12.1997
Latheefa Ashraf Rs.25,000/-
8 of 1999
SB 3925 05.01.1998
Rs.25'000/-29.01.1998
2025 : KER: 11328
Crl,Appeal Nos.1933,1944 & 1945 of 2005
9. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant,
who was computer savvy and hard-working, misused the
opportunity and by accessing and operating the computers of
her senior officers, she managed to withdraw amounts from
various accounts. She allegedly identified inoperative accounts
and made withdrawals. As explained by PW1, if there were no
transactions for a period of two years, that account would be
treated as an inoperative account. There are a few safeguards
in relation to the withdrawal amounts from inoperative
accounts. The account holder has to come in person, make a
request and the manager has to accord permission to operate
and withdraw amounts from such inoperative accounts. In the
instant cases, disregarding such requirements, withdrawals
were made. PW1, the senior manager and PW12, PW20 and
PW29, the passing officers deposed that the appellant
clandestinely operated the computers and got the debits
effected. The version of Pwl is that the computerisation was
at the nascent stage then and the confidentiality of the nodes
of each employee to operate his/her designated computers
2 0 2 5 : KER : 113 2 8
Crl.Appeal Nos.1933,1944 & 1945 of 2005
was not kept confidential. That opportunity was allegedly
misused by the appellant.
10. Various debit slips used by the appellant to
withdraw the amounts from the accounts in question, the
credit slips used by her to transfer such accounts to the
accounts in her control and withdrawal slips she used to
withdraw such amounts on various occasions were seized by
the investigating agency and produced before the court.
Those documents were proved by the respective officers,
namely, PW1, PW12, PW20 and PW29, who were the
manager and officers in the bank. The handwriting in those
slips were identified to be that of the appellant. In order to
establish the authorship of the appellant to those
documents, a report of the handwriting expert, PW17 was
obtained as well. PW17 was the Government Examiner of
Questioned Document (GEQD) at Bureau of Police Research
and Development, Government of India, Hyderabad. He
deposed before the court the methodology used to compare
handwritings and signatures appeared in the debit slips,
2025 : KER: 11328
Crl.Appeal Nos.1933,1944 & 1945 of 2005
credit slips and withdrawal slips with the admitted and
standard writings and signatures of the appellant. He
deposed that those writings and signatures tallied each
other. He issued Ext.P58 certifying that fact. The said
evidence was also put in service by the prosecution to
establish the handwriting and signature in the said
documents. It may be noted that the authorship of those
documents was admitted by the appellant. Not only in
Ext.P2, but while examining her under Section 313(1)(b) of
the Code also, she had admitted to have written and signed
those documents. It was in the light of the said evidence and
circumstances that the Special Court entered the finding that
the debit slips, credit slips and withdrawal forms used for the
purpose of alleged misappropriation had been proved. For
easy understanding the details of the relevant accounts,
amounts debited and appropriated, debit slips, credit slips,
withdrawal slips, the witnesses, who proved such documents
and so on and so forth are tabulated and furnished as an
ANNEXURE to this I.udgment.
2025 : KER: 11328
Crl.Appeal Nos.1933,1944 & 1945 of 2005
11. As could be seen from the ANNEXURE, PW1, PW12,
PW20, PW27, PW29 and PW31 deposed before the court
regarding the entries in the debit slips, credit slips and
withdrawal slips. The appellant was working in the same
branch for years together. Those witnesses were senior
colleagues of the appellant. Pwl was the senior manager and
the aforementioned other witnesses were in the supervisory
cadre, working along with the appellant. They are the
competent witnesses and their evidence is relevant under
Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act insofar as handwriting
of the appellant is concerned.
12. From the aforementioned evidence, the procedure
for debit, credit and transfer using such slips has been duly
proved. Passing officers, and in the case of inoperative
accounts, the manager should see each such slip. Therefore,
on a daily basis, those witnesses were to see the handwriting
of the appellant. So, their evidence is sufficient to prove the
authorship of the handwritings and initials in the debit slips,
credit slips and withdrawal slips, which are exhibited in
2025 : KER: 11328
Crl.Appeal Nos.1933,1944 & 1945 of 2005
evidence. That apart, the appellant had admitted in Ext.P2
that she herself has written such slips. Of course, she has a
contention that she wrote such slips and also Exts.P2 and P3
confession statements under inducement and promise.
