AND SPECIAL COURT Vs. BY SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein is the first accused in C.C No.28 of 2001 of the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode. He was the President of the Thariyode Grama Panchayat in Wayanad district during the relevant period, from 20.10.1993 to 4.11.1994. The second accused in the case died pending trial on 7.5.2003, and thus the charge against him abated. The deceased second accused was the Secretary of the said Panchayat during the relevant period. On the allegation that the appellant herein, and the then Secretary abused their official position and misappropriated an amount of 10,000/ - from the untied funds of the Panchayat, meant for construction of a water tank, the Vigilance and Anti -Corruption Bureau, (VACB), Kozhikode conducted an enquiry. Such an enquiry was made on the basis of the request of the Deputy Director of Panchayats, Wayanad. The Deputy Director of Panchayats made such a request on the basis of the report of Local Crl.A No.474 of 2007 Fund Audit, revealing some irregularities during the tenure of the two accused. On the basis of the said report of enquiry, the VACB registered a crime against the President and the Secretary, and made investigation. After investigation, the VACB submitted final report in court against the President and the Secretary on which cognizance was taken as C.C.28/2001.

(2.) The appellant herein pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him in the trial court under Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (c ) and 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short the P.C Act) and under Section 468, 471, 409 and 420 I.P.C.

(3.) The prosecution examined nine witnesses, and marked or proved Exts.P1 to P11 documents. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the 1st accused denied the incriminating circumstances, and projected a defence that he had not misappropriated any amount, and that the whole amount withdrawn from the untied funds was utilised for purchasing the required quantity of pipes and other materials for the construction of the proposed water tank. Crl.A No.474 of 2007 The accused however, did not adduce any evidence in defence. On an appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the trial court found the first accused guilty. On conviction, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each, and to pay a fine of 10,000/ - each under Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (c) and 13 (1) (d) of the P.C Act, and also under Section 409 I.P.C by judgment dated 31.1.2007. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction, the first accused has come up in appeal.