Padmaprasad vs State Of Kerala
2025 Latest Caselaw 9595 Ker

Kerala High Court

Padmaprasad vs State Of Kerala on 13 October, 2025

                                                            2025:KER:75975

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                 PRESENT

                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN

        MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 21ST ASWINA, 1947

                          CRL.A NO. 1578 OF 2011

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.07.2011 IN C.C. NO.25 OF 2009 ON THE FILES

        OF THE COURT OF THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE,

                           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM


APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

           PADMAPRASAD
           ASSISTANT MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR, NEYYATTINKARA.


           BY ADVS.
           SHRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL)
           SRI.MANU SEBASTIAN



RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

           STATE OF KERALA
           PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

           SPL PP VACB - ADV.RAJESH.A, SR PP VACB - ADV.REKHA.S


     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.09.2025, THE
COURT ON 13.10.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                           2025:KER:75975
Crl.A. No. 1578 of 2011
                                  2



                                                            "C.R"
                            JUDGMENT

Dated this the 13th day of October, 2025

The sole accused in C.C. No.25/2009 on the files

of the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special

Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, has filed this appeal, under

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

challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the

Special Judge as per the judgment dated 29.07.2011. The

State of Kerala, represented by the Public Prosecutor is

arrayed as the sole respondent herein.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and

the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Perused the verdict

under challenge and the records of the trial court.

3. Parties in this appeal shall be referred as

'accused' and 'prosecution', hereafter.

4. This case arose out of the same FIR, wherefrom

C.C. Nos.26 and 27 of 2009 on the files of the Enquiry

Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram,

also got registered against the accused/appellant herein. In 2025:KER:75975

this matter, the prosecution allegation is that, the accused,

while working as an Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, Sub

Regional Transport Office, Neyyattinkara, during the period

from 17.04.2002 to 24.06.2004, was authorized to collect

fees and fines in respect of the vehicles, had collected

Rs.1,97,755/- being the fees and fines directly and through

other officials in the office, using TR5 receipts, which were

entrusted to him and possessed by him during the period

from 18.04.2002 to 30.03.2003. It is alleged further is that,

out of Rs.1,97,755/- collected by the accused, he had

remitted only Rs.64,040/- in the office and he dishonestly

and fraudulently misappropriated the balance amount of

Rs.1,33,715/-. On this premise, the prosecution alleges

commission of offences punishable under Section 13(2)

read with 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

[hereinafter referred as 'P.C. Act' for short] and under

Sections 409, 420 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code

[hereinafter referred as 'IPC' for short].

5. After, framing charge for the offences under

Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) of the P.C. Act and under 2025:KER:75975

Sections 409 and 477-A of the IPC, the Special Court

recorded evidence and tried the matter. During trial, PWs 1

to 17 were examined and Exts.P1 to 24 were marked on the

side of the prosecution. After questioning the accused

under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C, Exts.D1 to D5 were

marked on the side of accused as defence evidence.

6. On appreciation of evidence, the Special Court

found that the accused was guilty for the offences

punishable under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) of the

P.C. Act and under Section 409 of the IPC. Accordingly, he

was convicted for the said offences and sentenced as

under:

Considering the facts and circumstance of this case, the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of ₹1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty thousand only) and in default of the payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under S.13(2) r/w S.13(1)(c) of P.C. Act, 1988. The accused is also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of ₹1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) and in default of payment of fine to undergo 2025:KER:75975

rigorous imprisonment for three months under S.409 of I.P.C. It is directed that the sentence of imprisonments shall run concurrently. Set off under S.428 of Cr.P.C. is allowed.

7. While impeaching the verdict impugned, it is

pointed out by the learned counsel for the

appellant/accused that, in order to prove entrustment of

Exts.P7 to P7(h) TR5 receipts to the accused, PWs 5 and 6

given evidence and it has come out in evidence that, apart

from the accused, PWs 3, 4 and 7 to 9 also collected fees

and fines using the said TR5 receipts. Therefore, the liability

of misappropriation could not be attributed solely as

against the accused and the witnesses cited in this case

ought to have been arrayed as accused. It is pointed out by

the learned counsel for the accused further that, merely

relying on the evidence of PWs 5 and 6, supported by the

evidence of PWs 3, 4 and 7 to 9 and that of PW10, the

Special Court found that the accused misappropriated

Rs.1,33,715/-, as alleged by the prosecution. It is further

pointed out that, the receipt of TR5 receipts by the accused

was proved through the evidence of PW5 and 6. The FSL 2025:KER:75975

report marked as Ext.P14 in this regard proved through

PW12, the Assistant Director (Documents), FSL,

Thiruvananthapuram, in no way consistently attributed

that, it was the accused, who made entries in the disputed

TR5 receipts. According to the learned counsel for the

accused, since the prosecution failed to prove entrustment

of TR5 receipt to the accused and consequential use and

collection of money by the accused, the finding of the

Special that the accused committed the offences

punishable under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) of the

P.C. Act and under Section 409 of the IPC is erroneous and

the same would require interference.

