P V RAMAN Vs. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein was the Agricultural Field Officer, Muvattupuzha during 1991-92. He has brought this appeal against the judgment of conviction of the learned Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Thrissur in C.C No.8/1999 under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short 'the P.C Act') and also under Sections 409, 465, 471 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case is that during 1991-92 the appellant dishonestly misappropriated an amount of 53,720/- from the funds allotted to the different beneficiaries under an agricultural scheme providing financial assistance for different agricultural operations, and for the said purpose he also created some bogus bills and vouchers in the name of different beneficiaries. It is alleged that a total amount of 91,696/- was withdrawn from public funds by the appellant, as sanctioned by the government, and from out of this amount he appropriated 53,720/- by creating false and forged documents and without making payment of money to the beneficiaries. The alleged misappropriation was detected on an audit conducted by the department, and on the basis of the audit report, a crime was registered against the appellant by the Vigilance and Anti- corruption Bureau (VACB), Kochi. After thorough investigation the VACB submitted final report in the trial court.

(2.) The accused appeared before the learned trial judge and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him under Sections 13(2), 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the P.C Act and under Sections 409, 464, 471 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code. He maintained a stand of total denial and claimed to be tried. During trial he developed a defence that the alleged misappropriation was in fact done by the Agricultural Assistant in office, who was in-charge when he was on leave. The said Agricultural Assistant was examined as PW52.

(3.) The prosecution examined 57 witnesses during trial, and also marked Exts.P1 to P48 documents. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C the accused denied the incriminating circumstances and projected a defence that he had not appropriated any amount from public funds, and that the alleged misappropriation was in fact made by PW52, the Agricultural Assistant. In defence the accused examined three witnesses and also marked Exts.D1 to D6 documents. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found the accused guilty. On conviction he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of 1,00,000/- under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) of the P.C Act, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the P.C Act, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each under Sections 409, 465, 477A of the Indian Penal Code, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code by judgment dated 30.7.2001. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction, the accused has come up in appeal.