JUDGMENT :

The State is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the judgment of the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram in the case C.C. No. 24/2001 by which that court acquitted the sole accused in the case of the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(c) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') and under Sections 409, 468 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The respondent in the appeal is the accused in the case. He shall be hereinafter referred to as the accused.

3. The prosecution case is as follows :

The accused was the Depot Manager, Hantex Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram for the period from 31.07.1991 to 16.12.1993. During the period from 08.09.1992 to 14.04.1993, the accused made false vouchers under the pretext of supplying textiles and readymade garments to the District Collectorate, Thiruvananthapuram for flood relief and mass contact programme. There was no order for supply of the materials issued from the Collectorate. The accused had also not obtained any sanction from the Head Office or the Regional Office of the Hantex for supply of the materials. Thus, he abused his official position as a public servant and committed criminal breach of trust in respect of textiles and readymade garments worth Rs.65,203.85/-. The accused also falsified the accounts and temporarily misappropriated Rs.1,186/-out of Rs.1886/-which was received by him on 05.10.1993 from the Office Assistant of the Carmal Girls High School, Thiruvananthapuram and he misappropriated the balance amount of Rs.700/-.

4. The trial court framed charge against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(c) read with 13(2) of the Act and under Sections 409,468 and 477A IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and he claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution examined the witnesses PW1 to PW13 and marked the documents Exts.P1 to P20. No evidence was adduced by the accused.

6. The trial court reached the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove any of the offences alleged against the accused and found him not guilty of all the offences charged against him and acquitted him.

7. The State has come up in appeal challenging the judgment of the trial court, acquitting the accused in the case.

8. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and also the learned counsel for the respondent/accused.

9. The accused was the Depot Manager of Hantex Bhavan for the period from 31.07.1991 to 16.12.1993. He was a public servant as defined under Section 2(c) of the Act. There is no dispute with regard to these facts.

10. The first allegation against the accused is that he created false vouchers during the period from 08.09.1992 to 14.04.1993 in respect of textiles and readymade garments worth RS. 65,203.85/- on the pretext of supplying the same to the Collectorate, Thiruvananthapuram for flood relief and mass contact programme. It is alleged that there was no supply order given from the Collectorate, Thiruvananthapuram and that no sanction was obtained by the accused from the Head Office or the Regional Office of the Hantex for supply of the materials.

11. The above charge against the accused is based on Exts.P1 to P4 documents, which are alleged to be the false vouchers created by the accused for supply of materials to the Collectorate.

12. Ext.P1 is a cash voucher for Rs.7,132/. It is dated 08.09.1992. In the column in Ext.P1 for giving the details, it is written that readymade garments worth Rs.7,132/- are supplied to the Collectorate and that cheque would be obtained for the amount from the Collectorate. The endorsement on the back of Ext.P1 voucher, which is marked as Ext.P1(a), is that, as and when the cheque is received, the accused shall be relieved of the liability in respect of the amount. The signature of the accused appears below Ext.P1(a) endorsement.

13. Ext.P2 is a cash voucher for Rs.33,399.35/-. It is dated 24.12.1992. In the column in Ext.P2 voucher for stating the details, it is written