8. Repelling the argument advanced by the learned

counsel for the accused, it is specifically pointed out by the

learned Public Prosecutor that, in the instant case, Exts.P7

to P7(h) are TR5 receipts entrusted to the accused to

collect fees and fines, during the period from 18.04.2002 to

30.03.2003 and it was through PW6, Exts.P7 and P7(a)

were tendered in evidence. Similarly, by examining PW5,

Exts.P7(b) to P7(h) were also tendered in evidence. It is also 2025:KER:75975

submitted that, Ext.P6 stock register of TR5 books would

show that it was the accused, who received the said TR5

receipts to collect fees and fines, as alleged by the

prosecution. It is pointed out by the learned Public

Prosecutor further that, as deposed by PW10, PWs 3, 4 and

7 to 9 also collected fees and fines occasionally, using the

TR5 receipts, during the relevant period and they had given

consistent evidence that, the money so collected using TR5

receipts was entrusted back to the accused. According to

the learned Public Prosecutor, the misappropriation could

not be detected during the tenure of the accused in the

office and it was detected by PW10, after transfer of the

accused from the office, where the occurrence took place.

In support of the prosecution materials, the learned Public

Prosecutor has given reliance on Ext.P11 Enquiry Report

against the accused, submitted by PW10, proved through

him to contend that misappropriation of Rs.1,33,715/- was

found during departmental enquiry also. Thus, entrustment

of TR5 receipts to the accused and collection of fees and

fines by him and by PWs 3, 4, 7 to 9 were proved in this 2025:KER:75975

case, beyond reasonable doubt. In such a case, the

conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Special

Judge as against the accused are liable to sustain, is the

submission of the learned Public Prosecutor.

9. In view of the rival submissions, the questions

arise for consideration are:

1. Whether the Special Court is justified in finding that the accused/appellant committed the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) of the P.C. Act?

2. Whether the Special Court is justified in finding that the accused/appellant committed the offence punishable under Section 409 of the IPC?

3. Whether the verdict of the Special Court would require interference?

4. Order to be passed?

10. Point Nos.1 and 2:- In order to address these

questions, it is necessary to evaluate the evidence, in this

case. PW1, who was working as Joint RTO at the Sub RT

Office in Neyyattinkara, during the period from 09.06.2004

to 28.02.2005, had sent Ext.P1 letter dated 06.10.2004 to

PW17, the Sub Inspector of Police, Neyyattinkara, stating

that the Audit Wing of the Accountant General conducted 2025:KER:75975

audit at Sub RT Office, Neyvattinkara and misappropriation

of Government money by the accused was detected in the

audit and it was reported that the accused, while he was

working as AMVI at the Sub RT Office, Neyyattinkara, had

collected compounding fee using TR5 Books while

conducting checking and the accused had collected a total

amount of Rs.7,44,470, out of which he remitted only

Rs.3,23,640/- in Sub RT Office, Neyyattinkara and he did not

remit the balance amount of Rs.4,20,830/-. It was also

stated in the said letter that the Transport Commissioner

had directed to lodge complaint with the police against the

accused and consequently, PW1 sent Ext.P1 letter

requesting to register a case against the accused. On

19.11.2004, PW1 produced Ext.P2 Joining Report of the

accused, Exts.P3 to P5 Fee Acceptance Registers, Ext.P6

Stock Register of TR5 Receipts Books (26 TR5 receipt books

including Exts.P7 to P7(h) and Exts.P8 to P8(b) documents)

written in the handwriting of the accused before the police.

PW1 had also produced Ext.P9 order by which the accused

was transferred to the office of PW1, before the Police.

2025:KER:75975

Ext.P10 is the Audit Enquiry Report prepared by the Audit

Officer attached to the Audit Wing of the Accountant

General. Ext.P11 is the Enquiry Report on the

embezzlement of Government money by the accused,

prepared by the Accounts Officer attached to the office of

the Transport Commissioner of Motor Vehicle Department.

PW2 who was working as Head Accountant at Sub RT Office,

Neyyattinkara, during the period from August, 2002 to

01.06.2006, is the witness to Ext.P12 inventory, as per

which Ext.P10 was taken into custody by the Investigating

Officer.

11. Additionally, PWs 3 to 6, who were working as

Clerk, U.D. Clerk, L.D. Clerk and U.D. Clerk respectively at

Sub RT Office, Neyyattinkara, were also examined by the

prosecution. That apart, PWs 1 and 2, PWs 7 to 9, who were

working as MVI, AMVI, and AMVI respectively at Sub RT

Office, Neyyattinkara were also examined to prove the

prosecution case further. PW10, who was working as

Accounts Officer at the Office of the Transport

Commissioner, Motor Vehicle Department, 2025:KER:75975

Thiruvananthapuram, was the Head of the Internal Audit

Team who conducted audit at Sub RT Office, Neyyattinkara,

and PW1 prepared Ext.P11 report in this regard.

