STATE OF KERALA Vs. SEBASTIAN JACOB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appeal is by the State challenging the acquittal of the first accused. In C.C. No. 54 of 1987, he was tried by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram along with the second accused for having committed criminal misconduct as defined in Section 5(1)(d) and made punishable under S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in furtherance of their common intention. During trial, second accused died and the charge against him abated. Respondent was acquitted.

(2.) Respondent was working as Secretary 'in the Taluk Co-operative Consumer Store Limited, Chenganacherry (the Store) on deputation Second accused was the Business Manager under him. On 7-2-1983, respondent issued Ext. P8 to the second accused authorising him to get 100 quintals of boiled rice from the Chenganacherry unit of the Civil Corporation (Corporation) on behalf of the Store for distribution to the card-holders through Maveli Stores. Though the Store had no funds, the amount of Rs. 27.500/- representing price of rice was remitted that day itself on behalf of the Store to the credit of the Corporation in the Chenganacherry branch of the Canara Bank (Bank). Respondent managed to create Ext. P6 receipt that day itself to the effect that the amount was advanced on loan by one K.M. Hussain. Rice was taken delivery. But it was not brought to the Store or entered in the accounts. It was sold and the proceeds appropriated. Prosecution case is that these acts were done in furtherance of the common intention of the two accused.

(3.) Plea of the respondent was that he is innocent. He stated thus. He gave Ext. P8 authorization to get the rice. Even though funds were not available in the Store, the second accused, as is the usual practice, managed to get it as loan from one K.M. Hussain and remitted the same in the Canara Bank. Through PW4 cashier, he prepared Ext. P 6 receipt in favour of Hussain for that amount. Then the second accused came back with Ext. P8 and said that delivery of rice was not taken. Hence Ext. P6 was cancelled. The fact that delivery of rice was taken by the second accused became known to him only when he was questioned in the board meeting on 12-2-1983. He had no common intention with the second accused and he is not guilty of any misconduct.