N BHARGAVAN PILLAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) N. Bhargavan Pillai (hereinafter referred to as accused) as appellant questioned correctness of the Judgment rendered by learned single Judge of the Kerala High Court upholding his conviction under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (in short the Act) and Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC). For the offence under the Act, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- with a default stipulation of 6 months imprisonment and sentence of one year for the offence under the I. P. C. Since he died during pendency of the appeal, his legal representatives sought for impletion and have been impleaded.

(2.) Accusations which led to trial of the accused are essentially as follows: The accused was employed in the Civil Supplies Department in the rank of Assistant Taluk Supply Officer. He was working as Junior Manager on deputation in the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation (in short the Corporation), at Kowdiar. While he was functioning as such, by Ex. P-19 order dated 14-4-1983 of the Regional Manager, of the Corporation, Thiruvanantha-puram he was appointed as Unit Manager of the Corporation, Unit Punalur. Pursuant to the orders he took charge as Unit Manager in the Punalur Unit. His 5 years deputation to the Corporation was to be completed on 30-6-1986. But, instead of relieving him, the Corporation had requested the Civil Supplies Department to extend his term of deputation by one year stating that certain liabilities were outstanding. But later, the request for extension of deputation was limited up to 30-11-1986 by Ext. P-38 letter dated 4-11-1986 from the Managing Director of the Corporation to the Director of Civil Supplies, Board of Revenue. By the same letter, the Regional Manager of the Corporation, was directed to relieve the accused to his parent department on 30-11-1986 itself. Pursuant to the direction, the Regional Manager issued Ext. P-20 order dated 29-11-1986 relieving the accused effective from the afternoon of 29-11-1986. However, the accused did not hand over charge on 29-11-1986. He did not attend the office after 27-11-1986, but applied for leave. As he did not attend the office on 29-11-1986, the Regional Manager by Ext. P-22 dated 1-12-1986 permitted Natarajan Asari (PW-3), the Senior Assistant in the Punalur depot to assume charge effective from that date. Accordingly, PW-3 assumed charge of the depot and this was reported by the Regional Manager to the Managing Director of the Corporation by Ext. P-23 dated 4-12-1986. The stock of the Punalur Depot were partly stored in the Warehousing Corporation godown at Punalur and partly in the godown attached to the office, referred to by the witnesses as self-godown. Though PW-3 assumed charge, the accused had not handed over the keys of the godown or verified the stock. Thereafter the accused reported in the depot on 13-12-1986 and in the presence of the then Assistant Manager (Accounts) (PW-2) in the Regional Office of the Corporation, brought the keys and opened the godown. He also undertook in writing by Ext. P-24 to hand over charge on the 13th, 15th and 16th December, 1986. In the presence of the accused the items found in the godown were verified. Only the stock of 21,875 quintals of M. P. boiled rice and 84 kg. of tamarind were found in the self-godown. A stock statement was also obtained from the State Warehousing Corporation. The Managing Director of the Corporation directed a special audit to be conducted by PW-1 who was then working as an Assistant Manager in the Internal Audit Wing of the Corporation on deputation from the Accountant Generals Office. Accordingly, PW-1 conducted a special audit and Ext. P-1 was prepared.

(3.) The stock in the State Warehousing Corporation godown as also the self-godown were verified as on 31-3-1986. As per Ext. P-2 stock verification report, there was an actual stock of 37.8 quintals of Palmolein and 44 quintals of free sale sugar. Subsequent to 1-4-1986, 100 quintals of paper boiled rice were transferred from the Warehousing Corporation Depot to the self-godown, and 23.65 quintals were returned from the Onam markets in Punalur. Thus, the physical stock should have been 123.65 quintals of boiled rice. But the actual stock found was 21.65 quintals. Thus, there was a shortage of 102 quintals. Similarly, a total quantity of 72 quintals of Palmolein had been transferred from the State Warehousing Corporation godown to the self-godown as per Exts. P9 and P11 goods transfer orders and Exts. P10 and P12 goods transfer notes signed by the accused. But, there was no stock of palmolein. There was a stock of 46 quintals of free sale sugar as on 1-4-1986. Out of this 5 quintals had been transferred to the Maveli Store, Punalur as per a consignment note dated 31-10-1986. The stock register showed a closing balance of 30 quintals, but no stock was available in the godown. PW-1 assessed the total value of shortage of rice at Rs. 33, 150/- that of palmolein at Rs. 1,08,000/- and sugar at Rs. 22,620/-. He also reported that the accused had withdrawn loading and transporting charges for these articles as per Exts. P13 and P14 series vouchers. No irregularity was found in the transactions under Imprest, or in the accounts regarding sales and remittance. There was excess stock in the Warehousing Corporation godown as the ration dealers had not lifted and that was tallied by 31-12-1986 also. By Ext. P-1, PW-1 fixed accuseds liability including infructuous expenses on transporting and cost of missing empty barrels at Rs. 1,70,640/-. On 29-12-1986 the accused undertook to remit Rs. 1,63,770/- being the value of the shortage of 72 quintals of palmolein, 102 quintals of rice and 39 quintals of sugar and in part payment, deposited Rs. 50,000/- in the Punalur Depot on that day. By Ext. P-17 he undertook to deposit half the amount by 2-1-1987 and the balance by 31st March next year. Thereafter the matter was reported to the Board of Revenue and the accused was suspended from service by Ext. P-37 order of the Board of Revenue, dated 31-1-1987. The Managing Director of the Corporation wrote to the Director of Vigilance (Investigation) along with a copy of Ext. P-1 report. The Director of Vigilance (Investigation) sanctioned registration of a case. On the basis of the direction the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Kollam (PW-10) registered a case as per Ext. P-39. He entrusted the investigation to Inspector of the Kollam Vigilance Unit-I (PW-11), who conducted the investigation and sent a report to his higher authorities. In the meantime, the accused retired from service on 28-2-1992. Since he had retired from service sanction for prosecution became unnecessary. The case was transferred to the newly established Pathanamthitta Vigilance Unit. PW-12, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Pathanamthitta Unit who was put in charge of this case also verified the records and filed the charge sheet.