Kerala High Court
Jayasree Rajkumar vs Inspect Of Police on 8 September, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 17TH BHADRA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 1562 OF 2011
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.07.2011 IN CC NO.1 OF 2004 OF
SPECIAL JUDGE, SPE/CBI) II, ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
JAYASREE RAJKUMAR,
KANVEEDU PARAMBU, NEAR CHINMAYA VIDYALAYA,
THONDAYADU, CALICUT-16.
BY ADV SHRI.MARTIN G.THOTTAN
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
1 INSPECTOR OF POLICE
CBI/SPE, COCHIN,
REPRESENTED BY STANDING COUNSEL FOR CBI.
ADDL.2 DEPARTMENT OF POSTS REPRESENTED BY SENIOR
SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES
CALICUT DIVISION, CALICUT.
(IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 06.08.2025 IN I.A.1/2025
IN CRL.A.1562/2011)
BY ADVS.
SRI. SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR, SPL.P.P. FOR C.B.I.
SHRI.SUVIN R.MENON, SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL
SREELAL N. WARRIER, SC, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE
SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA S FOR VACB
SPECIALL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI RAJESH A FOR VACB
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.08.2025,
THE COURT ON 08.09.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:66599
Crl.Appeal No.1562/2011 2
"C.R"
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
================================
Crl.Appeal No.1562 of 2011-A
================================
Dated this the 8th day of September, 2025
JUDGMENT
The sole accused in C.C.No.1 of 2004 on the files of the Enquiry
Commissioner and Special Judge, (SPE/CBI) II, Ernakulam, is the
appellant herein and he assails judgment in the above case dated
25.07.2011. The respondent herein is the Inspector of Police, CBI/SPE,
Cochin, represented by the Special Public Prosecutor for C.B.I.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused as
well as the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI. Also heard the
learned Standing Counsel representing for the 2nd additional
respondent/defacto complainant in this case.
3. Perused the judgment under challenge as well as the
records of the Special Court and the decisions placed by both sides.
2025:KER:66599
4. I shall refer the parties in this appeal as `prosecution' as
well as `accused' for easy reference.
5. In this case the prosecution alleges commission of
offences punishable under Sections 409 and 477A of the Indian Penal
Code (`IPC' for short) as well as under Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read
with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (`PC Act' for
short hereinafter), by the accused. The prosecution allegation is that the
accused while working as Sub Postmaster in the Sub Post Office, Pulpally,
misappropriated Rs.2,73,318.65 in between May, 2002 to March, 2003,
which was entrusted to her in her official capacity, by abusing her official
position.
6. When final report alleging commission of the above said
offences was filed before the Special Court, the court took cognizance of
the matter and proceed with the trial on completing the pre trial
formalities. During trial, PW1 to PW20 were examined and Exts.P1 to
P73 were marked. Then the accused was questioned under Section 313(1)
(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C' for short). Even though
opportunity was given to the accused to adduce defense evidence, no
2025:KER:66599
defense evidence adduced.
7. On considering the contentions raised by prosecution and
the contentions raised by the defence, the Special Court found that the
accused committed offences punishable under Sections 409 and 477A of
the IPC as well as under Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read with Section
13(2) of the PC Act. Accordingly she was sentenced for the said offences.
8. The learned counsel for the accused, who assailed the
verdict, vehemently canvassed that on perusal of the evidence available, it
is discernible that PW13 examined in this case Sri Joseph Pazhayathottam,
also worked along with the accused as Money Order Clerk at Pulpally Sub
Post Office from January, 2002 to March, 2003 and he was the joint
custodian of the money alleged to have misappropriated by the accused.
According to the learned counsel for the accused, when the entrustment of
money is in the joint custody of the accused and PW13, avoidance of
PW13 from the liability and fastening the entire liability upon the accused
could not be justified, since the liability of the joint custodian is also
involved in the allegation of misappropriation. It is pointed out that since
the joint custodian was excluded from the penal consequences, it is not
2025:KER:66599
right to conclude that misappropriation regarding the shortage of Rs.
