Kerala High Court

Kottekadan Mohammed vs State Of Kerala on 5 November, 2025

                                          2025:KER:83959


CRL.A.NO.1145 OF 2017
                              1


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                        PRESENT

       THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN

 WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025/14TH KARTHIKA,

                          1947

                 CRL.A NO. 1145 OF 2017

    CRIME NO.8/2006 OF VACB, MALAPPURAM, Malappuram

      AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.11.2017 IN CC NO.32

      OF 2016 OF ENQUIRY COMR.& SPECIAL JUDGE,KZD.

APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
         KOTTEKADAN MOHAMMED
         AGED 66 YEARS, S/O. UNNIMOYIN,
         KOTTEKADAN HOUSE, PATHAPIRIYAM P.O.,
         EDAVANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.


         BY ADVS.
         SRI.P.SAMSUDIN
         SMT.ANJU CLETUS
         SHRI.JITHIN LUKOSE

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
         STATE OF KERALA
         REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF
         POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU,
         MALAPPURAM THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
         HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM-682031.

         SRI.RAJESH A,SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, VACB
         SMT.REKHA.S, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, VACB

     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
21.10.2025,   THE  COURT   05.11.2025   DELIVERED  THE
FOLLOWING:
                                              2025:KER:83959


CRL.A.NO.1145 OF 2017
                               2


                                                       CR
                        JUDGMENT

Dated this the 5th day of November, 2025

This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section

374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter

referred to as 'Cr.P.C' for short) by the sole accused in

C.C.No.32/2016 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner

and Special Judge, Kozhikode, challenging judgment dated

07.11.2017 in the said case.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant

and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the

relevant records available.

3. In this case, the prosecution case is that,

the accused, while working as L.D.Clerk in Thrikkalangode

Grama Panchayat, Edavanna, abused his position as public

servant and fraudulently misappropriated an amount of

₹98,758.15 (Rupees ninety eight thousand seven hundred 2025:KER:83959

CRL.A.NO.1145 OF 2017

and fifty eight and paise fifteen only) in between November,

2004 and February 2005, being the tax collected from various

persons by using receipt book Nos.44034, 44035, 44038,

44040, 44043, 44045, 44048, 44053 and 44054. The further

allegation is that, for making collection, he had stolen a receipt

book bearing No.44062 and had also created a forged receipt

book bearing No.44022 (this original book marked as Ext.P2),

and thereby he committed offences of misappropriation,

cheating, forgery and breach of trust punishable under Sections

409, 468, 471, 420 and 381 of the Indian Penal Code

(hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short) and under Section

13(1) (c) (d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'PC Act, 1988' for short).

4. The learned counsel for the

appellant/accused argued that the prosecution evidence is in

the midst of doubts and the allegations against the accused

failed to be proved by the prosecution. According to him

mere recovery of Ext.P23, the allegedly forged book bearing 2025:KER:83959

CRL.A.NO.1145 OF 2017

No.44022, would not sufficient to constitute an offence of

forgery and also other offences alleged against the accused.

5. Whereas the learned Public Prosecutor

would submit that Ext.P5 stock account register, proved

through PW7, would show receipt of Exts.P2(b) to P2(j) and

P2(a) receipt books by the accused used for the collection of

tax from the members of the Grama Panchayat. It is pointed

out that as per the evidence given by PW2, who is none

other than the son of the accused, he admitted the signature

of the accused in Ext.P8, a letter addressed by the accused

to the Deputy Director, Grama Panchayat, and Ext.P8 was

tendered in evidence through the evidence of PW7 also. It is

pointed out that as per the evidence available, subsequently

the accused repaid ₹60,350.50 and ₹40,707.50 on

08.02.2005 and 13.04.2005 respectively, though the said

remittances were disputed by the accused during trial. The

learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the challenge

against the sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C., under 2025:KER:83959

CRL.A.NO.1145 OF 2017

Section 19 of the PC Act, 1988 as well as under Section 122

of the Panchayat Raj Act, raised in the appeal memorandum

also would not succeed. The learned counsel for the

appellant fairly conceded that this contention is not

sustainable. In this connection, the learned Public Prosecutor

placed decision of this Court in Badarudeen V.E. & Another

v. State of Kerala reported in 2015 KHC 459, with reference

to paragraph Nos. 20 and 21, which read as under:

" 20. As regards the sanction under Section 122 of the Panchayath Raj Act is concerned, the question as to whether sanction is required, if they seized to be the president, executive authority or members of the panchayath has been considered in the decision reported in State of Kerala v. Manikantan Nair (2001(3) KLT 80) and observed that, sanction under Section 122 is required, only if the person holds the office of the executive authority or any member and not otherwise at the time when the final report is filed. In that case, the accused was the executive officer of panchayath, who retired from service at the time when the final report was filed and it was held that, no previous sanction is required for prosecution under this section.

2025:KER:83959

CRL.A.NO.1145 OF 2017

21. As regards the first accused is concerned, since he was elected for the second time, sanction has been accorded to prosecute the first accused for the offence under Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In fact, no such sanction is required at the time when the final report was filed, he had ceased to be the president of the panchayath as well, during 1999."

6. It is pointed out by the learned Public

Prosecutor further that when protection is available under

Section 19 of the PC Act, 1988, there cannot be any other

conflicting provisions in the State Law, in view of Article 251

of the constitution of India, to give any protection or immunity

to any individual from prosecution under the PC Act, 1988.

The PC Act, 1988 is general, a central law dealing with the

subject and is in operation. In this connection, the learned

counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of this Court

in Sivadasan Pillai and Others v. State of Kerala and

others reported in 2019 (4) KHC 529 with reference to 2025:KER:83959

CRL.A.NO.1145 OF 2017

paragraph No.8 which reads as under:

"8. The PC Act is a Central law exclusively dealing with instances of corruption and criminal misconduct on the part of public servants. This law is applicable to every public servant irrespective of whether he/she is a member of the State service or the Central service. Section 19 of the PC Act gives a protection to public servants, that cognizance under some specified provisions of the PC Act shall not be taken against any public servant without the previous sanction obtained from the Government concerned, or from the authority competent to remove the public servant from service. When such a protection is there, and when the PC act exclusively deals with corruption and misconduct on the part of members of public service there cannot be any other conflicting provision in a State law in view of Article 251 of the Constitution. No State law can give any protection or immunity from prosecution under the PC Act, when the PC Act is the general Central law dealing with the subject of eradication of corruption from the whole public service, including State and Central service, and any provision of any State law or local law in conflict with the provisions of the PC Act, cannot have any validity, or overriding effect over the Central law in view of Article 251 of the Constitution. Thus, I find that prosecutions under the provisions of the PC Act must be 2025:KER:83959

CRL.A.NO.1145 OF 2017

governed by the PC Act itself, and such a prosecution cannot be, in any manner, controlled by the provisions of any special or local law by way of protection from prosecution, or immunity from prosecution. A public servant facing proceedings or prosecution under the PC Act cannot avail any other protection under any special or local law than what is provided to him under the PC Act. Thus, I find that the immunity granted under Section 106 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act will have no overriding effect over the provisions of the PC Act, and under the guise of such an immunity granted only in respect of the acts done or purported to be done under the Co-operative Societies Act, or during the discharge of the functions under the said Act, a public servant cannot resist or defeat a prosecution under the PC Act."

7. In this matter, the trial court framed charges

for the above offences and recorded evidence. PW1 to PW19

were examined and Exts.P1 to P31 were marked on the side

of the prosecution. No evidence was let in by the defence.

Thereafter, the learned Special Judge found that the accused

committed the offences punishable under Sections 13(2) r/w

13(1)(c) and (d) of the PC Act, 1988 as well as under

2025:KER:83959

CRL.A.NO.1145 OF 2017

Sections 381, 409, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC. Accordingly, he

was sentenced as under:

"a) He shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of ₹5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and, in default of payment of the fine, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) of the PC Act.

b) He shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of ₹5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.

c) He shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of ₹5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and, in default of payment of the fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for offence under Section 381 IPC.

d) He shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of ₹5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and, in default of payment of the fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for offence under 2025:KER:83959

CRL.A.NO.1145 OF 2017

Section 409 of IPC.

e) He shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of ₹5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and , in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for offence under Section 420 IPC

f) He shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of ₹5,000/-

(Rupees five thousand only) and, in default of payment of the fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for offence under Section 468 of IPC.

g) He shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for offence under Section 471 IPC.

h) The period of detention, if any, undergone by the accused during the investigation, inquiry or trial of this case, shall be set off against the term of substantive sentences of imprisonment."

