Back
2003 (1) Crimes 589
Madras High Court
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.
Rama Rao —Appellant
versus
State by Inspector of Police — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 411 of 1995
Decided on 22-11-2002
For the Appellant :Mr. A.V. Soma-sundaram for M/s. Lakshmi Priya, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr. N. Ranga-nathan, Spl. P.P. for CBI Cases.
Important Point
Under Section 6(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, person who is competent to remove can grant sanction.
Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 409 — Prevention of Corrup-tion Act, 1947 — Section 5(1)(c) read with 5(2) — Appellant accused an LDC Bill Collector in office of Junior Engineer, Electricity Department misappropriated various amounts collected from consumers of electri-city — Verification of records showed various duplicate and triplicate receipts and cash books maintained by accused were falsified by him — Conviction — Appeal — Accused collected amounts from consumers and issued original receipts but while preparing duplicate and triplicate receipts for office record, he made entries of lesser amounts and mis-appropriated balance amount — Evidence of witnesses to prove fact — Evidence of handwriting expert proved false entries made by accused — Trial court correctly concluded that accused mis-appropriated Rs. 23,420/- and finding was based on evidence — Conviction called for no interference. (Paras 10, 15 to 17)
(ii) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 — Section 6(c) — Sanction for prosecution for offences under the Act — Person who was competent to remove could grant sanction — Sanction granted by Superintending Engineer for prosecution of accused an LDC in office of Junior Engineer Electricity Department — Superin-tending Engineer was competent to take disciplinary action and dismiss LDC — He was competent to grant sanction. (Paras 18 & 19)
(iii) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 — Section 5(1)(c) read with 5(2) — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 409 — Appellant working as LDC in Electricity Department con-victed under for having mis-appro-priated an amount of Rs. 23,420 by collecting amount from consumers but crediting lesser amount in office record — Sentence — Direction to accused-appellant to reimburse amount of mis-appropriation and to suffer sentence in default was un-warranted, liable to be set-aside — Appellant had since lost the job in view of conviction, sentence of two years imprisonment under Section 409 IPC reduced to one year. (Paras 21 & 22)
Result: Appeal dismissed with modification in sentence.
Judgment
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.— Rama Rao, the appellant herein was convicted for the offence under Section 409 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. He was also convicted for the offence under Section 5(1)(c) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. Besides this, the appellant was directed to reimburse the misappropriated amount of Rs. 23,420/- to the State, in default, he has to undergo R.I. for one year. Challenging the same, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant herein.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
“(a) The appellant was the L.D.C. Bill Collector in the office of the Junior Engineer, Electri-city Department, Yanam. D. Krishnamurthy (P.W.1) was the Superintending Engineer for the entire Electricity Department for the Union Territory of Pondicherry du-ring that period. G. Krishna-murthy (P.W.2) was the Executive Engineer working under the control of P.W.1 at Karaikal having jurisdiction over Yanam. P.W.3 Abdul Hameed, Sub Inspector of Bill Collections, Electricity Depart-ment working under P.W.2 at Karaikal. P.W.4 Ramakrishna Rangan was the Assistant Engineer under the control of P.W.2 at Karaikal. P.W.5 R. Dattarayulu was the Execu-tive Engineer at Pondicherry working under the control of P.W.1.
(b) On 28-10-1983, a complaint was received by P.W.1, the Superintending Engineer from Sri Gayathri Rice Mill against the misconduct of the public servants D. Sathiya-moorthy, Assistant Engineer and Nageswara Rao. Junior Engineer in the Yanam Elec-tricity Department.
(c) On 21-11-1983, P.W.1 direc-ted P.W.2 to conduct a probe on the said complaint by the order Ex. P.6. Accordingly, P.W.2 went to Yanam and inspected the Electricity Office. He found irregularities committed by the said Sathiyamoorthy, Assistant Engineer and Nageswara Rao, Junior Engineer in respect of the temporary power connec-tion to Gayathri Mill and other mills. During the course of inspection, he also found various amounts collected from the consumers of elec-tricity by the accused have not been credited into and the same have been mis-appropriated.
(d) On finding that the accused/appellant committed various irregularities, P.W.2 sent a report Ex. P10 dated 20-12-1983 to P.W.1. He also requested P.W.1 to send some officials to Yanam Electricity Office to make a further probe for verification of the original receipts issued by the accused. Accordingly, P.W.5 R. Dattatrayulu, Assistant Executive Engineer, Electri-city Department, Pondicherry was sent to Yanam for in-spection of the records. P.Ws. 3 and 4 also were sent for verification of the duplicate and triplicate receipts and petty cash books maintained by the accused.
(e) P.W.3 after verification of the records found out that vari-ous duplicate and triplicate receipts and petty cash books maintained by the accused were falsified by him. There-fore, he submitted reports Ex. P31 dated 14-1-1984 and P32 dated 18-2-1984 to P.W.2. P.W.4 also conducted inspec-tion and noticed that the accused adopted the same modus operandi in falsifying so many receipts. He obtai-ned the statement Ex. P38 from the accused and submi-tted it along with his report Ex. P37 to P.W.2 Conse-quently, P.W.2 sent his report Ex. P9 dated 19-1-1984 to P.W.1, the Superintending Engineer.
(f) Thereafter, P.W.2, the Execu-tive Engineer issued a memorandum to the accused along with a statement of inspection and asked him to pay the misappropriated amounts. The accused sent a letter Ex. 41 dated 22-3-1994 to P.W.2 requesting to permit him to peruse the original, duplicate and triplicate receipts. Accordingly, he was permitted to peruse the records. Then on 16-5-1984, the accused sent a letter Ex. P47 denying the allegations of misappropriation.
(g) Then, P.W.15 Mr. N. Pazhani-samy, the Deputy Secretary, Government of Pondicherry, on receipt reports Ex. P157 and P
