V.C.KURIAKOSE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the same in these two appeals. He faced prosecution on three final reports before the learned Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Kozhikode filed by the Vigilance and Anti -Corruption Bureau, (VACB), Kannur in Crime No.V.C 3/96. The appellant retired from service as the Assistant Director of Agriculture. While working as Assistant Director of Agriculture, Peravoor, a complaint came against him that a huge amount was misappropriated by him from public funds on different occasions. The first complaint came on 31.10.1995, from the then Principal Agricultural Officer that an amount of the accused had absconded with

(2.) ,53,102/ - withdrawn from the bank accounts, meant for public purposes. No crime was registered on the said complaint by the police. Later, another complaint came from the Principal Agricultural Officer on 22.11.1995 containing allegations of misappropriation of 2,53,102/ -. On the said complaint, the VACB registered a crime as Crime No.3/1996 and proceeded for investigation. After investigation, the VACB submitted three final reports relating to different periods of misappropriation. On three final reports, the trial court took cognizance as C.C Nos.22/2000, 23/2000 and 24/2000. On the application of the accused, the three cases were tried jointly by the trial court, and common evidence was recorded. 2. In C.C 22/2000, the prosecution case is that, the accused dishonestly misappropriated an amount of 2,53,102/ - on 21.10.1995, the prosecution case in C.C 23 of 2000 is that the accused dishonestly misappropriated a total amount of 6,03,403/ - during the period from 30.7.1994 to 31.3.1995, and in C.C 24 of 2000, the prosecution allegation is that during the period from 2.4.1994 to 14.3.1995, the accused dishonestly misappropriated an amount of 7,83,585/ - from public funds, misusing his official position as Assistant Director of Agriculture. In all the three cases, the trial court framed charge against him under Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (c ) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, ( "the P.C Act for short) and under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code, to which the accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution adduced evidence in the three cases as part of joint trial ordered by the court. Accordingly, PW1 to PW25 were examined and Exts. P1 to P97 were marked. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused maintained a defence, that as regards the allegation in C.C 22/2000, the real fact is that he in fact lost the money in transit while coming to the office by bus and he happened to vanish from the locality without making any complaint when he was put in utter dismay due to the loss of the huge amount. As regards the allegation in other cases, the defence is that he had not in fact misappropriated any amount from public funds, that he had properly and promptly accounted the money withdrawn by him from the bank, and that he could not prove his innocence only because the material documents proving such accounting were destroyed in an incident of fire that took place at the office at the instance of some miscreants. In defence, the accused examined his own brother as DW1.

(3.) On an appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the evidence adduced by the defence witness, the trial court found the accused not guilty in C.C 24/2000. The finding therein is that the prosecution does not have any material to prove that the accused had in any manner misappropriated the amount withdrawn from the bank. But in C.C 22/2000 and 23/2000, the trial court found the accused guilty. As regards the defence pleaded by the accused, in C.C 22/2000, the trial court found that there is no satisfactory material to probabilise the story of loss of amount in transit pleaded by the accused, and as regards the defence pleaded in C.C 23/2000, the trial court found that it is not satisfactorily proved that the relevant documents proving accounting were in fact destroyed in the incident of fire that took place in the office. Accordingly, the trial court convicted the accused in C.C22/2000 and 23/2000 under Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) ((THELAW)) of the P.C Act and also under Section 409 I.P.C. On conviction, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of 20,000/ - under Section 13(2) read with Section 13 (1)(c) of the P.C Act and to undergo another term of rigorous imprisonment for two years, and to pay a fine of 20,000/ - under Section 409 I.P.C. In C.C 22/2000. On conviction in C.C 23/2000, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each, and to pay a fine of 65,000/ - each under Sections 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (c) of the P.C Act and under Section 409 I.P.C. The substantive sentences under the two sections in each case were directed to run concurrently. So also, giving the benefit of Section 427 Cr.P.C, the substantive sentences in two cases were directed to run concurrently. Thus, practically the substantive sentence will be only rigorous imprisonment for three years besides the fine sentence imposed in the two cases. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 30.11.2005, the accused has come up in appeal. Crl.A No.2219/2005 is the appeal against the conviction and sentence in C.C 22/2000 and Crl.A No.2214/2005 is the appeal against the conviction and sentence in C.C 23/2000. In C.C 24/2000 tried along with the two other cases, the appellant stands acquitted, on the finding that there is absolutely no evidence to prove the allegation of dishonest misappropriation therein.