12. PW1 deposed that, while he had been working as

Joint RTO at Sub RT Office, Neyyattinkara, the accused was

working as AMVI at the same office. The accused was

transferred from the office of PW1 on 25.06.2004. Ext.P10

report showed that the accused had collected a sum of

Rs.7,44,470/- using 26 numbers of TR5 receipt books and

out of that amount, the accused had remitted only

Rs.3,23,640/- in the office and the accused did not remit a

sum of Rs.4,20,830/-. On the basis of the aforesaid report,

PW1 with the permission of his official superiors, sent

Ext.P1 letter to the police. PW1 had produced Exts.P2 to P9

before the police. PW1 had also produced 26 numbers of

TR5 books before the police and Exts.P7 to P7(h) are 9

numbers of TR5 receipt books out of the said 26 numbers

of TR5 receipt books. It is evident from Ext.P6 that, Exts.P7

to P7(h) were issued to the accused. The accused was

transferred to the office of PW1 under Ext.P9 Order. The 2025:KER:75975

officers, namely, Joint RTO, MVI, AMVI and Cashier (the

Clerk attached to the counter) are authorized to collect

money using TR5 receipt. The used TR5 receipts are to be

returned to the Head Accountant. The amount collected by

AMVI using TR5 receipts is to be handed over to the Clerk in

the counter. The money collected using TR5 receipts is to

be entered in Exts.P3 to P5 Fee Acceptance Registers. At

the time of audit conducted at Sub RT Office,

Neyyattinkara, it was revealed that the accused had not

returned TR5 receipt books issued to him. So the accused

was asked to return the TR5 receipt books, and accordingly

he returned all TR5 receipt books. After conducting audit,

the Audit Officer attached to the office of Accountant

General, prepared Ext.P10 report. Another audit team

conducted audit at the office of PW1 and they prepared

Ext.P11 report. It is stated in Ext.P11 that the accused has

not remitted the full amount which he had collected.

13. PW2 testified that the accused had worked at Sub

RT Office, Neyyattinkiara, where she had also worked as

Head Accountant. The used TR5 receipt book, after its 2025:KER:75975

exhaustion, would be handed over to the Head Accountant.

When the accused was relieved of his duty from the office

of Sub RT Office, Neyvattinkara, he did not return 26

numbers of TR5 receipt books issued to the accused from

the Store Section to PW2. When notice of inspection was

received from the Office of Accountant General, it was

found that the TR5 receipt books returned by the accused

did not tally with the books actually issued to the accused

from the Store Section. PW2 had informed the Transport

Commissioner regarding this anomaly. Later, the accused

returned all TR5 receipt books to PW2. Page No.15 of Ext.P6

would show that Ext.P7 TR5 book was issued to the

accused and the accused put his signature in Ext.P6

acknowledging the receipt of Ext.P7. It is evident from page

No.16 of Ext. P6 that on 20.05.2002, the accused put

signature in Ext.P6 acknowledging the receipt of Ext.P7(a).

The accused put signature in page No.20 of Ext.P6 on

26.07.2002, admitting that he received Ext.P7(b). It is

evident from page No.21 of Ext.P6 that the accused had put

signature therein on 28.08.2002 acknowledging the receipt 2025:KER:75975

of Ext.P7(c). The accused put his signature in page No.23 of

Ext.P6 on 17.10.2002 acknowledging the receipt of

Ext.P7(d). The accused has put his signature in page No.23

of Ext.P6 on 25.10.2002 acknowledging the receipt of

Ext.P7(e). It is evident from page No.23 of Ext. P6 that the

accused, on 01.11.2002, put his signature therein

acknowledging the receipt of Ext.P7(f). It is also evident

from page No.26 of Ext.P6 that the accused put his

signature on 09.01.2003 acknowledging the receipt of

Ext.P7(g). The accused put his signature in page No.28 of

Ext. P6 on 19.02.2003 acknowledging the receipt of

Ext.P7(h).

14. PW3 also given evidence in support of the

prosecution. According to her, she had been working as

Clerk at Sub RT Office, Neyyattinkara during the period

from August 2001 to June 2005. She had worked at the

cash counter, where tax and fees were collected. The

accused was working as AMVI at the said office. The money

collected by AMVI using TR5 receipt book towards fees and

fine would be handed over to the Clerk at fee counter.

2025:KER:75975

When PW3 was working at the counter, the accused had

handed over money collected by him to PW3. The amount

given to the counter will be acknowledged on the last office

copy of used TR5 receipts. Such acknowledgment was seen

on the rear side of the receipt No.3 in Ext.P7. In Ext.P3 at

page No.77, it was written that a sum of Rs.20,000/- was

received from the accused towards compounding fee. From

page Nos.147 and 323 of Ext.P3 it could be seen that, PW3

had received money from the accused on 01.06.2002 and

30.07.2002. Ext.P4 would show that PW3 had received

money from the accused on 02.11.2002, 03.01.2003 and

10.01.2003. Ext.P5 also would show that on 10.02.2003,

PW3 had received remittance from the accused.

