Kerala High Court
Hariprasad Thampi vs State Of Kerala on 5 June, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 13 OF 2016
CRIME NO.100/1998 OF Parassala Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram
(AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 13.08.2015 IN Crl.A
NO.7 OF 2009 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT
-IV, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CONFIRMING THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED
02.12.2008 IN CC NO.952 OF 1998 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
FIRST CLASS-II,NEYYATTINKARA)
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/1ST ACCUSED:
HARIPRASAD THAMPI
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O.ANANTHAKRISHNAN, VASANTHA BHAVAN, CHENKAL
VILLAGE, CHENKAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.RAVEENDRAN
SRI.B.BIPIN
SRI.D.JAYAKRISHNAN
SHRI.PRAVEEN P.
RESPONDENTS/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA.S.
Crl.R.P.No.13 of 2016
:2:
2025:KER:39587
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN
FINALLY HEARD ON 30.05.2025, THE COURT ON 05.06.2025
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P.No.13 of 2016
:3:
2025:KER:39587
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,JJ.
-------------------------------------.
Crl.R.P. No. 13 of 2016
---------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of June 2025
ORDER
This revision petition is filed by the first accused in
C.C.No.952 of 1998 on the files of the JFCM-II, Neyyattinkara.
He stood trial along with the second accused, for committing the
offences punishable under Sections, 417,409,466,468,471 read
with Section 34 IPC and was convicted and sentenced under
Sections 417, 511 of 409, 466, 468 and 471 IPC.
2. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the first
accused preferred Crl.A.No.7 of 2009 before the Additional
Sessions Court-IV, Thiruvananthapuram and the same ended in
dismissal.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows:
2025:KER:39587
The first accused, while working as Junior Accountant in
Parassala Sub Treasury Office, with an intention to
misappropriate money, in agreement with the second accused,
on 27.01.1998 at about 11.30am, approached PW2, the Treasury
Officer with a money order voucher carrying the address of CW3
for family pension of Rs.1081/-. Thereafter, the first accused
made PW2 to affix her signature in the money order voucher by
making false representations. Later, the first accused scored the
address of CW3 and added the address of PW3, his mother-in-
law. Thereafter, the first accused made alterations in the pension
book of PW4 by changing her address to one that of his mother-
in-law's address. Subsequently, the first and second accused
approached PW5, the postman of Amaravila Post Office and
enquired about the money order in the name of PW 3. Due to
timely intervention of PW5, who knew that PW3 was not entitled
to any family pension, the incident was reported resulting in the
following prosecution.
2025:KER:39587
4. In the trial court from the side of the prosecution, PW1
to PW14 were examined and Exts.P1 to P17 documents were
marked. While examining under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused
denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against
them in evidence and contended that they are innocent. From
the side of the accused, DW1 was examined and Exts.D1 to
D2(b) were marked. The trial court, on an appreciation of the
evidence on record, acquitted the second accused and found the
first accused guilty of committing the offences punishable under
Sections 417, 511 of 409, 466, 468 and 471 IPC. The first
accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of three months under Section 417 IPC and simple
imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of
Rs.3,000/- under Section 511 of 409, with a default sentence of
two months simple imprisonment. He was also sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to
pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 466 IPC and in default, to
2025:KER:39587
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. He was
further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 468 IPC
and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
one month. He was again sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/- under Section 471 IPC and in default, to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
5. As stated earlier, the appeal preferred by the first
accused as Crl.Appeal No.7 of 2009 was dismissed by the
Additional Sessions Court-IV, Thiruvananthapuram on
13.08.2015.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and
the learned Public Prosecutor.
7. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner contended
that both the trial court as well as the appellate court have failed
in appreciating the evidence in a proper perspective and has
2025:KER:39587
arrived at a wrong conclusion of guilt against the accused. He
submitted that except PW1, PW2 and PW9, all the other material
witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and the
courts below did not appreciate the evidence of these witnesses
who supported the accused. He, by relying on the decision in
Shreekantiah Ramayya Munipalli v. State of Bombay (1955
KHC 355), contended that if an official act was done in a
dishonest manner, as in the present case, sanction under Section
197 Cr.P.C is mandatory and since no sanction has been obtained
in this case, the entire prosecution has to fail. He further
submitted that the scientific evidence let in is also not credible
and there is no evidence to show that the specimen used for
comparison is that of the accused. Hence, he prayed this revision
petition may be allowed.
8. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor contended that
there are no grounds at this stage to interfere with the
concurrent findings of facts arrived at by both the courts. She
2025:KER:39587
submitted that the evidence of PW1, PW2 & PW9 would clearly
show that it is the accused who has manipulated the money
order voucher and the pension book in order to misappropriate
the pension amount and the scientific evidence let in also
corroborates the said fact. She further submitted that as rightly
found by the appellate court, it is not the official duty of a public
servant to fabricate records and misappropriate public funds and
these acts cannot be said to be done in discharge of official
duties. Hence, she prayed that this revision petition may be
dismissed.
9. The materials on record would go to show that both the
trial court as well as the appellate court have relied upon the
evidence of PW1,PW2 & PW9 and the scientific evidence let in, to
arrive at a finding of guilt against the first accused. An appraisal
of the evidence of PW2 would go to show that while she was
engaged in her work, the first accused had approached her and
had made her sign in a money order form which was in the name
2025:KER:39587
of one P.S. Leela Bhai, by misrepresenting her that there was an
omission. Her evidence categorically shows that at the time of
affixing her signature, she had clearly noticed the name of Leela
Bhai in the money order form and that the serial number was yet
to be filled. Ext.P2 is the money order form which PW2 thus
signed and which was manipulated subsequently. A perusal of
Ext.P2 would show that the name of Leela Bhai is scored off and
the name and address of the PW3, the mother-in-law of the first
accused, has been incorporated. It has come out in the evidence
of PW3 that she is not a recipient of family pension. PW1 and
PW2 have specifically deposed that it is the first accused who has
thus manipulated Ext.P2. Both of them, who are having
acquaintance with the handwriting of the first accused have also
categorically deposed that the writings in the money order are in
his handwriting. Even though these witnesses have been cross
examined extensively, nothing has been brought out to disbelieve
them.
2025:KER:39587
10. The evidence of PW2 further reveals that in order to
facilitate the misappropriation of the amount, the first accused
had also manipulated the pension payment order of PW4.
Exts.P3(a),P3(b) & P3(c) endorsements were made in Ext.P3
pension payment order of PW4 Rugmini, thereby changing her
address and the disbursement of pension. The evidence of PW1
and PW2, categorically shows that all the relevant writings that
are found in Exts. P3(a),P3(b) & P3(c) are in the handwriting of
the first accused. It is pertinent to note that PW9, who had
worked with the first accused, has also identified his handwriting
in Ext.P3. That apart, the evidence of PW14 coupled with Ext.P17
report from the FSL, also lends considerable support and
corroboration to the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and shows that all
the afore entries made in Exts.P2,P3(a),P3(b) and P3(c) are in
the handwriting of the first accused. In the light of the afore
clinching evidence, I find that no error has been committed by
the trial court and the appellate court in appreciating the
2025:KER:39587
evidence on record and reaching a finding of guilt against the
first accused.
11. Coming to the question of sanction, I am of the view
that the decision in Shreekantiah (cited supra), relied on by the
learned counsel for the revision petition, has no application to the
facts of the present case. In the decision relied on, the properties
which were entrusted with a public servant and which he had the
authority to dispose of, was allegedly disposed of dishonestly and
it was found that the disposal was also a part of official act. In
the case on hand, it is not a case where the money order voucher
was prepared by the first accused mistakenly in the name of his
mother-in-law and thereafter, PW2 had signed it. On the other
hand, it is a case where after getting the signature of PW2 in the
money order which was in the name of another person, the first
accused has altered/manipulated the name of the beneficiary. If
so, the afore act can neither be stated as one coming under an
official act nor is intricately connected with discharge of his
2025:KER:39587
official functions. (See Rajib Ranjan v. R.Vijaykumar [(2015)
1 SCC 513], P.K. Pradhan v. State of Sikkim [(2001) 6 SCC
704], Shambhoo Nath Misra v. State of UP [(1997) 5 SCC
326] and CBI v. B.A. Srinivasan (2020) 2 SCC 153). If so, I
find no merit in the afore contention raised by the learned
counsel for the revision petitioner.
12. Thus, on a consideration of the entire materials on
record, I find that both the trial court and the appellate court
have appreciated the evidence in a correct perspective and have
arrived at a correct conclusion of guilt against the accused. As
regards the sentence imposed, considering the nature of
offences, its gravity, the manner in which it was perpetrated and
the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that
the sentence imposed on the first accused by the courts below
are only just and reasonable and no interference is required with
it.
13. Ergo, I find no merit in this revision petition, and the
2025:KER:39587
same is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN
Judge
dpk
