E K THANKAPPAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the conviction and sentence entered against the appellant in CC 1 of 1984 on the file of the Special Judge (SPE/CBI) - II, Ernakulam, The appellant was found guilty of offence punishable under S.409 and 477A IPC. and S.5(2) and 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. For the offence under S.477A and 409 IPC. the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each and for the offence punishable under S.5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/-, and in default of payment of fine he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year.

(2.) The appellant was a storekeeper in the, Cochin Shipyard during the relevant period. He was initially appointed as a clerk. On promotion he was appointed as a store keeper and he was put in charge of the a diesel pump. The appellant was in charge of the diesel pump from 6-2-1980 to 4-2-1982. Formerly this diesel pump was being operated by a private concern named Tharapur Company. The diesel pump and other accessories were received by the Cochin Shipyard under Ext. P43 receipt dated 6-2-1980, According to the practice in vogue, Shipyard used to receive diesel from the Indian Oil Company. Pursuant to the indent for supply of diesel the Indian Oil Company will supply the required quantities. Diesel is supplied in tanker lorries and it is discharged into the underground tank. Stock in the tank is verified before supply and after diesel is filled, again the stock in the tank is checked. The store keeper acknowledges the receipt of the diesel and goods receipt voucher is prepared by the Purchase and Stores Officer. During the tenure of office of the accused as storekeeper 38000 litres of diesel was supplied to the diesel pump by Indian Oil Company, vide Exts. P3 to P6 invoices. The diesel stored in the tank of the diesel pump is used for the various vehicles belonging to the Shipyard. The various departments in the Shipyard will prepare 5 copies of the stores indent voucher. The last copy is kept in the office for being used as office copy and the four copies as sent to the store keeper along with the vehicle. After supplying the required quantity, the store keeper fills up the relevant columns to indicate the quantity supplied by him. Thereafter one copy is retained by the store keeper and one copy is sent to the accounts section and one copy is sent to electronic data processing system and the 3rd copy is sent to the section which places the indent. The quantity supplied by the store keeper is entered in Ext. P16 ledger. Between the period from 19-6-1980 to 3-2-1982 Exts. P1, P7, P8 and P10 to P15 stores indenting vouchers (SIVs) were sent to the accused from various sections. These vouchers were drawn up for supply of quantities ranging from 10 litres to 40 litres. The prosecution case is that the accused added a zero to the figure mentioned in the SIV and made it appear that the indent was for larger quantity. He also made corresponding change in the quantity, mentioned in words. As per Exts. P1, P7, P8 and P10 to P15 the total quantity of diesel indented for supply was 190 litres. But by correcting the SIVs he made it appear that the indent for supply was 1900 litres and in the ledger maintained during that period he made corresponding entries. In addition to this he also falsified the entries in Ext. P16 ledger. On 5-8-1981 and 21-10-1981 the balance in the underground tank was shown lesser by 1000 litres. Thus, the prosecution case is that the accused committed criminal misappropriation of 3710 litres of diesel.

(3.) On 4-2-1982 PW 11 took over the charge of the pump from the accused. The accused handed over charge to PW 11 and he gave Ext P 27 certificate, wherein he acknowledged that the underground tank contained 1080 litres of diesel. Thus there was a shortage of 3710 litres of diesel. On getting information about these irregularities a case was registered against the accused. Investigation was conducted. Sanction was accorded for prosecuting the accused. The accused mainly contended that there was no criminal misappropriation and the mistaken entries found in the S.I.V. and the ledger are only clerical error. It was also contended that there was no actual physical verification and had there been a verification, there would not have any deficiency in the quantity of diesel. The court below disbelieved the defence contention and found the appellant guilty and convicted him as aforesaid.