15. PW4, who was working as U.D. Clerk at Sub RT

Office, Neyyattinkara, testified that he had worked at the

cash counter and he had received money collected by the

accused using TR5 receipt. PWs 7,8 and 9 are familiar to

PW4. The handwriting in receipt Nos.5 to 31 in Ext.P7(a)

would show that money was collected by PW8 using receipt

Nos.5 to 31 contained in Ext.P7(a). Receipt Nos. 29, 30, 34, 2025:KER:75975

35 and 37 contained in Ext.P7(h) would show that PW7 had

collected money using the said receipts. Receipt No.86

contained in Ext.P7(h) would show that PW9 had collected

the amount shown in the said receipt. PW4 is familiar with

the handwriting of the accused and PWs 7 to 9. From the

handwriting in the other receipts in Exts.P7 to P7(h) would

show that the money as per those receipts was collected by

the accused.

16. PW5, who was working as L.D. Clerk at Sub RT

Office, Neyyattinkara, given evidence that the accused is

familiar to him. PW5 had worked as Cashier at the counter

and store clerk at the said office. While he was working as

Store Clerk, he had issued TR5 receipt books to the accused

also. The Store Clerk was keeping Stock Register. Ext.P6

Stock Register was being maintained by the Store Clerk at

Store Section. When PW5 was working as Cashier at the

counter, he had received fine collected by the accused,

from the accused. It is evident from page No.171 of Ext.P4

that on 12.11.2002, PW5 had received remittance from the

accused. It is also evident from page No.84 of Ext.P5 that 2025:KER:75975

on 04.03.2003, PW5 had received remittance from the

accused. It is apparent from page No.20 of Ext.P6 that on

27.07.2002, PW5 issued Ext.P7(b) to the accused. It is also

evident from page No.21 of Ext. P6 that on 28.08.2002,

PW5 issued Ext.P7(c) to the accused. It is evident from

page No.23 of Ext. P6 that on 17.10.2002, PW5 issued

Ext.P7(d) to the accused. It is also evident from the

aforesaid page that on 25.10.2002, PW5 issued Ext.P7(e) to

the accused and that on 01.11.2002, PW5 issued Ext.P7(f)

to the accused. It is evident from page No.26 of Ext.P6 that

on 09.01.2003, PW5 issued Ext.P7(g) to the accused and it

is apparent from page No.28 of Ext.P6 that on 19.2.2003,

PW5 issued Ext.P7(h) to the accused. The accused had

received Exts.P7 to P7(h) putting his initials in Ext.P6.

17. PW6 deposed that, while he was working as U.D.

Clerk at Sub RT Office, Neyyattinkara during the period

from February, 1999 to August, 2003, he had been holding

the charge of Store Section. According to him, as per page

No.15 of Ext.P6, on 17.04.2002, PW6 issued Ext.P7 to the

accused, who received the same putting his initial in Ext.P6.

2025:KER:75975

He deposed further that, from page No.16 of Ext.P6 it was

discernible that on 20.05.2002, PW6 issued Ext.P7(a) to the

accused, who received the same putting his initial in Ext.P6.

He testified further that, it is written in page No.46 of

Ext.P5 that on 14.02.2003, PW6 had received remittance

from the accused and on that date PW6 was working as

Clerk at the counter. PW7 given evidence that he had been

working as MVI at Sub RT Office, Neyvattinkara during the

period from 30.05.2002 to December, 2003. The accused

was familiar to him. The accused and PWs 8 and 9 were

working as AMVI, when PW7 was working at the said office.

The receipt Nos.29, 30, 34, 35 and 37 in Ext.P7(h) were

written by PW7. The amount collected by PW7 on the basis

of the aforesaid receipts was handed over to the accused,

who was the custodian of Ext.P7(h). The accused was liable

to remit the said amount in the office. When PW7 was

conducting checking, he received the aforesaid receipts

from the accused as the TR5 receipt book issued to PW7

was exhausted.

18. PW8 deposed that he had been working as AMVI 2025:KER:75975

at Sub RT Office, Neyyattinkara since 01.06.2002. The

accused was also working at the said office. The receipt

Nos.5 to 31 in Ext.P7(a) were written by PW8, when the

learners driving test was conducted. ExtP7(a) was issued to

the accused. As per the aforesaid receipts a sum of

Rs.3,690/- was collected by PW8. The said amount was

handed over to the accused, who was the custodian of

Ext.P7(a), for remitting the same in the office. It was

endorsed on the rear of Receipt No.31 that the said amount

was handed over to the accused. PW8 returned Ext.P7(a) to

the accused. All other receipts in Ext.P7(a) were written by

the accused.

