H.KALEELUDEEN KUNJU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second accused in C.C.No.3/2018 arising from V.C.No.01/2015/Kollam Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner,Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram for offences punishable under sec. 13(2) read with sec. 13 (1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 read with Sec. 120(B), 406,409,420,201,202 and 477(A) of IPC is the petitioner herein.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that, he was the District Lottery Officer and the first accused was the cashier, in the office of the District lottery office, Kollam during the period from 29/7/2011 to 16/2/2013. While so, the present case was registered by the Vigilance pursuant to a search conducted in the office and the investigation thereafter. The crux of the allegation as is revealed from the final report produced as Ext.A1 is that, the petitioner entered into a criminal conspiracy with the first accused to falsify the accounts in the subsidiary cashbook, main cash book, Treasury Remittance chalan, and bank guarantee register during the period from 2011 to 2012 and thereby misappropriated a total sum of Rs.2,29,325.00 including Rs. Rs.52,279.00 from the credit sale. During the period from 2012 to 2013, a sum of Rs.81,33,975.00 was collected from the lottery agents, promising them to issue lottery tickets. It was also misappropriated. Later, Rupees 77 lakhs was remitted in the treasury. Both the accused by falsification of accounts, misappropriated a total sum of Rs.1,30,37,409.00. There is a further allegation that second accused had concealed this from the notice of the superior officers to screen both accused from action. On the basis of the final report filed, case was taken cognizance of and final report was filed. Summons was issued to the accused. Challenging the final report, the second accused has approached this court.

(3.) Assailing the final report, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the records would show that, it was the petitioner herein who, on getting information about the misappropriation by the first accused, initiated proceedings against him and reported the matter to the higher authorities. He relied on Exts.P1 to P12 to support this contention. It was also contended that he cannot be burdened with any criminal liability in so far as the acts were committed by the first accused. First accused had given letters in writing admitting that he alone committed the misappropriation and nobody else was responsible for that. It was also contended that even if there was any supervisory latches, he along with the Assistant District Lottery Officer and Superintendent was exercising supervisory control over the first accused and all of them should have also been charged for that. However, they were left without any allegation. The Vigilance confined to the petitioner and the first accused with the intention of roping in the second accused in the crime, committed by the first accused. It was also contended that the crime registered on the basis of the complaint submitted by the lottery agents was also clubbed with this and the investigation into both the crimes together was beyond the provisions of law and hence legally not sustainable.