The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused violated the established procedure or dishonestly misappropriated the funds or property. Additionally, the court emphasized the importance of proving the validity of the sanction to prosecute the accused.

In this appeal filed under Sec. 374 (2) Cr.P.C. the appellant who was the first accused in

C.C. No. 16 of 1998 on the file of the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for offences punishable under Sec. 13 (2) read with Sec. 13 (1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ( "the P.C. Act" for short) and Sec. 409 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C.

THE PROSECUTION CASE

2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows:-

During the period from 1-9-1995 to 18-11-1996, A1 (Antony Cardoza) was the Managing Director and A2 (P. Prabhakaran Nair) was the Lower Division Accountant in the Keala State Handicapped Persons' Welfare Corporation ("the Corporation" for short) . A1 and A2, while employed in the Corporation as above were "public servants" within the meaning of Sec. 2 (c) of the P.C. Act. While so, on 18-5-1996 A1 and A2, in furtherance of their common intention to commit criminal misconduct and misappropriation , abused their official position and A1 misappropriated or otherwise converted a sum of ` 23,198/- entrusted to him and under his control as such public servant. A2 facilitated A1 for committing misappropriation as above. A1 and A2 thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 13 (2) read with Sec. 13 (1) (c) of the

P.C. Act. In furtherance of the aforesaid common intention A1 with the aid of A2 purchased furniture items such as a Godrej almirah, Godrej table, full armchair, dining table, and six chairs altogether worth ` 23,198/-from Bright Furniture Mart , Chali, Thiruvanathapuram on 18-5-1996 without authority and dishonestly despatched the same to the residence of A1 at Thekkummoodu and A1 converted the same to his own use without accounting for the same in the stock register of the Corporation . A1 and A2 thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 403 and 409 read with Sec. 34

I.P.C. as well.

3. On the two accused persons pleading not guilty to the charge framed against them by the Court below on 22-10-1998, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its case. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 12 and got marked 22 documents as Exts. P1 to P22 and 10 material objects as MOs 1 to 10 .

4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the two accused persons were examined under Sec. 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence for the prosecution. They denied those circumstances and maintained their innocence. The appellant / first accused had the following to submit before the trial Court:-

The furniture in question was purchased under the bona fide belief founded on Government Orders to the effect that the Chief Executive of Public Sector Undertakings was eligible for residential accommodation. The furniture was purchased from the office as per proper indent and was taken to his residence for the use of the Managing Director after bringing the same first to the office and entrusting the bills at the office of the Corporation. It was the Corporation which had taken the residential accommodation for his use and the rents for the same were being paid directly to the landlord from the office of the Corporation by means of cheques. The furniture was used in the above residential accommodation in utmost good faith as above.

THE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE

BY THE TRIAL COURT

5. The Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, as per Judgment dated 23-04-1999 acquitted both the accused of the offence punishable under Sec. 403 I.P.C. but convicted them of the offences punishable under Section 13 (2) read with Sec. 13 (1) (c) of the P.C. Act and Section 409 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. For the conviction under Sec. 13 (2) read with Sec. 13 (1) (c) of the P.C. Act A1 was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of ` 10,000/-and on default to pay the fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment