The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of fraud and deprivation of property under Section 477-A, Indian Penal Code, and the mishandling of government money under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

The appellant, a Panchayat Inspector, is the accused in C.C. No. 3 of 1972 of the Court of the Special Judge, Trichur. He has been convicted and sentenced to 15 days' rigorous imprisonment under Section 477-A, Indian Penal Code and further convicted and sentenced to one month's rigorous imprisonment under Section 5(1)(c) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Act II of 1947) with the direction to run the sentences concurrently.

2. The first charge against the appellant related to his preparation and presentation of a false travelling allowance bill, Ext. P. 5, on 24-4-1962 to the Sub-Treasury, Kasaragod, purporting it to be a genuine bill for P.W. 5, a peon of the Karadka Panchayat, for his having performed a journey from Karadka to Kasaragod on 30-3-1962. On account of the onward journey Rs. 2.70 was claimed as Travelling Allowance and on account of the halt Rs. 3/- was claimed as Daily Allowance, under Ext. P. 5 for the month of March, 1962. The appellant was the Inspector of Panchayats, Kasaragod, when he was also in additional charge of Karadka Panchayat where P.W. 5 as employed as a peon. There was no dispute about the quantum of the amount claimed. The entry as on 30-3-1962 and 31-3-1962 for Rupees 2.70 and Rupees 3/- respectively was marked as Ext. P. 5(a) in Ext. P. 5.

3. The prosecution case is that P.W. 5, was on casual leave from 26-3-1962 to 31-3-1962 inclusive. Ext. P. 8 was the casual leave application of P.W. 5. The leave was granted by the appellant himself on 20-3-1962 on the strength of Ext. P. 8 leave application Ext. P. 8(a) in Ext. P. 8 was the relevant order passed by the appellant granting leave to P.W. 5. If P.W. 5 was on leave upto 31-3-1962 inclusive there was no occasion for him to undertake a journey to Kasaragod on 30-3-1962. The appellant's case is that P.W. 5 cancelled his leave and that he joined duty on 30-3-1962 as the appellant wanted his special services at Kasaragod on those days. In this regard the appellant pressed into service Ext. P. 6 travelling allowance bill of P.W. 5 for the month of April 1962, where it was shown that P.W. 5 performed, his return journey from Kasaragod to Karadka on 1-4-1962 which was a Sunday and claimed thereunder Rs. 3/- travelling allowance. It may be noted in this regard that both Ext. P. 5 an P. 6 were in the handwriting of the appellant. He drew up the travelling allowance bills Ext. P. 5 and P. 6, he sanctioned the payment thereunder and finally withdrew the amount himself from the Treasury. It is argued that he was placed in such an enviable position because of the absence of Executive Officer at Karadka during the relevant period. P.W. 5 denied that he returned from leave on 30-3-1962, much less that he travelled to Kasaragod on 30-3-1962. He denied even having travelled from Kasaragod to Karadka on 1-4-1962 for which the travelling allowance had been drawn under Ext. P. 6 bill.

4. The case of the appellant that P.W. 5 returned from leave was not borne out by any records maintained in the Panchayat. The appellant in his own handwriting (vide Ext. P. 8(a) in Ext. P. 8, the casual leave letter of P.W. 5) granted leave as prayed for from 26-3-1962 to 31-3-1962. Whether the Karadka Panchayat maintained a casual leave register during the relevant period was in dispute. None of the officers or the auditor who are witnesses in the case had seen any such register maintained there. P.W. 1, the Director of Panchayats had no occasion to see any such register kept and maintained in that Panchayat. P.W. 2 was the auditor who had occasion to examine all the registers kept in the office of Karadka Panchayat. During his inspection, he had no occasion to come across any such register at the office of that Panchayat. P.W. 3 was the Executive Officer who held the office in Karadka Panchayat after the suspension of the appellant from service. P.W. 3 stated that it was obligatory to maintain a casual leave register; but he never knew tha