8. Addressing the rival submissions, the points

arise for consideration are;

1. Whether the trial court is justified in holding that the accused committed offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(c) of the 2025:KER:83959

CRL.A.NO.1145 OF 2017

PC Act, 1988?

2. Whether the trial court is justified in holding that the accused committed offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988?

3. Whether the trial court is justified in holding that the accused committed offence punishable under Section 381 of IPC?

4. Whether the trial court is justified in holding that the accused committed offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC?

5. Whether the trial court is justified in holding that the accused committed offence punishable under Section 468 of IPC?

6. Whether the trial court is justified in holding that the accused committed offence punishable under Section 471 of IPC?

6. Whether the trial court verdict requires interference?

7. Order to be passed?

9. Point Nos.1 to 7: In this matter, the specific

allegation of the prosecution is that, an amount of ₹98,758.15

was misappropriated by the accused during the period 2025:KER:83959

CRL.A.NO.1145 OF 2017

between November, 2004 and February, 2005, who got

custody of Ext.P2, Ext.P2(b) to P2(j) and P2(a) receipt books.

The further allegation is that by making use of Ext.P23,

forged book, having the same number, viz., 44022, the

accused collected tax from various persons and the

tabulation extracted in the trial court judgment reads as

under:

Sl.No. Ext.No. Receipt No. Receipt Book No. Amount in (Rs.) 1 P2 1 to 100 44022 38,291.20 2 P2(b) 51 to 100 44034 3,283.00 3 P2(c) 1 to 100 44035 6,893.00 4 P2(d) 1 to 100 44038 7,444.50 5 P2(e) 1 to 100 44040 7,316.50 6 P2(f) 1 to 100 44043 7,400.00 7 P2(g) 1 to 100 44045 8,334.00 8 P2(h) 1 to 100 44048 4,584.00 9 P2(i) 1 to 100 44053 7,214.00 10 P2(j) 1 to 100 44054 5,547.50 11 P3 series ...... ...... 2,451.50 Total 98,759.65

10. It is true that, as argued by the learned

counsel for the accused, PW12 and PW13, who were 2025:KER:83959

CRL.A.NO.1145 OF 2017

examined by the prosecution to prove collection of amount by

the accused, have turned hostile and they did not support

the prosecution.

11. PW7 deposed that he had worked as L.D.

Clerk at Thrikkalangode Panchayat from 28.10.2002 to June

2007. The accused, Sri. Kottekodan Mohammed, had been

his colleague at the Thrikkalangode Panchayat. While they

had been working at the Thrikkalangode Panchayat Office,

he had seen the accused writing, signing, and initialling. He

stated that he could identify the handwriting, signature, and

initials of the accused.

12. According to PW7, he had produced

Exts.P6, P14, P15 and P16 before the Investigating Officer

and the Investigating Officer prepared Ext.P13 seizure

mahazar for the same. In Ext.P13 seizure mahazar, PW7 as

well as PW5 - R.S.Rajeev also signed. He also identified

Exts.P2(b), P2(c), P2(d), P2(e), P2(f), P2(g), P2(h), P2(i) and

P2(j), produced by one Gopan, L.D.Clerk, as on 02.03.2007, 2025:KER:83959

CRL.A.NO.1145 OF 2017

and the above documents are the receipts books. PW7 also

identified filed No.A-113/05 as Ext.P8(a). His evidence

further is that in Ext.P16 office order, having eight pages, the

duties of the staff have been shown and the same has been

signed by the Secretary. According to him, for outdoor

collection, the staff would obtain receipt books, after making

entries in the stock account and Ext.P5 is the Stock Account

evidence further is that on page Nos.3 and 4 of Ext.P5,

receipt Nos.44022, 44034, 44035, 44038, 44043, 44045,

44048, 44053 and 44054 were the receipt books issued to

the accused and the accused written his name and signed

showing receipt. In Exts.P2 to P2(j) receipts were written by

the accused as the Clerk who collected the same and further,

in Ext.P23 receipt book also, the handwriting and signature of

the accused could be found and page Nos.29, 49, 69, 91 and

92 of Ext.P23 were marked as Exts.P3(a) to P3(e). It was

through him, Ext.P8, a letter given by the accused to 2025:KER:83959

CRL.A.NO.1145 OF 2017

Dy.Director of Grama Panchayat, also tendered in evidence.

