E RAJARATHINAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants in these appeals faced conviction in c. C. No. 6/95 on the file of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, thiruvananthapuram. Crl. A. No. 660/96 is by the second accused and crl. A. No. 704/96 is by the first accused. THEy faced trial for offences punishable under Section 5 (1) (c) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short "the Act") and Sections 409,468,471,and 477 A read with Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code. THE first accused has been convicted for the offences under the Act and also for offences punishable under Sections 465,477 and 477 A read with Section 120b of the Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Sections 465 and 471, for a period of one year each under Sections 477 A and 120 B and for a period of three years each under section 409 and under the provisions of the said Act. THE second accused has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Sections 465 and 471, and for a period of one year each under Sections 477a and 120b of the Indian Penal Code. THE sentences were directed to run concurrently. This is under challenge in these appeals.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution was that in March and april, 1988, the accused conspired together and agreed to forge certain documents to make it appear that a road was constructed at the Jersey Farm, vithura at a cost of Rs. 19,500/- and that in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy, the accused forged quotations, work agreement, the earth level graph, calculation sheet and measurement book and also falsified the records and accordingly Rs. 19,500/- was enchased from the Sub Treasury on 30. 3. 1988 and misappropriated that amount, thereby gaining pecuniary advantage by themselves and consequent loss to the State.

(3.) THE allegations revealed that the first accused created false documents to appear that a road has been constructed in the Jersey Farm under his control. For this purpose, he approached PW. 5, the Assistant executive Engineer, to make necessary estimate and other documents. As the work was to be arranged by the first accused, he showed reluctance, as he could prepare estimate only in respect of the work done by the Public Works department. THE first accused prevailed over PW. 5 that the former will obtain necessary sanction from the Government. THEreupon PW. 5 directed PW. 12 to go to the site and prepare necessary documents and papers. PW. 12 was asked to take the help of the second accused, a Second Grade Overseer in the office of PW. 5. Both of them visited the place indicated by the first accused where the road had to be constructed. But, as spoken to by PW. 12, he did not give any estimate or plan or any other document to the first accused, as it was not proper for the Public Works Department, without sanction from the government, to give an estimate in respect of any work to be arranged by the first accused of another department. He had spoken to that the necessary details collected by him and the second accused who accompanied him had been kept in the almirah in his office.