P N VASU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are accused 1 & 2 in C.C.No.25/2000 on the file of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur. THEy along with the 4th accused were found guilty by the learned Special Judge for offence under Section 120B and 409 IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as 'PC Act'). Each of them were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine of Rs.50,000/- under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) with a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one and a half years. For offences under Section 409 & 120B IPC, they were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years on each count. Assailing the above conviction and sentence, these appeals were filed. 4th accused filed Crl.A.No.208/2003. It was reported that the 4th accused expired and no legal heirs were coming forward to implead and to prosecute the appeal. In the above circumstance, Crl.A.No.208/2003 was dismissed as abated.

(2.) PW7, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Idukki in Crime No.BC 2/98 filed a final report against the appellants herein and two others. At the time when the final report was filed, the 3rd accused expired. It was alleged that the appellants, hereinafter referred to as the accused 1 and 2, were 1st Grade Overseer/Draftsman and Assistant Engineer respectively in Block Development Office, Elamdesom in Idukki District. Late 3rd accused was the Assistant Executive Engineer. Under the Employment Assurance Scheme, fund was allotted to Elamdesom Block Development Office for the construction of Njaralampuzha-Modiyani Colony Road in Kudayathoor Panchayat. The work under the Employment Assurance Scheme (EAS) is to be executed with unskilled labourers. The 4th accused was elected as a nominee of the beneficiaries for the purpose of the construction of protection wall for the above road. Ext.P4(a) is the estimate prepared by the 2nd accused. According to the prosecution, during the course of the execution of the work, the accused 1 to 4 entered into a criminal conspiracy to carry out the work in such a way as to defeat the purpose and to obtain undue pecuniary advantage and in pursuance to the conspiracy, they forged documents and using those forged documents as genuine, bills were prepared for which the 2nd accused recorded measurements in Ext.P3 'M' book and it was check measured by the 3rd accused and thereafter bill was passed and payment for a sum of Rs.47,790/- was effected through a cheque, the counterfoil of which was marked as Ext.P7, and that the cheque was encashed and that the accused 1 to 3 had committed breach of trust and criminal misconduct and that all the accused had undue pecuniary advantage.

(3.) PW1, then Additional Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, had deposed that he was the authority competent to remove the accused 1 and 2 from the service and that he, after verifying the final report and the connected records, accorded sanction to prosecute the accused 1 and 2 and that Ext.P1 is the order issued by him for that purpose. The authority of PW1 to issue Ext.P1 order or the validity of Ext.P1 was not at all assailed by the appellants. In the above circumstance, I concur with the learned Special Judge and find that the appellants were prosecuted with due sanction.