Supporting the evidence of PW7, PW5 also given evidence.

13. PW5 deposed that he had been working as

L.D. Clerk at Thrikkalangode Panchayat from January 2006

to January 2008. He stated that on 16-12-2006, he, along

with PW7 Ginu Abraham, went to the Vigilance Office, and

that PW7 had produced Exts. P6, P14 to P16 documents

before the Investigating Officer, who had seized those

documents by preparing Ext. P13 seizure mahazar. PW5

further stated that, as directed by the Panchayat Secretary,

he had handed over Exts. P18 and P18(a) attendance

registers to the Investigating Officer on 02-03-2007, and that

the Investigating Officer had taken those documents into

custody as per Ext.P17 seizure mahazar. He deposed during

cross-examination that he had not seen any letter authorizing

PW7 Ginu Abraham to hand over the documents to the

Investigating Officer and that he could not mention the rank

of the police officer to whom the documents were handed 2025:KER:83959

CRL.A.NO.1145 OF 2017

over. However, he maintained that he had produced Exts.

P18 and P18(a) attendance registers before the Investigating

Officer as directed by the Panchayat Secretary. It was

suggested that PW1, being the custodian of the documents

as Secretary of Thrikkalangode Panchayat, ought to have

produced the documents before the Investigating Officer.

PW1 deposed that PW5 had been working as L.D. Clerk at

the Panchayat Office at the relevant time. PW5 maintained

that there was no reason to disbelieve his testimony. He

stated that his evidence was sufficient to prove the seizure of

Exts. P6, P14 to P16, P18, and P18(a) documents from

proper custody by the Investigating Officer. He further stated

that evidence collected illegally or improperly was not per se

inadmissible, relying on the decisions in State of M.P. v.

Paltan Mallah (AIR 2005 SC 733) and Ali Mustafa v. State

of Kerala (AIR 1995 SC 244).

14. It was through PW6, Ext.P20 service books

in two volumes as that of the accused was produced before 2025:KER:83959

CRL.A.NO.1145 OF 2017

the vigilance. Though the authority of PW6, being a

U.D.Clerk, to produce the same was challenged, in fact, the

same is of least significance.

15. PW8 stated that he was working as a U.D.

Clerk in the Office of the Deputy Director of Panchayats. He

stated that, as directed by the Deputy Director of

Panchayats, he had produced Ext.P24 audit report and

Ext.P24(a) special report before the Investigating Officer. The

Investigating Officer had seized both documents under

separate seizure mahazars. PW8 was cross-examined at

length in an attempt to show that he was not competent to

prove the contents of Exts.P24 and P24(a) audit reports. It

was also brought out that PW8 had been examined by the

prosecution only for the limited purpose of proving the

seizure of Exts.P24 and P24(a). Exts.P24 and P24(a) were

audit reports containing the opinion of the auditor. The

opinion of a witness, except that of an expert falling under

Section 45 of the Evidence Act, cannot be treated as 2025:KER:83959

CRL.A.NO.1145 OF 2017

evidence, though such documents may be referred to by the

Court for the limited purpose of analysing the materials on

record. It thus emerged from the evidence of PW8 that,

although his testimony was not sufficient to prove the

contents or correctness of the facts stated in Exts.P24 and

P24(a), it was sufficient to establish that those documents

had been seized by the Investigating Officer.

