The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a proper and legal prosecution sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act for prosecuting public servants. The failure to prove such a sanction led to the acquittal of the accused despite evidence of misappropriation.

P. Ubaid, J.

The appellant is the same in these two appeals. Crl. A 280/2001 is brought against the judgment of conviction in C.C No.14 of 1999 of the learned Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance) Kozhikode and Crl.A No.282 of 2001 is brought against the judgment of conviction in C.C No.12 of 1999 of the same court. The appellant herein was Agricultural Officer in the State Seed Farm, Perambra during the period from 31.5.1991 to 31.5.1994. He had also additional charge of the Agricultural Officer of the Krishi Bhavan, Perambra from 20.10.1993 to 27.10.1994. On the allegation that he misappropriated some amount from the funds of the Seed Farm and the Krishi Bhavan on different occasions, without making payment of amounts due to different creditors, who supplied pesticides and other articles to the Seed Farm, the appellant faced prosecution before the learned Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, (Vigilance), Kozhikode in three cases. The different instances of misappropriation detected on inspection were split up into different periods; two of them relating to misappropriation from the funds of the State Seed Farm and the third relating to misappropriation of funds from the Krishi Bhavan.

2. On the basis of a complaint from the Kozhikode Agricultural Marketing Federation, the then Joint Director of Agriculture and the Accounts Officer in the Principal Agriculture Office, Kozhikode conducted a surprise inspection in the State Seed Farm, Perambra and also in the Krishi Bhavan, Perambra in May, 1994. On inspection, the inspection team detected so many irregularities including different instances of misappropriation of amount, without making payment promptly to the persons to whom amounts were due under different transactions with the Kerala State Seed Farm and the Krishi Bhavan. The inspection team also found that the Cash Book was not properly maintained by the Agricultural Officer. The inspection revealed that the Agricultural Officer had received amount promptly from the Teasury for payment to the different creditors, but some of those transactions were not entered in the cash Book, and the amount was not promptly paid to the different creditors. The inspection team submitted report regarding the facts detected on inspection, to the Director of Agriculture. On the basis of this report, the appellant was suspended from service and a vigilance enquiry was ordered. Accordingly, the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) conducted an enquiry into the different instances of misappropriation alleged in the report of inspection made by the officers of the Agricultural Department, and found that the appellant had misappropriated huge amount from the funds of the State Seed Farm and Krishi Bhavan. On the basis of the said report of enquiry conducted by the vigilance, a crime was registered against the appellant by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau (VACB), Kozhikode. Splitting up the different instances of misappropriation in different periods, from the two institutions, the VACB submitted three final reports in court. Accordingly, the learned trial Judge took cognizance as C.C No.12 of 1999, C.C No.13 of 1999 and C.C 14 of 1999.

3. The appellant entered appearance before the learned Trial Judge and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him in the three different cases. In C.C No.12/1999, the learned trial Judge framed charged against the accused under Sections 13 (1) (c) read with 13 (2) of the P.C. Act and also under Sections 409 and 477A I.P.C. In C.C No.13 of 1999 also, such charge was framed by the trial court relating to another period of misappropriation. In C.C 14 of 1999 also, the learned trial Judge framed a charge against the accused under Section 13(1)(c) read with 13 (2) of the P.C Act and also under Sections 477 and 409 I.P.C. The three cases were tried jointly by the learned trial Judge, and common evidence was recorded. The prosecution examined 25 witnesses during trial, and also