Once entrustment is established, if the accused fails to provide a satisfactory explanation, it can be presumed that he committed the offense of criminal breach of trust and misappropriation.

JUDGMENT :

KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the accused in CC No. 40/2003 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode (for short 'the court below') challenging the judgment dated 31st March, 2010 convicting and sentencing him under section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, the PC Act) and Sections 409, 467 r/w 471 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

2. The accused was working as Senior Assistant holding charge of Disbursement Clerk in Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC), Kozhikode Unit during 1998-1999. The prosecution case in short is that the accused while working so during the period from 10/8/1998 to 11/8/1999 fraudulently and dishonestly misappropriated an amount of Rs. 1,61,229/- by forging the signatures of various staffs and pensioners and by fabricating the bills and office records.

3. After trial, the court below found the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each and to pay a total fine of Rs. 1,62,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offences under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the PC Act, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year, to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offences under Section 409, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year each, to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months each for the offences under Section 471 r/w 467 and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year for the offence under Section 477A of the IPC. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the accused preferred this appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the accused died. His wife has been impleaded as the supplemental appellant.

4. I have heard Sri.T.G.Rajendran, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Rajesh, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for VACB.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant impeached the finding of the court below on appreciation of evidence and the resultant finding as to the guilt. The learned counsel submitted that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the entrustment of money with the accused alleged to have been misappropriated. The learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the disputed signatures and handwritings by scientific evidence. The counsel also submitted that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are highly contradictory. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for VACB supported the findings and verdict of the court below and submitted that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the case beyond reasonable doubt.

6. The oral evidence of PWs 13, 14, 16, 17, 18 and 20 coupled with Ext.P53, the service book, and Ext.P55, the transfer and posting order of the accused, would prove that he was posted as Senior Assistant holding the charge of Cash Disbursement Clerk of KSRTC, Kozhikode depot during the period from 10/8/1998 to 11/8/1999. The accused has also not disputed this aspect. According to the prosecution, the accused while working in the above capacity misappropriated a sum of Rs. 1,61,229/- during the above period by forging the signature of various staffs and pensioners and by fabricating the bills and office records. On the other hand, the defence version is that the accused was a member of K.S.R.T.E.A under C.I.T.U and subsequently due to some discord, he resigned from that union and joined in K.S.R.T.E.U under A.I.T.U.C and due to the political vengeance, PW14 as well as others being the members of C.I.T.U falsely foisted the case against him.

7. The prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of Pws 1 to 6, 8 to 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22 and 23 to prove its case and to fix the culpability on the accused. PWs 1 to 6 and 8 to 12 are either employees, pensioners, or legal heirs of the employees at KSRTC. Their