2,73,318.65 was done by the accused. Further that shadows doubt in the
prosecution case.
9. It is argued further that excluding the evidence to find
joint liability of the accused along with PW13, the prosecution has given
reliance on Exts.P2 and Ext.P16 confession statements dated 26.03.2003
and 27.03.2003, though proved through PW4 and PW7, the same could not
be acted upon to fasten criminal liability upon the accused, since the same
was obtained by inducement, threat or promise as provided under Section
24 of the Indian Evidence Act. According to the learned counsel for the
accused, in so far as the proof as to whether the confession statement was
recorded by inducement, threat or promise, the test of proof is that there is
such a high degree of probability that a prudent man would act on the
presumption that the thing is true. In this connection, the learned counsel
placed decision of this Court reported in [AIR 1965 Ker 175 : 1965 CriLJ
102], Abraham Varghese v. State of Kerala.
10. Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the
CBI opposed the contentions and argued that even though PW13 had given
2025:KER:66599
evidence that he also was the joint custodian of the assets of Post Office,
Pulppally, his evidence would show that he used to keep the key of the
Iron safe, where the money and articles to be kept in his drawer and also
he used to leave the office at 6 p.m, and the calculation and keeping of the
stamps and money would usually done in between 9-9.30 and 10 during
night. It is pointed out by the learned Special Public Prosecutor further
that, as per his own evidence, supported by Ext.P6, on 15.03.2003,
17.03.2003, 19.03.2003, 20.03.2003, 21.03.2003, 22.03.2003 and
24.03.2003 he did not sign in the SO Account. Thus it is pointed out that,
in fact, PW13, who, at the time of evidence initially stated that he had
memory loss and never dealt with the money and it was the accused who
dealt with the cash and she misappropriated the same. This is the reason
why CBI avoided him from the array of accused. According to the learned
Special Public Prosecutor, in order to apply Section 24 of the Evidence
Act and to make the confession statements at the instance of the accused
are irrelevant, inducement, threat or promise should be established by the
materials available. In the instant case, the Assistant Superintendent of
Post Office inspected the Post Office, Pulpally on 26.03.2003 and on
2025:KER:66599
26.03.3003 itself, on noticing the deficiency in the cash the accused
written a confession statement Ext.P2 stating that she had misappropriated
the amount. On the next day also she had given Ext.P16 statement and as
per this confession statement she agreed to repay the money and thereby
FIR was registered after delay. Therefore, the petitioner couldn't go out of
the confession statements and even ignoring the confession statements,
independent evidence available would suggest that the accused was the
custodian of the stamps and money of the Post Office, Pulpally during the
relevant period and she misappropriated the same. Therefore, conviction
and sentence imposed by the Special Court would require no interference.
In view of the rival arguments, the points arise for consideration are:
(i) Whether the trial court went wrong in holding that the accused
committed offence punishable under Section 409 of IPC?
(ii) Whether the trial court is justified in holding that the accused
committed offence punishable under Section 477 of IPC?
(iii) Whether the trial court went wrong in holding that the
accused committed offence punishable under Section 13(1)(c) read with
13(2) of the PC Act?
iv) Whether the trial court is justified in holding that the accused
committed offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of
the PC Act?
2025:KER:66599
v) Whether it is necessary to interfere with the verdict under
challenge?
(iv) The order to be passed?
Point Nos.(i) to (iv)
11. In this case PW1 examined is P.K.Madhavan, the
Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Sub Division during 2003.
