IMPORTANT POINT
Order of valid sanction can be proved either by producing original sanction which itself contains facts constituting offence and grounds of satisfaction or by adducing evidence aliunde to show that facts were placed before sanctioning authority and satisfaction arrived at by it.

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been preferred by the accused in C.C.No.47/2008 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram (for short ‘the court below’) challenging the judgment dated 30.9.2011, convicting and sentencing him under Sections 13 (1)(c) and (d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (fort short ‘the PC Act’) and Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the IPC’).

2. The prosecution case in short is that the accused while working as Junior Superintendent/Chief Ministerial Officer at Munsiff’s Court, Nedumangad during the period from 4.9.2001 to 8.6.2006, dishonestly misappropriated a sum of Rs.2,20,000/-involved in O.S.No.335/2005 of the Munsiff’s Court, Nedumangad, kept in the safe custody of the court and thereby committed the offence.

3. After trial, the Court below found the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months each under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 409 of the IPC vide the impugned judgment. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred this appeal.

4. During the pendency of the appeal, the accused/original appellant died, and his wife has been impleaded as an additional appellant.

5. I have heard Sri. K.K. Dheerendra-krishnan, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. A. Rajesh, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for VACB.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant impeached the finding of the court below on appreciation of evidence and resultant finding as to the guilt. The learned counsel submitted that there is no satisfactory evidence to prove the entrustment of Rs.2,20,000/- with the accused and its misappropriation by him. The learned counsel further submitted that the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 409 of the IPC and Sections 13 (1)(c) and (d) of the PC Act had not been established. The counsel also submitted that the sanction for prosecution had not been proved in accordance with the law. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor supported the findings and verdict of the court below and submitted that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the case beyond reasonable doubt.

7. It is not disputed that the accused worked as Chief Ministerial Officer (CMO) at the Munsiff’s Court, Nedumangad, during the period in question. It is also not in dispute that the accused was transferred to the Sub Court, Neyyattinkara, and he was relieved of his duty from the Munsiff’s Court, Nedumangad, in the forenoon of 8.6.2006 and that PW1 took charge as CMO at the Munsiff’s Court, Nedumangad from the accused on 8.6.2006. The evidence on record would show, and it has been more or less admitted by the accused, that while he was relieved of his duty from the Munsiff’s Court, Nedumangad, on 8.6.2006, he did not hand over the charge of the valuables kept in the safe to PW1. The evidence would further show that he handed over some valuables on 19.6.2006 and the remaining valuables on 27.7.2006. The dispute is with respect to the handing over of Rs.2,20,000/-involved in O.S.No.335/2005.

8. The evidence of PW1, the CMO, coupled with Exts. P7 and P8 would prove that the accused had received items 1 and 3 to 29 involved in O.S.No.335/2005 produced by the Advocate Commissioner in that suit on 27.6.2005. Item No.1 in Ext.P7 is Rs.2,20,000/-. The receipt of the said item by the accused on 27.6.2005 is admitted by the defence and proved by Ext.P4(g), the letter written given by the accused to the Munsiff (PW7). Exts. D1 and D1(a) endorsement on Ext.P7 show that PW7 made an order to keep the valuables mentioned in Ext.P7 in safe custody. The evidence of PW1 shows that