IMPORTANT POINT
Mere procedural irregularities in public office do not constitute criminal misconduct without proof of dishonest intention or misappropriation of funds.

JUDGMENT :

(P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.)

C.C.No. 10 of 2003 was tried and disposed of by the Special Judge (SPE/CBI)-I, Ernakulam as per the judgment dated 16.05.2008. The offences alleged were punishable under Section 120B read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC ) and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). Both the accused were found guilty and convicted of those offences. The 1^st accused filed Crl.Appeal No.1091 of 2008 and the 2^nd accused filed Crl.Appeal No.1023 of 2008.

2. The 1^st accused was the Headmaster of Government Higher Secondary School, Minicoy during the period from 1990 to 1996. The 2^nd accused created two concerns, namely, M/s.Mareena Enterprises, Minicoy and M/s.Sazy Corporation, Minicoy claiming to be suppliers of various articles and undertaking various works. The allegation of the prosecution is that they had hatched a conspiracy to misappropriate money by cheating the Administration of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep and in pursuance of that conspiracy, various amounts were withdrawn from the treasury by the 1^st accused on the strength of the proceedings drawn by him unauthorisedly. Although the amount withdrawn from the treasury were paid to the 2^nd accused, the articles were not supplied and the works were not done. By issuing the proceedings unauthorisedly and drawing the amount from the treasury without effecting the purchase and undertaking the work corresponding to the proceedings, the accused had misappropriated various amounts. Thus, the accused allegedly had committed the aforementioned offences.

3. Nine instances of purchases/ construction were involved in this case. The details of such purchases/construction and corresponding amounts allegedly misappropriated are given below:

4. The trial court, after framing charge and on the appellants’ denying the charge, held trial. PWs.1 to 23 were examined and Exts.P1 to P103(a) were marked. After closing the prosecution evidence, the appellants were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code. Both of them denied having committed the offences. The 1^st accused took the stand that in order to arrange infrastructure necessitated on account of the affiliation of the School to the Central Board of Secondary Education, immediate purchases and works were to be done. That, as directed by the superiors, he had to take steps for the purchases and works for which there was implied sanction from the Administrator of Lakshadweep. The intended purchases were effected and works were done and the amounts drawn from the treasury were properly utilised. He thus contended that he did not commit any offence. The 2^nd accused took the stand that the articles were supplied and works were undertaken corresponding to the bills and there was absolutely no misappropriation or element of cheating in the transactions. On the side of the accused, Exts.D1 to D17 were marked. The Special Court, after considering the evidence on record, found both the accused guilty. The findings leading to their conviction are assailed in these appeals on factual and legal grounds.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the respective Appellants and the learned Standing Counsel for the CBI.

6. Nine instances of purchase/work are the subject matter of these appeals. The allegations are two-fold. The 1^st accused in the capacity of the Headmaster, Govt. Higher