K.T. HARIHARAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals arose from the judgment of conviction in C.C No. 7/98 of the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Thiruvananthapuram. The two accused in the case are the appellants. The first accused was the Forest Range Officer of the Gudrickal Range in the Ranni Forest Division during 1985 -88, and the second accused was the Section Forester in the said Forest Range during 1987. A vast area of forest land within the said Ranni Forest Division was recovered by the department from the possession of encroachers, and as part of a scheme for afforestation the forest department decided to plant trees like bamboo, teak, akasia etc in the said recovered area. The estimate prepared for the said purpose by the then Divisional Forest Officer, Idukki, and the necessary funds were sanctioned by the Conservator of forest in February 1987. Being the Forest Range Officer, and the Forester the two accused were entrusted with the task and, they were given the whole responsibility to carry out the said project of afforestation. The total area for afforestation was identified as 72.22 hectors by the accused, and estimate was accordingly presented by the Divisional Forest Officer, on the recommendation made by the two accused. Two estimates were submitted for such afforestation at two parts. For one part Rs.6,86,855/ - was sanctioned, and for the other part covering another area within the forest division Rs. 7,31,750/ - was sanctioned. On the allegation that the two accused dishonestly misappropriated an amount of Rs.3,27,335/ -, from the amount sanctioned from public funds for the afforestation project, by planting the specified plants in a lesser area, and also by creating false and forged vouchers in the name of fictitious persons, the two accused faced prosecution at the instance of the Vigilance and Anti -Corruption Bureau (VACB), Thiruvananthapuram. The VACB registered a crime against these two accused on the basis of materials collected during an enquiry regarding the alleged misappropriation from public funds. Such an enquiry was conducted on the basis of the report of enquiry conducted by the Divisional Forest Officer, who succeeded the Divisional Forest Officer then in office. After investigation, and after collecting the necessary sanction required under Section 19 of the P.C. Act, the V.A.C.B submitted final report in court.

(2.) THE two accused appeared before the trial court and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them under Sections 5(2) r/w (1)(c) of the P.C. Act 1947 and also under Sections 409, 468, 471 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution examined 42 witnesses and also marked Exts.P1 to P40 documents. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the two accused denied the incriminating circumstances and submitted that they had not in fact misappropriated anything from public funds, and that they had not created any false bill or voucher for drawing amount from public funds. They further submitted that the estimate was prepared on the basis of some rough sketch regarding the extend available for afforestation, and that nobody had committed any fraud in identifying the total area available for afforestation. They contended that the required plants were procured, and the whole plants were in fact planted in the forest area available. In defence the accused examined two witnesses and also marked Exts.D1 to D6.

(3.) WHEN the two appeals came up for hearing the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the prosecution does not have any material to prove the alleged dishonest misappropriation of amount from public funds or the alleged falsification or forgery of bills and vouchers. The learned counsel also submitted that the prosecution does not have any evidence or material to show that the amount sanctioned by the department under the estimates was not in fact fully utilized for afforestation purposes, or that the entire area covered by the estimate was not planted. As regards the legal question involved the learned counsel submitted that the prosecution sanction in this case stands not properly and legally proved as provided under the law, and so the accused are entitled for acquittal on the ground that the whole prosecution is barred under Section 19 of the P.C Act. On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution sanction stands proved by the competent person though not the person who actually granted the sanction, and that definite and satisfactory materials are there to prove dishonest misappropriation of funds by the accused by submitting a false sketch of the proposed area for afforestation and also by submitting bogus vouchers in the name of fictitious persons.