According to him, he was given charge to inspect and do statistical
verification of Post Offices as authorised by the Senior Superintendent,
Kozhikode Division. He testified that Pulpally Sub Post Office is under the
Sub Division of Kalpetta, within his jurisdiction. Sub Postmaster is the
head of Sub Post office. Sub Post Officer is entrusted with the duties of
day to day works to be controlled independently. The Superintendent was
given power to keep cash upto a minimum and there was account for the
Sub Post Office in Canara Bank. According to him, he received an error
entry of the Head Post Master, Kalpetta and he visited the Pulpally Sub
Post Office on 26.03.2003. During the said period, the Sub Post Master
was Smt.Jayasree Rajkumar, the accused (he identified the accused at the
dock). Thereafter he verified the account, cash and stamps in the presence
of the accused and it was found that an amount of Rs.2,73,000/- shown as
2025:KER:66599
balance, as per the account book on the previous day, was in deficit and he
informed the cash shortage to the Senior Superintendent, Kozhikode
Division through phone. Later, Senior Superintendent of Post Officer,
Kozhikode Division George along with his inspection party reached
Pulpally Post Office to make the accused as a witness in the said
investigation and then he informed about the shortage in cash to the
accused. During inspection he found that the accused taken the money for
her personal needs and he noted the balance as on 26.03.2003. According
to him, the maximum amount the Sub Post Master could keep during the
relevant period was Rs 50,000/- and the minimum was Rs.30,000/-. Excess
amount would be deposited in Canara Bank and later in times of need the
same could be withdrawn. He deposed that an iron cash safe was available
in the Sub Post Office and joint custodians were there to manage the iron
cash safe. He deposed further that Jose Pazhathottam (PW13) was one
among the joint custodians and both of them have their own independent
keys. He deposed about the error entry forwarded with regard to the Sub
Post Office, Pulpally, addressed to Sri A.Gopalan and Kunjumuhammed,
Head Postmasters. According to him, since Post Office, Pulpally is a
2025:KER:66599
Lower Selection Grade (LSG), the Sub Post Master would keep only
Rs.30,000/-, the minimum amount. According to him, regarding this
shortage, Sri Jaffar, Jose Pazhamthottam, the accused and Murali had
given statements to him. Thereafter as directed by the Division Senior
Superintendent he carried out investigation and conducted verification of
transactions during the said period in detail and he prepared a report for
the same as Ext.P1 and the same was signed by witnesses. He also
deposed about the confession statement written by the accused as on
26.03.2003 in the presence of T.K.Ramakrishnan, Post Master, Pulpally, a
witness, after identifying the same as Ext.P2 and he deposed that the
handwriting in Ext.P2 was that of the accused. According to him, he had
verified the account from 29.08.2001 to 26.03.2003 and the said
documents were marked as Exts.P3, P4 and P5. He also deposed in detail
in support of the prosecution.
12. PW2 examined in this case is Kunjumuhammed. He was
the Post Master, Kalpetta from 21.03.2003 and he deposed about the
procedure for keeping cash and stamps. PW3 examined in this case is Sri
C.P George, the Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Postal Division,
2025:KER:66599
during 2003. His evidence is that he received Ext.P13, copy of letter
addressed to SPM, Pulpally by the Kalpetta Post Master and he instructed
PW1 to make a surprise inspection in Sub Post Office, Pulpally and he
carried out surprise inspection on 26.03.2003 and reported deficiency of
Rs.2,73,318/-. Then the same was brought to the notice of the accused.
Soon she confessed that she had taken Rs.2,73,318/- for her personal use
and no others have any role in this. According to him, when the accused
was asked about her statement, she stated that accounts examined by PW2
were correct and she had taken the money for her personal use. According
to PW3, admitting these facts the accused given Ext.P16 statement. Later
K.Jaffar was posted as the Sub Postmaster. He had given evidence
regarding taking up of charge by Jaffar etc. On his inspection he found
that Jose Pazhathottam (PW13) kept the key of the iron safe without
locking the same in the drawer of his table and the same was admitted by
PW13 and by the accused in her Ext.P16 confession statement. He also
deposed that disciplinary action was taken against Jose in this regard.
