SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(SC) 524

2004(3) Supreme 357
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Kerala High Court)
Doraiswamy Raju & Arijit Pasayat, JJ.
N. Bhargavan Pillai (Dead) by Lrs. & Anr. -Appellants
versus
State of Kerala -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1262 of 1998
Decided on 20-4-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : C.N. Sree Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Ramesh Babu M.R., Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Accused facing prosecution under the Old Act or New Prevention of Corruption Act cannot claim immunity on ground of want of sanction if he ceases to be a public servant on the date Court took cognizance of offences.
2. Sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C. is not a condition precedent for an offence u/s 409 IPC.

Headnote:(i) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947-Section 5(2)-Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 409-Accused employed in Civil Supplies Department in rank of Assistant Taluk Supply Officer and working as Junior Manager on deputation in Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation was alleged to have misappropriated 102 quintals of rice, 72 quintals of Palmolein oil and 30 quintals of sugar-Conviction by trial Court for offences and confirmed in appeal by High Court-Appeal-Contention that prosecution in absence of sanction was vitiated and misappropriation was not proved-Accused had retired on the date Court took cognizance of offence and thus want of sanction did not vitiate trial-Sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C. was not a condition precedent for offence u/s 409 IPC-Actual mode of entrustment or misappropriation was not to be proved by prosecution-Courts below correctly held entrustment to have been proved and it was for accused to prove as to how property was dealt with-Conviction called for no interference. (Paras 8, 9, 12 and 13)

       (ii) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947-Section 18-Probation Act-Act rules out application of Probation Act to an accused covered u/s 5(2) of the Act-View expressed in Bore Gowda s case without analysing statutory provision could not be treated as binding precedent. (Para 14)

       

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-N. Bhargavan Pillai (hereinafter referred to as accused ) as appellant questioned correctness of the judgment rendered by learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court upholding his conviction under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (in short the Act ) and Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC ). For the offence under the Act, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- with a default stipulation of 6 months imprisonment and sentence of one year for the offence under the IPC. Since he died during pendency of the appeal, his legal representatives sought for impletion and have been impleaded.

2. Accusations which led to trial of the accused are essentially as follows:

The accused was employed in the Civil Supplies Department in the rank of Assistant Taluk Supply Officer. He was working as Junior Manager on deputation in the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation (in short the Corporation ), at Kowdiar. While he was functioning as such, by Ex. P-19 order dated 14.4.1983 of the Regional Manager, of the Corporation, Thiruvananthapuram he was appointed as Unit Manager of the Corporation, Unit Punalur. Pursuant to the orders he took charge as Unit Manager in the Punalur Unit. His 5 years deputation to the Corporation was to be completed on 30.6.1986. But, instead of relieving him, the Corporation had requested the Civil Supplies Department to extend his term of deputation by one year stating that certain liabilities were outstanding. But later, the request for extension of deputation was limited upto 30.11.1986 by Ext. P-38 letter dated 4.11.1986 from the Managing Director of the Corporation to the Director of Civil Supplies, Board of Revenue. By the same letter, the Regional Manager of the Corporation, was directed to relieve the accused to his parent department on 30.11.1986 itself. Pursuant to the direction, the Regional Manager issued Ext.P-20 order dated 29.11.1986 relieving the accused effective from the afternoon of 29.11.1986. However, the accused did not hand over charge on 29.11.1986. He did not attend the office after 27.11.1986, but applied for leave. As he did not attend the office on 29.11.1986, the Regional Manager by Ext. P-22 dated 1.12.1986 permitted Natarajan Asari (PW-3), the Senior Assistant in the Punalur depot to assume charge effective from that date. Accordingly, PW-3 assumed charge of the depot and this was reported by the Regional Manager to the Managing Director of the Corporation by Ext. P-23 dated 4.12.1986. The stock of the Punalur Depot were partly stored in the Warehousing Corporation godown at Punalur and partly in the godown attached to the office, referred to by the witnesses as self-godown. Though PW-3 assumed charge, the accused had not handed over the keys of the godown or verified the stock. Thereafter the accused reported in the depot on 13.12.1986 and in the presence of the then Assistant Manager (Accounts) (PW-2) in the Regional Office of the Corporation, brought the keys and opened the godown. He also undertook in writing by Ext. P-24 to hand over charge on the 13th, 15th and 16th December, 1986. In the presence of the accused the items found in the godown were verified. Only the stock of 21.875 quintals of M.P. boiled rice and 84 kg. Of tamarind were found in the self-godown. A stock statement was also obtained from the State Warehousing Corporation. The Managing Director of the Corporation directed a special audit to be conducted by PW-1 who was then working as an Assistant Manager in the Internal Audit Wing of the Corporation on deputation from the Accountant General s Office. Accordingly, PW-1 conducted a special audit and Ext.P-1 was prepared.

3. The stock in the State Warehousing Corporation godown as also the self-godown were verified as on 31.3.1986. As per Ext. P-2 stock verification report, there was an actual stock of 37.8 quintals of Palmolein and 44

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top