16. PW9 deposed that he had worked as

Secretary of the Thrikkalangode Grama Panchayat from

10.02.2004 to 21.06.2005. He stated that the accused had

been working under him as an L.D. Clerk in the same

Panchayat. He further stated that Office Order Nos. 01/2004

and 02/2004, both dated 08.12.2004, had been issued by

him and that he had signed those office orders. According to

him, all the employees of the Panchayat, including the

accused, had signed below the office orders. PW9 stated that

he was conversant with the handwriting, signature, and

initials of the accused. He stated that the accused had signed 2025:KER:83959

CRL.A.NO.1145 OF 2017

against the entries made on pages 3 and 4 of Ext.P5 register

regarding the issuance of receipt book Nos. 44022, 44023,

44034, 44035, 44038, 44040, 44043, 44045, 44048, 44053,

and 44054 as the clerk who had received those books. PW9

further stated that he had issued those receipt books to the

accused and had signed against the corresponding entries in

Ext.P5 as the person who distributed the receipt books. He

also stated that Exts.P2 and P2(b) to P2(j) receipt books had

been issued by him to the accused, and that the contents of

all the pages of those receipt books had been written by the

accused, who had also signed all the receipts as the

Panchayat employee who collected the taxes.

17. PW1 examined in this case is the

Secretary, Thrikkalangode Grama Panchayat, in between

02.12.2005 till the end of 2006. According to him, he had

produced 6 documents before the Vigilance on 20.05.2006

and the Vigilance seized the documents in custody by

preparing Ext.P1 mahazar and he had signed in Ext.P1. He 2025:KER:83959

CRL.A.NO.1145 OF 2017

supported Exts.P2 and P2(a) (receipt book Nos.44022 and

44062) and also Ext.P3, P3(a) to P3(e) the carbon copies of

receipts. Apart from that, Exts.P4 and P4(a), two outdoor

collection register also marked through PW1. He also

deposed about the mode by which the collecting staff would

get custody of receipt books and according to him, procedure

is getting the same by recording the same in the stock

account register marked as Ext.P5.

18. According to him, on getting the tax

collected, receipts would be written by using carbon copy

method and the receipts usually have an original in white in

colour and a copy pink in colour. The original receipts would

kept in the office and the carbon copies would be given to the

person paying the tax. Thereafter, the clerk concerned

should remit the amount after recording the same in the

outdoor collection register to the authorised clerk to deal with

receipt of the collected amount and then the clerk could have

been remit the same in the bank by preparing challan.

2025:KER:83959

CRL.A.NO.1145 OF 2017

Ext.P6 identified as the office collection register in between

01.04.2003 to 13.04.2005.

19. PW1 was cross-examined to show that he

was not competent to prove the writings and signatures

allegedly made by the accused in Exts. P2 to P6 documents.

It was brought out that PW1 was not familiar with the

handwriting and signature of the accused. PW1 admitted that

he was not competent to identify the handwriting or signatures

of the accused. However, he stated that his evidence was

sufficient to prove the practice and procedure followed in the

Thrikkalangode Panchayat Office. He further stated that the

Investigating Officer had seized Exts. P2 to P6 documents from

proper custody as per Ext. P1 seizure mahazar and that he had

no reason to give false evidence to secure conviction to the

accused. He maintained that he was a reliable witness.

20. PW2 deposed that accused is his father. He had

been residing along with his father at Pathapiriyam. His

father was employed in Thrikkalangode Gramapanchayat as 2025:KER:83959

CRL.A.NO.1145 OF 2017

a clerk. Vigilance Police had registered a case against his

father. Vigilance Police did not come to their house for

investigation. Ext.P7 search list bore his signature. According

to him, it was incorrect to say that Ext.P7 was prepared by

the Vigilance Police at the time of seizing a receipt book from

their house. He did not know whether his father had remitted

money in Panchayat office during the period of suspension.

He was not aware whether his father had filed an application

before the Deputy Director requesting to reinstate in service.

According to him, in Ext.P8 application, his father's signature

was there. His father retired from service while under

suspension. He had been helping his father in defending this

case. He had not given Ext.P9 statement to the Investigating

Officer. He admitted that Ext.P7 bore his signature. His

signature seen in Ext.P7 was put at the lorry stand,

Edavanna. At the time of putting signature, nothing rather

preparing or signing Ext.P8 application. Anyhow as far as

recovery of the receipt book, PW2 turned hostile to the 2025:KER:83959

CRL.A.NO.1145 OF 2017

prosecution .