13. PW4 examined in this case worked as Officer, Canara
Bank, Pulpally Branch from 1993 to 2003 and he deposed explaining the
2025:KER:66599
procedure in the matter of deposits and withdrawals made by the
Postmasters. He also deposed that the account of the Pulpally Sub Post
Office maintained with the Pulpally branch vide account No.171 was in
operation from June, 2002 to March, 2003. He also deposed about getting
specific signature when a new Postmaster would be appointed and it was
possible to operate the bank account by the accused in the presence of
PW4 from 28.05.2002 through Ext.P20 signature card marked. He also
deposed about withdrawal as shown in Ext.P20 series periodically.
14. PW6, who worked as Acting Postal Assistant at Pulpally
Post Office during March, 2003, deposed that he was present when PW1
conducted surprise visit at Pulpally Sub Post Office and when he prepared
Ext.P1(a) inventory regarding the cash and stamps available there.
15. PW7, who was working as Post Man at the Pulpally Post
Office from July, 2009 witnessed the surprise check at Pulpally Post
Office by PW1 and he also signed in Ext.P2 confession statement given by
the accused. PW8 to PW11 also supported the versions of the other
witnesses. It was through PW17 the Postal Assistant, Pulpally Sub Post
Office from 19.04.199 to July, 2003. Exts.P12 series, P16 series, P18
2025:KER:66599
series, P22 series, P28 series, P31 series, P62 series, P63 series, P64 series,
47-49 series, 51 series and 52-59 series were marked. Apart from that,
Exts.P32, P33, P34, P35, P36, P37, 43, 43A, 65 and Exts.P65 and P65A
also marked by PW17 to show that as on 26.03.2003 the unclaimed
balance alleged to be misappropriated by the accused would come to
Rs.2,73,318/-.
16. The sanction to prosecute the accused in this case got
marked as Ext.P66 was proved through PW18, who had given the said
sanction. During cross examination, nothing asked to PW18 challenging
the sanction. Despite that, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed
decision of the Apex Court reported in [(2016) 3 SCC (Cri) 316],
T.K.Ramesh Kumar v. State through Police Inspector, with reference to
paragraph 17 to contend that the sanctioning authority should apply his
mind and verify prosecution records carefully while granting sanction to
prosecute the accused herein. In fact, this challenge has no relevance in
the instant case since the sanction was not at all challenged while cross
examining PW18. Otherwise on perusal of Ext.P66, it was issued by
applying mind by PW18 on perusal of the prosecution records and on
2025:KER:66599
satisfying the necessity of the prosecution of the accused.
17. From the relevant evidence discussed, it could be
gathered that in between the period from 01.06.2002 to 26.03.2003 the
accused while working as Sub Postmaster in the Sub Post Office Pulpally,
she herself entered the necessary entries in SO account/SO daily account
which consists of Exts.P3, P4, P5, and P15 series, as deposed by PW17,
who worked under her, identifying her signature. The shortage as noted by
PW1 and verified by PW2 to the tune of Rs.2,73,318/- was not deposited
before the bank as deposed by the General Manager with reference to their
account. Ext.P13 would show the details of cash retained by the accused
Sub Postmaster, Pulpally as : 15.03.2003 - Rs.3,42,791.55; 17.03.2003 -
Rs.3,28,652.35; 18.03.2003 - Rs.3,39, 495.35; 19.03.2003 -
Rs.3,60,645.25; 20.03.2003 - Rs.3,39,711.50; 21.03.2003 -
Rs.3,23,441.50. PW2 was also sent to Sub Post Office, Pulpally as per
rules in order to seek explanation from the accused Sub Postmaster. The
evidence of PW1 read along with the relevant documents including Ext.P3
would show that the accused failed to deposit the amount in the bank and
the same was found in deficit on the date of inspection. The role of PW13,
2025:KER:66599
being the joint custodian, found in the negative by the investigating
officer. While addressing the role of PW13 on the premise of his joint
custodianship, the evidence would suggest that he used to put the key in
the drawer of his table and leave the office at 6 p.m even though
calculation and placement of the stamp and money in the iron safe would
be done in between 9-9.30 and 10 p.m. He, in fact, did not carefully done
his duty as joint custodian, for which disciplinary action was taken. Thus,
in fact, as evident from the records, it was the 1 st accused, who dealt with
the money and, therefore, the responsibility can be found independently
without support of Exts.P2 and P16 confession statements against her.