13. I shall immediately consider the contention raised
in regard to the reliability of Ext.P2 and also Ext.P3. Ext.P2 is
a letter written to the manager of the bank by the appellant
on 11.02.1998. It carries an admission by the appellant that
she out of necessity withdrew various amounts from the
accounts in question. She undertook to repay the amount. As
undertaken, she remitted Rs,2,18,000/- and again
Rs.21,000/-. Exts.P4 and P5 are the pay in slips dated
13.02.1998. Ext.P3 is a letter written by her on 13.02.1998
where she authorised the senior manager to remit the
amounts she had paid in the accounts from which she made
withdrawals.
14. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit
that the said statements were obtained on inducement that
the same were required to save the entire staff and that she
2025 : KER: 11328
Crl.Appeal Nos.1933,1944 & 1945 of 2005
was promised not to follow any action against her. The learned
counsel further would submit that although the appellant gave
such a statement during the examination under Section
313(1)(b) of the Code, the same was not considered by the
Special Court. It is alleged that for such non-consideration,
the evidence in that regard became useless and cannot be
used against the appellant. In order to fortify that contention,
the learned counsel placed reliance on Parminder Kaur @
P.P.Kaur @ Soni v. State of Punjab I(2020) 8 SCC 811]
and Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand [(2020) 10
SCC 108].
15. While considering acceptability and reliability of an
extra].udicial confession, the court should consider whether it
was made voluntarily and whether it is true. Once it is proved
that the confession was made voluntarily, the court further
should decide whether the statements therein are true. The
Apex Court in Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of
Uttar Pradesh [AIR 2022 SC 5273] held that confession
would be voluntary if it is made by the accused in a fit state of
2025 : KER: 11328
Crl,Appeal Nos.1933,1944 & 1945 of 2005
mind, and if it is not caused by any inducement, threat or
promise, which has reference to the charge against him, from
a person in authority. Whether or not the confession was
voluntary would depend upon the facts and circumstances of
each case, judged in the light of Section 24 of the Evidence
Act. The Court is to determine the absence or presence of
inducement, promise etc. or its sufficiency and how or in what
measure it worked on the mind of the accused.
16. Pwl stated that the appellant was on leave on
10.02.1998. One Abdul Salam complained and put in Ext.PI
complaint about unauthorised withdrawal from the account of
his daughter. When Pwl contacted the appellant, who was on
leave on that day, agreed to reach bank on the next day. She
came to the bank next day and gave Ext.P2 statement.
Payments as per Exts.P4 and P5 were made on 13.02.1998. It
was thereafter, she gave Ext.P3 letter. The version of the
appellant that there was promise by her senior officers not to
mulct her with any action and believing that only she gave
such letters is quite unbelievable. When she remitted amounts
2025 : KER: 11328
Crl.Appeal Nos.1933,1944 & 1945 of 2005
and then gave Ext. P3, it cannot be said that she did not have
enough time to think over and take a decision. Even if she
was pressured while giving Ext.P2 on 11.02.1998, when she
gave Ext.P3 letter on 13.02.1998, there could have any such
pressure. She had enough time to think over. In Ext.P3 she
affirmed the admissions in Ext.P2 as well. It cannot be
therefore said that she made such statements on the
inducement, coercion or promise by her higher officials.
Exts.P2 and P3 which contain a candid admission that she
made such withdrawals, which are confession of the appellant,
can certainly be said voluntary.
17. As stated, apart from the oral testimonies of PW1,
PW12, PW20, PW27, PW29 and PW31 identifying the handwriting
of the appellant in various debit, credit and withdrawal slips a
report of a handwriting expert was obtained as to the authorship.
PW17 is the expert. His report, Ext.P58 sanctify that the
handwritings in those documents were that of the appellant. In
the view of the said evidence, the fact that those slips were
written by the appellant stands proved beyond any doubt.
2025 : KER: 11328
Crl.Appeal Nos.1933,1944 & 1945 of 2005
18. The learned counsel for the appellant raised a
contention that in the light of several inconsistencies and
incongruities appeared in the evidence, the prosecution has to
fail. It is submitted that as against the specific case of the
prosecution that withdrawals were made from inoperative
accounts alone, it has come out that the savings bank of
Smt.Latheefa Ashraf, which is the sub].ect matter of C.C.No.8
of 1999 was an operative account. As stated, if any amount is
to be withdrawn from an inoperative account, an application
from the account holder and sanction from the manager are
necessary. The specific allegation against the appellant is that
she withdrew amounts from the inoperative accounts without
getting sanction from the passing officer and the manager.