21. PW4 is examined to prove Ext. P12

certificate. Ext.P12 certificate was issued by PW4 on the

request of the Investigating Officer. It is written in Ext P12

ownership certificate that the accused is the owner of house

No. X/556 of Edavanna Panchayat. According to PW4, he

prepared Ext.P12 certificate on the basis of the entries

contained in the Building Tax Assessment Register for the

period 1997-98 to 2006-07 maintained at Edavanna

Panchayat Office.

22. In this case, PW15, who was working as

Village Officer, Edavanna village as on 07.07.2006 was

examined to prove Ext.P7 search list, prepared to seize

Ext.P2 receipt book from the house of the accused. Ext.P2 is

the receipt book No.44022 of the Thrikkalangode Grama

Panchayat.

23. PW10 deposed that he had been serving as

L.D. Clerk in Thrikkalangode Gramapanchayat from June 2025:KER:83959

CRL.A.NO.1145 OF 2017

2002 to June 2009. Accused was his colleague at

Thrikkalangode Gramapanchayat. On 02.03.2007, he went to

Vigilance Office along with PW7 and handed over 11

documents to the Investigating Officer. Investigating Officer

seized those documents and prepared Ext.P21 seizure

mahazar. On that day, he handed over Exts.P2(b) to P2(j)

receipt books. P8(a) and P22 files to the Investigating Officer.

PW9 Rajesh.T.Varghese was working as Secretary,

Thrikkalangode Gramapanchayat at the relevant time. As

sought by PW9, he along with accused went to accused's

house to search and find out a missing receipt book. When

they carried out search in the house of the accused, they got

Ext.P2(g) receipt book No. 44045 from an almirah. He

entrusted Ext.P2(g) receipt book to PW9. Accused wrote the

contents of Exts.P2 to P2(j) receipt books, P3 to P3(e)

receipts and Ext.P23 receipt book. Accused signed the

above mentioned documents. He does not know the contents

of the documents given by him to the Investigating Officer.

2025:KER:83959

CRL.A.NO.1145 OF 2017

Vigilance Police had not given instruction to him to produce

documents. No written instruction was given to him by the

Secretary to produce documents before the Vigilance Police.

Secretary had given oral instruction to produce documents

before the Vigilance Police. Secretary entrusted documents

to him without packing and sealing. Movement register kept

in the Panchayat Office would reveal that he had gone to

Vigilance Office. He went to accused's house by 7 P.M. He

does not remember the correct date on which he went to the

house of accused. He had given the receipt book to the

Secretary on the date on which he went to the house of

accused. He had not given statement to the Investigating

Officer that he had entrusted the receipt book to the

Secretary during the night on which he went to the house of

accused.

24. PW12's evidence is that he had been

residing at Amayoor, within the limits of Thrikkalangode

Grama Panchayat. At the time of the incident, the 2025:KER:83959

CRL.A.NO.1145 OF 2017

assessment number of his house was V/39. He had been

remitting building tax on his house in the Panchayat.

Ext.P3(c) was the receipt obtained by him when he remitted

₹16 as house tax. He further stated that he had remitted the

tax when the Panchayat had organised a tax collection camp

at Amayoor Market. He stated that he did not remember the

Panchayat employee who had received the tax from him and

that he was unable to identify the said employee. He also

stated that he had not given the Ext.P27 statement to the

Investigating Officer.

25. PW13 deposed that he had been residing

within the limits of Thrikkalangode Grama Panchayat. In the

year 2005, the building tax assessment number of his house

was V/136. He had been remitting building tax on his house

to the Panchayat. Ext.P3(a) was the receipt issued to him

when he remitted the building tax. He further stated that he

had remitted the tax when the Panchayat had organised a tax

collection camp at Amayoor Market. He stated that he did not 2025:KER:83959

CRL.A.NO.1145 OF 2017

know the Panchayat employee who had collected the tax

from him and that he was unable to identify the said

employee. He also stated that he had not given the Ext.P28

statement to the Investigating Officer.