18. Even though it is argued by the learned counsel for the
accused that Ext.P2 confession statement given by the accused on
26.03.2003 and Ext.P16 statement signed on 27.03.2003 are the outcome
of inducement, threat, etc., the evidence would not support the said
contention as the first confession was made on the date of inspection in her
hand writting soon after the shortage was found without any compulsion
and as volunteered by the 1st accused and on the next day she had given
Ext.P16 confession in her handwriting acknowledging the liability on
2025:KER:66599
stating that the amount in shortage was taken by her for her personal
purpose. It is relevant to note that if any inducement, compulsion, threat,
behind Exts.P2 and P16, definitely the accused would have made
complaint to the superior officials regarding obtainment of Exts.P2 and
P16 in that way. No such course of action opted by the accused till the
date of trial. That apart, PW4 and PW7 consistently given evidence stating
that Exts.P2 and P16 confession statements were voluntary written and
signed by the accused admitting her liability. Thereafter the challenge
raised by the learned counsel for the accused that Exts.P2 and P16
confession statements were obtained by inducement, compulsion or threat
could not be found. To the contrary, the same are found to be issued
voluntarily by the accused.
19. Thus on re-appreciation of evidence, this Court could not
found that the Special Court went wrong in finding that the accused
committed offences punishable under Sections 409 and 477 of IPC as well
as under Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the PC Act, since
the ingredients to find commission of the above offences by the accused
beyond reasonable doubts. Therefore, the conviction is only to be
2025:KER:66599
confirmed.
20. Regarding the sentence, the Special Court sentenced the
accused under Section 409 IPC to undergo SI for three years and to pay
fine of Rs.1 lakh (Rupees One lakh only) with default sentence of one year
of the same description and also to undergo SI for two years for the
offence under Section 477(A) IPC, both substantive jail sentences to run
concurrently. No separate sentence is awarded for the offence under
Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(c) or Section 13(1)(d) P.C.Act.
21. Acting on the request made by the learned counsel for
the accused/appellant to reduce sentence, I am inclined to modify the
sentence. Accordingly, for the offence punishable under Section 409 of
IPC, the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 18
months and to pay fine of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty thousand
only). In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo default
imprisonment for a period of four weeks. For the offence punishable
under Section 477(A) of IPC, the accused is sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for 18 months and to pay fine of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One
2025:KER:66599
lakh fifty thousand only). In default of payment of fine, the accused shall
undergo default imprisonment for a period of 4 weeks. No separate
sentence is awarded for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)
(c) or Section 13(1)(d) P.C.Act. The substantive sentences shall run
concurrently; whereas the default sentence shall run separately.
22. Since it is prayed by the learned counsel for the
additional 2nd respondent/defacto complainant that if this Court confirms
the conviction, sentence may be modified by enhancing the fine form part
of the sentence and the fine may be permitted to be given to the additional
2nd respondent since the amount was lost by the 2 nd respondent. The
submission appears to be convincing as the same could be gathered from
the prosecution records. In view of the matter, it is ordered that if the fine
amount is paid or released, Rs.2,75,000/- (Rupees Two lakh seventy five
thousand only) shall be paid to the additional 2nd respondent as
compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C.
23. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part. Accordingly
the conviction stands confirmed while modifying sentence as indicated
above.
2025:KER:66599
24. As a sequel thereof, the order suspending sentence and
granting bail to the accused stands cancelled and the bail bond also stands
cancelled.
25. The accused is directed to surrender before the Special
Court to undergo the sentence forthwith, failing which the Special Court
shall execute the sentence forthwith.
Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the
Special Court for compliance and further steps.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE
rtr/
