Back
2015 Supreme(Ker) 597
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.UBAID, J.
K.S. KURIAKOSE, FORMER CASHIER/ SENIOR ASSISTANT, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION – Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, V.A.C.B. – Respondent
Crl.Appeal No.1893 of 2004
Decided On : 19.06.2015
For the Appellant : SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.), SRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SRI.RAJU SEBASTIAN VADAKKEKKARA
For the Respondent: BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. V.H.JASMINE
The court upheld the appellant's conviction for misappropriation and breach of trust, and considered the circumstances to reduce the sentence.
Headnote:
Misappropriation - Cashier's Responsibility - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 13(2), 13(1)(c) and (d); Indian Penal Code, Sections 409, 477A - The court confirmed the appellant's conviction under Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act and under Sections 409 and 477A IPC. The substantive sentence under Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act was modified and reduced to simple imprisonment for one year, and all the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a Cashier in the Electrical Major Section, was accused of misappropriating electricity charges remitted in the electricity office by a consumer without depositing the amount in the bank account of the KSEB. The appellant denied the allegations but was found guilty and sentenced by the trial court.
Finding of the Court:
The court confirmed the appellant's conviction under Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act and under Sections 409 and 477A IPC. The substantive sentence under Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act was modified and reduced to simple imprisonment for one year, and all the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Issues: 1) Whether the appellant was responsible for money transactions in the Electrical Major Section. 2) Whether the appellant received and misappropriated electricity charges. 3) Whether the sentence imposed by the court below required interference.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the appellant was responsible for money transactions and had received and misappropriated electricity charges without making proper remittance. The court also considered the long lapse of years and the fact that the entire amount was later remitted, leading to a reduction in the sentence.
Final Decision: The court confirmed the appellant's conviction under Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act and under Sections 409 and 477A IPC. The substantive sentence under Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act was modified and reduced to simple imprisonment for one year, and all the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
The appellant herein was a Cashier in the Electrical Major Section, Kattappana, and from 04.08.1999 to 03.11.1999 he was Senior Assistant in the Electrical Section holding additional charge of Cashier. On the allegation that he dishonestly misappropriated electricity charges remitted in the electricity office by the Consumer Number 2262 in four months, from June,1999 to September,1999, without remitting the said amount in the bank account of the KSEB, the appellant faced prosecution under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short, 'the P.C.Act') and also under Sections 409 and 477A IPC before the Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge, Thirssur in C.C.No.11/2002. It is alleged that electricity charges remitted on behalf of the Consumer Number 2262 was received by the cashier in office, but he did not make necessary entries in the registers kept in the office, and did not remit the amount in the bank account of the KSEB, and thus appropriated huge amount from the funds of the KSEB. Crime in this case was registered on the complaint of the Assistant Executive Engineer of the Electrical Major Section, Kattappana dated 18.12.1999. On coming to know of the said complaint, the entire amount appropriated by the appellant was remitted in the office of the KSEB on 18.12.1999 itself. On the said complaint Ext.P43 FIR was registered in the Kattappana Police Station, and later the crime was re-registered by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Idukki (Ext.P44 FIR). After investigation, the VACB submitted final report in court on 27.03.2002. Copies of the prosecution records were furnished to the accused as provided under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him by the trial court under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the P.C.Act, and under Sections 409 and 477A IPC. The prosecution examined fifteen witnesses in the trial court, and also marked Exts.P1 to P15 documents. On examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the incriminating circumstances. No evidence was adduced by the accused in defence, though opportunity was granted by the trial court. On an appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Judge found the accused guilty under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the P.C. Act, and also under Sections 409 and 477A IPC. On conviction he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) of the P.C.Act, and to undergo another term of rigorous imprisonment for one year each under Section 409 and 477A IPC. No separate sentence was imposed under Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C.Act. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence the accused has come up in appeal.
The points for decision in this appeal are;
1) Whether the appellant was Cashier having charge of money transactions in the Electrical Major Section, Kattappana from 15.12.1994 to 03.11.1999.
2) Whether the accused, as Cashier, had received electricity charges from the Consumer Number 2262 in the months of June to September, 1999.
3) Whether the accused had dishonestly misappropriated these amounts by falsification of amount and without making remittance in the account of the KSEB in Union Bank of India, as alleged by the prosecution.
4) Whether the sentence imposed by the court below requires interference, in case the conviction is confirmed.
2. To prove the remittance of electricity charges and appropriation of the amount by the Cashier without making remittance in the bank account, the prosecution mainly relies on the evidence of PW7, the then Senior Assistant of the KSEB Major Section during 1998-1999, the evidence of PW4 and PW6, the Cashier and Supervisor of Grand Park Tea Industries (Consumer Number 2262 under the Major Section), and also the evidence of PW10, the Manager of Union Bank of India, Kattappana.
3. That the appellant he