19. It has come out in evidence that computerised
transactions were in its initial phase then. Going by the
evidence, the appellant who was more conversant with the
computer operations, could clandestinely obtain nodes of the
passing officers and the manager. That being the evidence
tendered by the manager and the passing officers, the
2025 : KER: 11328
Crl.Appeal Nos.1933,1944 & 1945 of 2005
question whether the withdrawals were from operative
accounts or inoperative accounts pales into insignificance.
20. In the above context the learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that if at all any such withdrawals
occurred, those were with the connivance of her senior
officers, including the witnesses examined in this case. Such a
contention could have been appreciated, had such withdrawn
amounts not been credited with the accounts of the appellant,
her joint account and that of her brother-in-law. It also stands
proved that all such credited amounts were withdrawn using
the slips submitted in the handwriting of the appellant. In the
said circumstances, the contention that the other officials in
the bank, particularly those who are examined in this case,
are also responsible for the misappropriation of the amounts
in question, cannot be countenanced.
21. A few credit slips concerning the amounts credited
with the accounts of the appellant and others, do not contain
the account from which such transfer credits were made. In
such credit slips there is a field to fill in the source account
2025 : KER: 11328
Crl.Appeal Nos.1933,1944 & 1945 of 2005
number. But, the circumstances stem out from the evidence
make it obvious that such omissions were purposeful and do
not have much bearing on the credibility of the prosecution
Case.
22. In some of the debit and credit slips used to debit
and remit different sums in the accounts, particularly to that
of Sri.Dinachandran, account numbers do not match with the
prosecution allegations. Sri. Dinachandran's account number
is 36838. Rs. 25,000/- was allegedly debited illegally from the
account of Smt. Latheefa Ashraf and credited to the account
of Sri.Dinachandran. However, the credit account number
shown in Ext.P13, which was used for that purpose, is 31686.
Smt.Latheefa Ashraf's account number is 3925, whereas in
Ext.P13(a) debit slip the number was shown as 13925.
Obviously there are such errors in those account numbers.
But when there has been sufficient evidence to establish that
Rs.25,000/-mentioned in Exts.P13 and P13(a) was withdrawn
from Smt.Latheefa Ashraf's account and the same was
credited with Sri,Dinachandran's account, it can certainly be
2 0 2 5 : KER : 113 2 8
Crl,Appeal Nos.1933,1944 & 1945 of 2005
inferred that such errors were either accidental or purposeful.
Either be the reason, such wrong entries do not matter much
and would not fail the prosecution.
23. Yet another contention raised by the learned
counsel for the appellant is that PW73, the investigating
officer, did not choose to produce any document to show that
the appellant was on duty from 11.02.1998 to 16.02.1998.
Direct evidence to prove that the appellant attended the bank
on those days is available. Not only PW1, but other witnesses
also deposed regarding that fact. The appellant admitted also
that she went to the bank from 11.02.1998 to 16.02.1998.
That fact is evident from Exts.P2 and P3 as well. Therefore,
non-production of any document concerning her duty or leave
on those days does not affect the prosecution case adversely.
24. In Ext.Dl letter dated 14,02.1998 by which the
prosecution originated, the amount defalcated and
misappropriated was stated to be Rs.3,07,132.63. But, in
Ext.P57 report the amount was stated to be Rs.3,32,000/-.
The appellant was directed and consequently the amount
2025 : KER: 11328
Crl.Appeal Nos.1933,1944 & 1945 of 2005
remitted in the bank is Rs.2,39,000/- (Rs.2,18,000 +
Rs.21,000). Pointing out that gross discrepancy the learned
counsel for the appellant urged that the very genesis of the
prosecution is doubtful and the appellant is entitled to get the
benefit of that doubt and an acquittal. It is to be borne in
mind that at the initial stage while the records were being
checked the amount of misappropriation could be quantified
tentatively only. After detailed verification the exact figure
was arrived at. Such an explanation offered by the
prosecution is plausible and I find no reason to doubt the
prosecution case on that score.