26. On evaluation of the evidence, it could be

gathered that as per Ext.P16 office order, dated 08.12.2004,

the accused was working as LD Clerk in A4 Section in

Thrikkalangode Gram Panchayat with duty of collecting

taxes and fees from Ward Nos.I -V and XV - XVIII. Ext.P5

stock account register would go to show that receipt Book

Nos.44022, 44023, 44034, 44035, 44038, 44040, 44043,

44045, 44048, 44053 and 44054 were given to the accused

for collecting taxes and fees. PW9 and PW10 proved the

signatures of the accused against the entries made in Ext.P5

receipt books to the accused. Ext.P8 is a letter available in

file No. A-113/2005, at pages 7 to 9 of the Thrikkalangode

Grama Panchayat records. As per Ext.P8, and having regard 2025:KER:83959

CRL.A.NO.1145 OF 2017

to its contents, the accused admitted the allegations of the

prosecution. As per Ext.P8, the accused stated that after

12.01.2005, he had collected ₹60,350.50 as per receipt book

Nos.44034, 44035, 44038, 44040, 44043, 44045, 44048,

44053 and 44054. According to him, he used the said

amount for discharging the gold loan taken by him in

connection with the daughter's marriage. Anyhow, the

contention of the accused is that PW9 entered the entries in

Ext.P8 whereas, PW9 categorically stated that the accused

singed in Ext.P8 after knowing its contents. The Special

Court given emphasis to Ext.P8 where the accused had no

case that his signature in Ext.P8 was obtained under threat

or coercion as a corroborative piece of evidence apart from

the substantive evidence discussed.

27. Most importantly, in the instant case, the

accused remitted ₹60,350.50 on 08.02.2005 and ₹40,707.50

on 13.04.2005 (total 1, 01,058/-) and page Nos.60 to 98 of

Ext.P6 would establish the same. Regarding repayment, the 2025:KER:83959

CRL.A.NO.1145 OF 2017

contention of the accused is that he did not repay the

amount. Anyhow, as per the available documents, the

accused had repaid the amount though the same is

insufficient to absolve the accused have criminal liability. In

this regard, the Special Court relied on a decision of the Apex

Court in Viswanath v. State of J & K reported in AIR 1983

SC 174.

28. After evaluation of the evidence, the learned

Special Judge found in paragraph No.49 that 22 aspects

have been proved by the prosecution evidence. They are

extracted as under:

"1) Accused was employed as L.D. Clerk in Thrikkalangode Gramapanchayat at the relevant time.

2) Accused was assigned with the duty of collecting fees and taxes in respect of Ward Nos. 1 to 5 and 15 to 18.

3) PW9 had distributed receipt book Nos. 44022, 44023, 44034, 44035, 44038, 44040, 44043, 44045, 44048, 44053 and 44054 to the accused between 2025:KER:83959

CRL.A.NO.1145 OF 2017

01-01-2005 and 01-02-2005 for making outdoor collection of taxes and fees.

4) Ext.P23 receipt book bearing No. 44022 is a fake receipt book and accused had collected ₹5,281/- using Ext.P23 receipt book.

5) Accused collected ₹3,283/- as per receipt Nos. 51 to 100 of Ext.P2(b) receipt book No. 44034.

6) Accused collected ₹6,893/- as per Ext.P2(c) receipt book No.44035

7) Accused collected ₹7,444.50 as per Ext.P2(d) receipt book No.44038

8) Accused collected ₹7,316.50 as per Ext.P2(e) receipt book No. 44040.

9) Accused collected ₹7,400/- as per Ext.P2(f) receipt book No. 44043.

10) Accused collected ₹8,334/- as per Ext.P2(g) receipt book No.44045.

11) Accused collected 4,584/- as per Ext. P2th) receipt book No 44048

12) Accused collected ₹ 7.214/- as per Ext.P21) receipt book No 44053

13) Accused collected ₹5,547.50/- as per Ext.P2(1) receipt book No. 44054.

15) He had collected 38.291.65/- as per Ext.P2, original receipt book No. 44022 He did not remit this amount in Panchayat 2025:KER:83959

CRL.A.NO.1145 OF 2017

16) Similarly, he had collected ? 2.451.50/- issuing receipt Nos. 1 to 6 and 10 to 13 of Ext.P2(a) receipt book. However, he did not remit that amount in Panchayat

17) Accused had misappropriated a total sum of ₹ 98.759.65/-

18) Accused taken away the receipt Book No. 44062 from the custody of PW9 with the dishonest intention to use it for collecting taxes and fees and to misappropriate collected money.