19. The evidence of PW9 is that, he was working as

AMVI at Sub RT Office, Neyyattinkara in 2003. The accused

had worked as AMVI with PW9. Ext.P7(h) TR5 Book was

issued to the accused. PW9 received receipt No.86 in

Ext.P7(h) from the accused and the same was written by

PW9 as he was not in possession of TR5 receipt book issued

to him, when checking was conducted. The amount

collected on the basis of the said receipt was handed over 2025:KER:75975

to the accused, who was liable to remit the said amount in

the office.

20. PW10, who has been working as Accounts Officer

at the office of Transport Commissioner, Motor Vehicle

Department, Thiruvananthapuram, deposed that he was

the head of the Internal Audit Team, who conducted a

detailed enquiry on the non remittance of Government

money by the accused during his tenure at Sub RT Office,

Neyyattinkara, for the period from 17.04.2002 to

25.06.2004. After conducting the detailed enquiry, PW10

prepared Ext.P11 enquiry report. Ext.P11 bears his

signature. As per the direction of the Transport

Commissioner, the inspection team consisting of PW10 and

other officials conducted inspection at three offices, where

the accused had worked. The irregularities committed by

the accused at Sub RT Office, Neyyattinkara, are stated in

para No.5 of Ext.P11. On inspection, it was revealed that

the accused had accepted 26 TR5 receipt books during the

period from 17.04.2002 to 25.06.2004. The said fact is

mentioned in Annexure-1 to Ext.P11. All the leaves of TR5 2025:KER:75975

books were verified one by one and the collection details

date were shown in Annexure-2 to Ext.P11. On inspection, it

was found that though TR5 book No.987/2002 was issued

to the accused as per the entry in Ext.P6, the said TR5 book

was not available for verification. It was revealed that the

accused had used TR5 receipt book No.1093, which was not

issued to the accused as per Ext.P6 and the accused had

collected money using the said receipt. The Inspection

Team reached a conclusion that the accused might have

used TR5 receipt book No.987/2002, which was issued to

him, writing the number of TR5 receipt book No.1093. On

verification of the records, it was found that the amount

collected by the accused using TR5 receipt at Sub RT Office,

Neyyattinkara was Rs.7,10,105/- (wrongly written in the

deposition of PW10 as Rs.7101955/-). However, the

accused had remitted only a sum of Rs.3,23,640/- from the

amount collected by him. The Internal Audit was conducted

following Ext.P10 report. As per Ext.P10, the amount

collected by the accused was Rs.7,44,470/-. However, the

amount remitted by the accused in both the reports is 2025:KER:75975

same. The amount collected under Exts.P7 to P7(h) is

Rs.19,260/-, 20,960/-, 10,820/-, 10,440/-, 11,560/-,

12,765/-, 31,010/-, 37,690/- and 43,250/- respectively. The

details of the remittance are shown in Annexure-3 to

Ext.P11. The remittance during the period from 22.04.2002

to 22.03.2003 is shown as Sl. Nos. 1 to 27 in Annexure-3.

21. In order to prove the prosecution sanction issued

by the Additional Transport Commissioner, he was

examined as PW11. He deposed that, while he was holding

the full additional charge of Transport Commissioner, on

06.05.2008 issued Ext.P13 prosecution sanction as per

order dated 05.05.2008 in tune with Clause (C) of sub

section (1) of Section 19 of the P.C. Act, for the prosecution

of the accused for the offences punishable under S.13(2)

read with S.13(1)(c) of P.C. Act and S.409, 420, 465, 468,

471 and 477-A of I.P.C. Ext.P13 would reveal that PW11

meticulously gone through the prosecution records and

applied his mind, while issuing Ext.P13. In fact, no

challenge raised insofar as sanction is concerned.

22. The prosecution examined PW12, who was the 2025:KER:75975

Assistant Director (Documents) at Forensic Science

Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram, on 31.01.2006, to prove

Ext.P14 FSL report. She testified that, she had examined

the questioned documents and standard documents

received from the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,

Nevyattinkara, in the FSL, Thiruvananthapuram, and she

prepared Ext.P14 report. Exts.P15 to P15(x) are the

Standard documents referred to as Document Nos.S1 to

S25 in Ext.P14. PW12 deposed that, her opinion was that,

the person who wrote the blue enclosed standard writings

and signatures stamped and marked A1 to A3 and S1 to

S25 probably also wrote the red enclosed questioned

writings and signatures similarly stamped and marked Q2

and Q2(a). Q2 and Q2(a) are Receipt No.10 in TR Receipt

Book No.19/2003 and receipt No.10 in TR Receipt Book

No.185/2003. 27 number of TR5 Receipt Books were

received in the laboratory for examination, requested the

court to minimize the questioned items, considering the

said request Q2 and Q2(a) out of the receipts in TR5 Books

were forwarded by the court for examination. It is true that, 2025:KER:75975

as regards to red enclosed questioned signatures stamped

and marked as (Q) and Q(a) to Q(c), PW12 deposed that, it

was not possible to arrive at a conclusion. Thus, the

evidence of PW12 and Ext.P14 is not fully in support of the

prosecution case. However, as regards to (Q) and Q(a), the

expert opined that the same were not that of the accused.

