Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.S. GOPINATHAN
Wilson J. Mangalam & Another
Versus
State, Represented By The Public Prosecutor & Another
CRL.A.No. 318 & 325 of 2003
Decided on : 16-03-2011
Criminal Law - Criminal Trial - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 13(1)(c), 13( 1)(d), 13(2) and 19(3) - Appellants alleging offences under Section 13(1) (c) and (d) r/w Section 13(2) of Act, 1988 - It was alleged that first accused was working as Senior Assistant Grade-I and second accused was working as Assistant Manager at Taluk Depot of Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation - As per Palmolein was transported in lorry though first accused acknowledged the receipt of the Palmolein in Ext.P6 that was not accounted in stock register which was marked as Ext.P7 or in the daily stock-cum-sales return (DSSR) and that quantity of Palmolein was misappropriated and thereby committed breach of trust and had got undue pecuniary advantage and that to facilitate misappropriation, daily stock-cum-sales return and stock register, were falsified by omitting to record stock - Appellants were found guilty learned Special Judge sentenced appellants were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years each with order to run substantive sentences concurrently - Assailing above conviction and sentence, these appeals were preferred - Held, Prosecution had succeeded to establish that Palmolien covered by GRS was acknowledged by first accused - But he fraudulently omitted to make entry of stock in stock register as well as in \daily stock-cum-sales return. That omission would amount to falsification of accounts - there is nothing to conclude that the second accused was aware of the receipt of Pamolien as per Ext.P6 or that he was aware that stock of the disputed Pamolien was omitted by the first accused from stock register as well as in the daily stock cum sales return. Monthly stock cum sales return is being prepared on the basis of the stock register and the daily sales-cum-stock return - Such being evidence on record, though there may be supervisory laches on side of second accused he cannot be fastened with criminal liability especially when there is no proof regarding conspiracy or sharing of mind. The conviction under challenge against the second accused and sentence thereon are not sustainable - He is entitled to an order of acquittal - In certificate issued by the Medical Board, Idukki District it is certified that he was handicapped by post traumatic quadri paresis, (confused cord syndrome) and that he suffers 50% permanent disability - In identity card also, it is recorded that the 1st ased was suffering 50% locomotor disability - The 1st accused, who is present in court, submitted that he has lack of co-ordination of limbs and has no control over stools and urine and is under Ayurvedic treatment - Taking into account of the physical condition, though subsequent to the institution of the, 1st accused is entitled to a little leniency in sentence and that sentence of imprisonment already undergone along with a fine of would meet the ends of justice - Criminal Appeals allowed.
1. The appellant in Crl.Appeal No.318 of 2003 is the first accused in C.C.No.16 of 1999 on the file of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur. The second accused is the appellant in Crl.Appeal No.325 of 2003. PW.14, the Deputy Superintendent of Police attached to Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Ernakulam, filed the charge sheet against the appellants alleging offences under Section 13(1) (c) and (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'PC Act') and Section 409 r/w 34 IPC. It was alleged that the first accused was working as Senior Assistant Grade-I and the second accused was working as Assistant Manager at the Taluk Depot of the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation, Kochi and as such they are public servants as defined under Section 2(C) of the P.C Act. Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation was having retail sales of various essential commodities including Palmolien. The first accused was the custodian of the Palmolien and relevant records. The second accused was having supervisory authority over the functioning of the Taluk Depot. On 27.9.1990, two lorry loads of Palmolien were received in the Depot accompanied by Exts.P5 and P6 goods received sheets(GRS). As per Ext.P5, 125.75 Qtls. of Palmolein was received in the Depot. It was taken stock and duly accounted. As per Ext.P6 (GRS 627/7) 125.10 Qtls. of Palmolein was transported in lorry bearing registration No.KER 3990. Though the first accused acknowledged the receipt of the Palmolein in Ext.P6 that was not accounted in the stock register which was marked as Ext.P7 or in the daily stock-cum-sales return (DSSR) and that quantity of Palmolein worth Rs.1,80,769.40/- was misappropriated and thereby committed breach of trust and had got undue pecuniary advantage and that to facilitate the misappropriation, the daily stock-cum-sales return and the stock register, were falsified by omitting to record the stock.
2. The transactions at the Taluk Depot were audited by PW3 on 3.5.1991 and 4.5.1991. Ext.P4 is a special report submitted by PW3 regarding the misappropriation of the commodities including Palmolein. Basing upon Ext.P4, a case was registered against the first accused by PW11, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police for which Ext.P25 First Information Report was prepared for offences under Section 13(1) (c) and (d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act and Section 409 IPC. The investigation was taken over by PW.13, which was completed by PW.14 and filed a charge sheet before the trial court against the appellants for the above offences r/w 34 IPC. The learned Special Judge took cognizance and issued process responding at which the appellants entered appearance. After furnishing the copies of the final report and connected records, they were heard. On finding that there are materials to send the appellants for trial for offences under Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of PC Act 1988 r/w 13(2) and under Section 381, 403, 409, 420, 468, 471 and 477A r/w Section 34 IPC, a charge was framed. When read over and explained the appellants pleaded not guilty. Hence, the appellants were sent for trial. On the side of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 14 were examined and Exts.P1 to P33 were marked. After closing the evidence for the prosecution the statement of the appellants under Section 313 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded. The appellants admitted there official status. The receipt of Palmolein by Ext.P6 was not disputed, but they took up a defence that they are innocent and they had not committed any offence as alleged. The first accused, responding to the call to enter his defence, examined DWs. 1 to 3. On the side of the defence Exts.D1 to D7 were marked. The second accused didn't adduce any evidence. The learned Special Judge after hearing either side and perusing the evidence on record arrived at a finding that the prosecution had succeeded to establish offences under Sections 1
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
