VELAYUDHAN PILLAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are filed by the same appellant against the common judgment passed by the Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram in C.C. No. 7/1991 & C.C. No. 8/1991. The appellant was convicted under S.5(1)(c) and (d) read with S.5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and S.409 & 477A of the Indian Penal Code. The accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months for the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act and to undergo simple imprisonment for four months each for the offences under S.409 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) The appellant / accused was the Village Officer of Kumarapuram Village of Karthikapally Taluk situated within the jurisdiction of Sub Collector, Chengannoor for the period from 13.3.1979 to 12.9.1979 and from 25.9.1979 to 29.10.1992. PW 7 was then working as the Senior Village Assistant along with PW 8 another Village Assistant. Accused took charge as the Village Officer from PW 13, his predecessor on the afternoon of 13.3.1979. It is not disputed that the accused was the Village Officer for the period in question. PW 2 has availed Kayal Reclamation Loan from the Agricultural Department. He was depositing the instalments in the Village Office and obtaining receipts for the same. On 20.8.1982 PW 2 had paid Rs. 500/- towards the loan to the accused and obtained Ext. P6 receipt written and signed by the accused. Even though PW 2 had repaid the loan he received a notice demanding the balance amount. Therefore, he submitted a petition (Ext. P16(a)) before the Tahsildar for issuing a certificate. When the payments were verified with the receipts produced, it was found that Ext. P6 payment was not accounted. Even though for receiving Rs. 500.00 Ext. P6 receipt was issued in original, in Ext. P5(a) carbon copy, payment of basic tax of 24 paise was only recorded. The matter was reported to the District Collector who in turn directed PW 1, the then Sub Collector of Chengannoor to conduct a detailed enquiry by checking the receipts issued by the accused during the period he had worked as village Officer. On verifying the records various irregularities were found out wherein the original receipts and carbon copies are not tallying.

(3.) Apart from the allegation of PW 2, it was also found out that when Ext. P7 receipt No. 21 was issued for payment of Bank loan with interest and notice charge of Rs. 1043/- to one Rughmini Amma on 20.4.1982, Ext. P4(a) purported counterfoil of receipt No. 21 accounted only receipt of payment of basic tax of 24 paise as paid by one Prabhakaran on 29.4.1982. PW 3 was examined to prove the amount paid on behalf of his wife. Similarly, a large number of differences were found out in the amounts mentioned in original receipts and in the corresponding counterfoils written with carbon paper. In the preliminary enquiry it was found out that the appellant has committed the offence under S.5(2) read with S.5(1)(c) and (d) of P.C. Act, 1947. After completing the investigation, PW 14 sent final report for further action to PW 15. After verifying the investigation conducted by PW 14, two separate charge sheets were laid by PW 15 against the appellant and it was registered as C. C. Nos. 7/1991 and 8/1991. Charges were almost of identical nature on the basis of Ext. P1(a) report regarding the fabrications made by the accused in the official records during the period when he was working as Village Officer in the same office. Therefore both cases were tried together. Evidence was adduced. No witness was examined on the side of the defence. 34 documents were produced by the prosecution and 16 witnesses were examined. Five documents, mainly portions of C.D. Statement of PWs. 2, 3, 5 and 7 and counterfoil receipt of Ext. P3 were marked by the defence.