Indubitably, the law is well settled that expert evidence is

only an opinion evidence of corroborative nature and in the

absence of corroborative evidence, substantive evidence

could be safely relied on to prove a fact in issue.

23. PW13, who was working as Dy.S.P. at the Unit of

VACB, Thiruvananthapuram on 06.09.2005, testified that as

instructed by the Director of VACB, he had inspected the

Documents concerned in Crime No.736/2004 of

Neyyattinkara Police Station and on the basis of those

documents PW13 registered this case as Crime No.

VC.7/2005/Tvpm and Ext.P16 is the FIR. The evidence of

PW14, who was working as Circle Inspector of Police at

Neyyattinkara on 08.10.2004, would show that on the

aforesaid date, he took over the investigation into crime

No.736/2004 of Neyyattinkara Police Station, which was 2025:KER:75975

registered by PW17, Sub Inspector of Police.

24. It was PW14, who took Exts.P2 to P7(h) produced

by PW1 from his office on 19.11.2004 into custody under

Ext.P17 inventory, and that on the aforesaid date, PW1

produced Exts.P8 to P8(b) before PW14 who took the same

into custody under Ext.P18 inventory. The evidence of

PW14 also shows that on 24.11.2004, he arrested the

accused. Ext. P19 is the sale deed which was taken into

custody by PW14 under Ext.P20 mahazar, on the basis of

the information received from the accused. It is also

evident from the evidence of PW14 that Exts.P15 to P15(f)

are the specimen writings of the accused taken at the office

of PW14 in the presence of the witnesses, that on

29.11.2004, PW14 took Ext.P9 order produced by PW1, into

custody under Ext. P21 inventory, and that PW14 submitted

the forwarding note to the Court requesting to send the

questioned writings and specimen writings to the FSL.

According to PW14, as the Director of FSL had requested

the Court to send TR5 receipts minimizing the same,

receipt No.10 from TR5 Receipt Book No.19/2003 and 2025:KER:75975

receipt No.10 from TR5 Receipt Book No.183/2003 were

sent to the FSL. The evidence of PW14 is that he had

recorded the statements of the witnesses and that as per

the order of DGP, the case was handed over to VACB on

13.07.2005.

25. The evidence of PW15, who was working as

Inspector at the Unit of VACB, Thiruvananthapuram on

12.09.2005, shows that he took over the investigation into

this case on the aforesaid date, that he filed a report in the

Magistrate Court, Neyyattinkara, requesting to forward the

documents concerned in this case, filed in the Magistrate

Court and that on 18.05.2006, he took Ext.P11 report

produced by the Senior Superintendent attached to the

office of the Transport Commissioner into custody under

Ext.P22 Inventory. According to PW15, on the same date, he

took Ext.P10 report produced by the Joint RTO attached to

the office of PW1 into custody under Ext. P12 inventory. The

evidence of PW16, who was working as Dy.S.P. at the Unit of

VACB, Thiruvananthapuram, on 23.09.2009, shows that on

the aforesaid date, he verified the records of this case and 2025:KER:75975

he prepared the final report and submitted the same to the

Court. Ext.P23 is the report filed by CW34, Inspector in the

Court deleting the Sections of offences, namely, 418, 466

and 474 of IPC and incorporating Section 477-A of IPC. The

evidence of PW16 shows that 3 split charge sheets were

prepared in respect of the several instances of

misappropriation committed by the accused and those split

charge sheets were submitted to the Court and this case is

related to one of the split charge sheets. Crl.Appeal

Nos.140 of 2013 and 141 of 2013, disposed of today are

the other two cases arose out of the other two split charge

viz. C.C. No.26 of 2009 and 27 of 2009. The evidence of

PW16 also shows that, the allegation in this case is that,

the accused had collected a total amount of Rs.1,97,755/-

using TR5 receipts contained in Exts. P7 to P7(h) during the

period from 18.04.2002 to 30.03.2003 and out of the said

amount the accused remitted only Rs.64,040/- in the office,

and he dishonestly misappropriated the balance amount of

Rs.1,33,715/-. The evidence of PW17, who was working as

Sub Inspector of Police at Neyyattinkara Police Station on 2025:KER:75975

07.10.2004, shows that on the aforesaid date, he registered

a case as Crime No.736/2004 under Sections 409, 408, 418,

464, 466 and 456 of IPC on the basis of Ext.P1 letter sent

by PW1 and Ext.P24 is the FIR.

26. Ext.D1 is the photo copy of the chalan. Exts. D2

to D4 are the photo copies of the circular Nos.1/79, 12/92

and 14/98 of the Transport Commissioner. Ext.D5 is the

photo copy of page No.40 of Kerala Treasury Code, Vol.I,

Part II, containing Rule 90 of the Kerala Treasury Code.

