JUDGMENT :

KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused in C.C. No. 14/2005 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram (for short `the court below'), challenging the judgment dated 02.11.2009, convicting and sentencing him under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short, `the PC Act') and Sections 409, 465, 468, 471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short, `the IPC').

2. The accused was working as L.D. Clerk on deputation in the Directorate of Higher Secondary Education, Thiruvananthapuram. Admittedly, his nature of work includes the disbursement of cash, withdrawal and deposit of cash in the Treasury. An amount of Rs.5,90,000/- was sanctioned for the examination wing of the Directorate of Higher Secondary Education. The said amount was withdrawn through the A-Section wherein the accused was working as L.D. Clerk and handed over to D-Section. The D-Section returned unused portion of the amount of Rs.74,789/- to the A-Section and entrusted with the accused on 03.10.1998. The prosecution allegation is that, the accused misappropriated the said amount and retained it with him till 02.04.2002 by making false entry in the Cash Book so as to appear that the said amount was remitted in the Treasury on 03.10.1998 itself. It is further alleged that for the said purpose, he forged Ext.P6 challan and used the same as genuine with the dishonest intention to cause loss to the Government.

3. On the side of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 13 were examined and Exts.P1 to P24 were marked. On the side of the defence, DW1 was examined. After trial, the court below found the accused guilty under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) of the PC Act and Sections 409, 465, 468, 471 and 477A of the IPC and convicted him for the said offences. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months for the offences under Section 13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of the P.C. Act, rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 409 of the IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 465 of the IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 468 of the IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 471 of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 477-A of the IPC. Challenging the conviction and sentence the accused has preferred this Appeal.

4. Since there was no continuous representation on the side of the appellant, I have appointed Advocate Abraham Mathan as Amicus Curiae. Thereafter, on the date of hearing, the counsel appearing for the appellant appeared and submitted that he has no instructions.

5. I have heard Sri. Abraham Mathan, the learned Amicus Curiae as well as Sri. A. Rajesh, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for VACB. I place on record the appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Sri. Abraham Mathan, the learned Amicus Curiae.

6. The learned Amicus Curiae impeached the findings of the court below on appreciation of evidence and the resultant finding as to the guilt. The learned Amicus Curiae submitted that, there is absolutely no evidence on record to connect the appellant with the offences under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) of the PC Act and Sections 409, 465, 468, 471 and 477A of the IPC. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor supported the findings and verdict of the court below and submitted that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the case beyond reasonable doubt.

7. PW1