25. In Parminder Kaur I(2020) 8 SCC 811] and
Maheshwar Tigga [(2020) 10 SCC 108] the Apex Court
considered the relevance of and the effect of non-
consideration of the answers given by an accused during
examination under Section 313 of the Code. It was held that
the circumstances not put to an accused under Section 313 of
the Code cannot be used against him. In a criminal case
importance of the questions put to an accused are basic to the
2025 : KER: 11328
Crl.Appeal Nos.1933,1944 & 1945 of 2005
principles of natural justice as it provides him the opportunity
not only to furnish his defence, but also to explain the
incriminating circumstances against him. A probable defence
raised by an accused is sufficient to rebut the accusation. It is
not necessary for an accused to prove his case beyond a
reasonable doubt. It was also held that any alternative version
of events or interpretation proffered by the accused must be
carefully analysed and considered by the trial Court in
compliance with the mandate of Section 313(4) of the Code.
Such opportunity is a valuable right of the accused to seek
justice and defend oneself. Failure of the trial Court to fairly
apply its mind and consider the defence, could endanger the
conviction itself.
26. It is true that the Special Court did not specifically
consider the answers and explanations which the appellant
gave during her examination under Section 313 of the Code.
However, credibility of the evidence tendered by the
prosecution was elaborately considered by the learned Special
Judge. In that course the probability of a false prosecution
2025 : KER: 11328
Crl.Appeal Nos.1933,1944 & 1945 of 2005
was also deliberated upon. In such a situation it cannot be
said that the defence case lost consideration by the Special
Judge and the appellant was put to prejudice on account of
lack of pointed deliberation on the answers given by her
during examination under Section 313 of the Code. The
contention of the learned counsel for the appellant in this
regard is not able to be accepted.
27. The learned counsel further would submit that
fraudulent intention to misappropriate the amount by the
accused should be established for a conviction for the offence
of cheating. Here, retention of the money was for a certain
period alone and therefore the conviction of the appellant is
incorrect. It is true that the appellant has remitted the
misappropriated amount on 13.02.1998. That payment was
made after the embezzlement was detected and action
initiated against the petitioner. If the offence was
compoundable, the contention of the appellant could have
been accepted. As held by the Apex Court in C.B.I. v. Hari
Singh Ranka and others I(2019) 16 SCC 687] offences
2025 : KER: 11328
Crl.Appeal Nos.1933,1944 & 1945 of 2005
which are not private in nature and have a serious impact on
society cannot be allowed to be compounded. It was held that
offences alleged to have been committed under the PC Act
cannot be allowed to be compounded and the settlement in
that regard cannot be reckoned with. In that view of the
matter, payment of the misappropriated amount by the
appellant does not absolve her from the criminal liability.
28. From what are stated above, I am of the view that
the grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellant to
assail the findings, which led to the conviction of the
appellant, are not able to be accepted. The conviction is based
on sufficient evidence. The finding of the Special Court that
the guilt of the appellant was proved beyond reasonable
doubt, does not suffer from any infirmity. Therefore there is
no reason to interfere with the conviction of the appellant.
Hence, the conviction of the appellant in all the three cases is
confirmed.
29. The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of
2025 : KER: 11328
Crl.Appeal Nos,1933,1944 & 1945 of 2005
Rs.10,000/-with a default sentence of simple imprisonment
for a period of six months for each of the offences under
Section 420 of the IPC and Section 13(2) of the PC Act.
Having regard to the facts that the appellant is a woman, the
time taken to conclude the proceedings and other mitigating
circumstances the term of substantive sentence for each of
the offences is reduced to one year. Terms of substantive
sentence shall run concurrently. Further, the terms of
sentence in the three cases are ordered under Section 427 of
the Code to run concurrently. Amounts of fine shall be the
Same-
The appeals are allowed in part to the above extent.
Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE
dkr
T----
:)lTfad
I-apsnu
+qls-€d _ '`_ _ T_'
'pr
f48
Z6
=L4
66 I
JO_-I
Cued
ua
I: I c3 a I
1&=L_
I
I
I
\
i
i
i
'5 5g i g: Ei iU)r\-I::i
ij=(
!E!!EJJIIaEa !ii??: ii?
i;:=;:i:E+
j9 a-a.
#! illCLC|
un ur'Ii;ii!!Ei= mU)
::iiiEg
i!: i-i:
¥¥tLJLI,I
BedIi: '%
iI:i
Z59
-J2(I
)ii#
•!iiiI: ii; ii;;
!jl
II-I::£
•!1!
<€t i-i
&g ±8
-u
%E:£is±
a
Ii ; iEi
II