27. In this matter, the allegation of the prosecution is

that, while the accused had been working as AMVI at Sub

RT Office, Neyyattinkara, during the period from 17.04.2002

to 24.06.2004, he had misappropriated a total amount of

Rs.4,39,525/- during the said period out of the amount

collected towards fees and fines using TR5 receipts which

were issued to him from the Store Section. As the accused

committed several instances of misappropriation three

separate charge sheets were submitted to the Court, as

already discussed and this case is related to one of the split

charge sheets covering the period from 18.04.2002 to 2025:KER:75975

30.03.2003. It is the allegation of the prosecution that, the

accused while working as AMVI at Sub RT Office,

Neyyattinkara during the period from 18.04.2002 to

30.03.2003, he had collected an amount of Rs.1,97,755/-

being the fees and fines directly and through other officials

using TR5 receipts issued to him and out of the said

amount, he remitted only Rs.64,040/- and he dishonestly

misappropriated the balance amount of Rs.1,33,715/-,

which was under his control.

28. On thorough scrutiny of the evidence of PWs 1 to

9 and Exts.P2 and P9, it is discernible that, the accused

while working as AMVI at Sub RT Office, Neyyattinkara,

during the period from 17.04.2002 to 24.06.2004 and the

allegation of misappropriation was from 18.04.2002 to

30.03.2003. The accused also did not dispute that he had

not worked as AMVI at Sub RT Office, Neyyattinkara during

the above period, otherwise the same is substantially

proved by the evidence discussed in detail.

29. The Audit Wing of the Accountant General

conducted audit at Sub RT Office, Neyyattinkara and the 2025:KER:75975

Audit Officer attached to the office of Accountant General

prepared Ext.P10 Audit Report. The accused joined Sub RT

Office, Neyyattinkara as AMVI on 17.04.2002 and was

relieved of his duty from that office on 25.06.2004,

pursuant to an order of transfer. Ext.P10 would show that

the accused had collected a total amount of Rs.7,44,470/

during the aforesaid period and he remitted only

Rs.3,23,640/- in the office and he failed to remit the

balance amount of Rs.4,20,830/. On the basis of Ext.P10,

PW1 sent Ext.P1 letter to PW17, who registered a case as

Crime No.736/2004 for the offences punishable under

Sections 409, 408, 418, 464, 466 and 468 of IPC at

Neyyattinkara Police Station. Ext.P24 is the FIR. After

registering the case, PW14 investigated the case. While so,

as directed by the DGP, this case was subsequently handed

over by PW14 to VACB. Subsequently, PW13 registered this

case as VC.7/2005/Tvpm, on the direction of the Director of

VACB. Thereafter, PWs 15 and 16 conducted investigation

into this case and after the completion of the investigation

PW16 submitted the final report to this Court.

2025:KER:75975

30. The Special Court, after considering the

evidence, found that, in this case, the money collected by

the accused using TR5 receipts during the period from

18.4.2002 to 30.3.2003 is relevant. It has already been

found that the accused had collected money during the

aforesaid period, using the receipts in Exts.P7 to P7(h). The

evidence of PW10 shows that the amount collected as per

Ext.P7 was Rs.19,260/-, the amount collected as per

Ext.P7(a) was Rs.20,960/-, the amount collected as per

Ext.P7(b) was Rs.10,820/-, the amount collected as per

Ext.P7(c) was Rs.10,440/-, the amount collected as per

Ext. P7(d) was Rs.11,560/-, the amount collected as per

Ext.P7(e) was Rs.12,765/-, the amount collected as per

Ext.P7(f) was Rs.31,010/-, the amount collected as per

Ext.P7(g) was Rs.37,690/-, and the amount collected as per

Ext. P7(h) was Rs.43,250/-. The total amount collected as

per Exts.P7 to P7(h) comes to Rs.1,97,755/-. Out of the said

amount, the accused had remitted only Rs.64,040/-. The

balance amount which was not remitted by the accused

was Rs.1,33,715/-.

2025:KER:75975

31. Before conclusion, it is relevant to consider what

are the essentials to be proved to complete an offence

under Section 409 of IPC. In the decision reported in

[(2012) 8 SCC 547 : AIR 2012 SC 3242] Sadhupati

Nageswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh , the Apex

Court held that, in order to sustain a conviction under

section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, 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 requirement to bring home the accusations under

section 405 IPC are the requirements to prove conjointly (i)

entrustment and (ii) whether the accused 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.

32. That apart, it is also the essential requirement

that, it should be shown that the accused has acted in the 2025:KER:75975

capacity of a public servant, banker, merchant, factor,

broker, attorney or agent, as held by the Apex Court in the

decision reported in [2015 CrLJ 4040 : (2015) 3 SCC

(Cri) 724 : (2015) 8 Scale 95], Robert John D'Souza v.

Stephen V Gomes.

