P. ALIKOYA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment of conviction of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Kozhikode in C.C. No. 11/2001 is under challenge in these two appeals. The appellant in Crl.A. No. 1157/2015 is the first accused in the said case, and the appellant in Crl.A. No. 1066/2015 is the 2nd accused. The Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau (VACB), Kozhikode brought the said prosecution against three persons alleging falsification of registers and accounts, and misappropriation of amount allotted by the Kadalundy Grama Panchayath to the Government Fisheries Lower Primary School, Chaliyam, for the purchase of furniture. The first accused was the Headmistress of the said Lower Primary School from 12.06.1997 to 03.06.1998, and the 2nd accused was the President of the Parents and Teachers Association (PTA) of the said school during the said period. The 3rd accused, whose case was split up in the trial court, was a member of the PTA, and he was also the member of the Ward No. 1 of the Kadalundy Grama Panchayath. The Government Fisheries Lower Primary School is situated in the said Ward No. 1. The Kadalundy Grama Panchayath had allotted an amount of Rs. 20,000/ - to the said school for purchasing furniture in the financial year 1997 -1998. Quotations were invited by the Panchayath, but later, the Panchayath took a decision by resolution to entrust the PTA to make furniture, or to purchase furniture worth Rs. 20,000/ -. Accordingly, the 2nd accused took up the responsibility, and he agreed to purchase the required furniture, and supply it to the School before 31.03.1998. The prosecution case is that the 2nd accused purchased some furniture, much less in quantity, and worth much less than the sanctioned amount, but accepted the amount of Rs. 20,000/ - from the Panchayath on the basis of a false letter and certificate issued by the 1st accused to the effect that all the required items of furniture worth more than Rs. 20,000/ - were received in the School, and to issue such a certificate, some false entries were also made in the furniture stock register maintained in the school. It is alleged that without purchasing the required furniture, the three accused misappropriated the funds allotted by the Panchayath by using false certificates and making false entries in the records, as part of a conspiracy hatched by them.

(2.) THE present prosecution originated from a complaint received by the VACB, Kozhikode, in August, 1998 from the President and the Secretary of a political organisation alleging misappropriation of Panchayath funds without purchasing the required furniture. On the basis of the said complaint, the VACB conducted a fact finding enquiry, and the Dy.S.P. Shri. N. Chandran submitted a report to the Superintendent of Police, VACB, Kozhikode. As directed by the District Superintendent, the Dy.S.P., VACB registered a crime against the three accused on the basis of the said report of enquiry. After investigation, VACB submitted final report in the trial court.

(3.) WHEN the two appeals came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the prosecution as against the 1st accused in this case is barred under Section 19 of the P.C. Act for the reason that the prosecution sanction stands not properly and legally proved, that many of the documents on which the prosecution relies are either not produced in court, or not properly and legally proved, that there is absolutely no material to prove the alleged conspiracy, that there is absolutely nothing to show that the 2nd accused, as the President of the PTA or otherwise, had taken up the responsibility of providing or purchasing furniture to the School, and that in the absence of anything to prove such a conspiracy, the 2nd accused cannot be punished under Section 120 IPC, or under the other Sections of IPC, because he was not the person in charge of accounts and registers alleged to have been falsified. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the case on facts stands properly proved, though there are some infirmities or shortcomings here and there, and that no formal proof of the prosecution sanction is required.