33. It is equally the well settled law that, once it is

proved by the prosecution that there was entrustment of

property and there was no proper accounting of the

entrusted property, then the burden is on the accused to

prove that there was no misappropriation and to explain

what happened to the property so entrusted. When the

accused fails to discharge his burden or failed to explain or

account for the misappropriated property, the accused is

said to have committed the offences of criminal breach of

trust and misappropriation. The fraudulent intention of the

accused could be inferred from the attending circumstances

from the evidence adduced and the same could not always

be proved by direct evidence. Thus, the law on the point is

that, prosecution has the duty to prove entrustment of

property to the accused and then it is the duty of the

accused to account for the same or to explain the same. The 2025:KER:75975

same ingredients of criminal breach of trust and

misappropriation have to be proved by the prosecution for

convicting the accused for the offences punishable under

Sections 13(1)(c) of the P.C. Act, 1988 as well. Decisions

reported in Jaikrishnadas Manohardas Desai and

Another v. State of Bombay, 1960 KHC 694: AIR 1960 SC

889: 1960 (3) SCR 319: 1960 CriLJ 1250, Krishan Kumar v.

Union of India, 1959 KHC 635: AIR 1959 SC 1390: 1960 (1)

SCR 452: 1959 CriLJ 1508, State of Kerala v. Vasudevan

Namboodiri,- 1987 KHC 518: 1987 (2) KLT 541: 1987 KLJ

270: 1987 (1) KLT SN 7, Bagga Singh v. State of Punjab,-

1996 KHC 3288: 1996 CriLJ 2883 (SC), Vishwa Nath v.

State of J. & K, 1983 KHC 420: AIR 1983 SC 174: 1983 (1)

SCC 215: 1983 SCC (Cri) 173: 1983 CriLJ 231, Om Nath Puri

v. State of Rajasthan, 1972 KHC 414: AIR 1972 SC 1490 :

1972 (1) SCC 630: 1972 SCC (Cri) 359: 1972 (3) SCR 497:

1972 CriLJ 897, T. Ratnadas v. State of Kerala,- 1999 KHC

2074: 1999 CriLJ 1488, State of Rajasthan v. Kesar

Singh,1969 CriLJ 1595, Roshen Lal Raina v. State of

Jammu & Kashmir, 1983 KHC 584: 1983 (2) SCC 429: AIR

1983 SC 631: 1983 SCC (Cri) 533: 1983 CriLJ) 975 and 2025:KER:75975

Raghavan K v. State of Kerala, 2012 KHC 420 are in

support of this view.

34. On evaluation of the evidence, it would appear

that, the misappropriation done by the accused, who was

entrusted with Ext.P7 to P7(h) TR5 receipts is well

established beyond reasonable doubt, from the substantive

evidence available, though Ext.P14, expert opinion is not

fully in support of the prosecution. Even though, it is argued

by the learned counsel for the accused that, since the

expert report at the option of PW12 did not support the

prosecution allegation, the same is fatal to the prosecution,

it is well settled law that, insufficiency of opinion evidence

being corroborative in nature would not make the

substantive evidence discussed in abundance unbelievable,

as substantive evidence would stand independently and

corroborative evidence would not stand independently,

without the aid of substantive evidence.

35. It is true that, the TR5 receipts entrusted to the

accused were used by PWs 3, 4 and 7 to 9 and they also

collected small amounts of fees and fines using the said

TR5 receipts. But, they had given consistent evidence 2025:KER:75975

supported by documents marked, with the aid of PW2, the

Head Accountant that, the small amount so collected using

the said TR5 receipts were entrusted back to the accused

and the said evidence is not shaken.

36. In the instant case, as already discussed, the

entrustment of TR5 receipts and amount alleged to be

collected by the accused are proved by the prosecution and

the accused has no explanation otherwise to justify that he

did not misappropriate the amounts, as alleged by the

prosecution.

37. Point Nos.3 and 4:- Thus, on reappreciation of

evidence, it could be gathered that, the prosecution

evidence categorically established commission of offences

punishable under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) of the P.C.

Act and under Section 409 of IPC, by the accused, beyond

reasonable doubt as found by the Special Court. Therefore,

the conviction imposed against the accused by the Special

Court does not require any interference.

38. Coming to the sentence, the same seems to be

very reasonable considering the gravity of the offences.

Therefore, I am inclined to confirm the sentence imposed by 2025:KER:75975

the Special Court, as such. Therefore, the verdict impugned

does not require any interference and in such view of the

matter, the appeal must fail.

39. In the result, this criminal appeal stands

dismissed. All interlocutory applications pending in this

appeal stand dismissed.

40. The order suspending sentence and granting bail

to the appellant shall stand vacated and the bail bond

executed by the appellant/accused stands cancelled. The

appellant/accused is directed to surrender before the Special

Court and to undergo the sentence, within two weeks from

today, failing which, the special court shall execute the

sentence, without fail.

Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment

to the Special Court, forthwith, for information and further

steps.

Sd/-

A. BADHARUDEEN SK JUDGE