Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J
Hussain Manikfan S/o.hassan Manikfan – Appellant
Versus
Superintendent Of Police – Respondent
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 1st accused filed Crl.Appeal No.1091 of 2008 and the 2nd accused filed Crl.Appeal No.1023 of 2008.
2. The 1st accused was the Headmaster of Government Higher Secondary School, Minicoy during the period from 1990 to 1996. The 2nd 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the Administration of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep and in pursuance of that conspiracy, various amounts were withdrawn from the treasury by the 1st accused on the strength of the proceedings drawn by him unauthorisedly. Although the
Mere procedural irregularities in public office do not constitute criminal misconduct without proof of dishonest intention or misappropriation of funds.
Once entrustment of funds is established, the accused must explain their handling; failure to remit constitutes misappropriation.
The court affirmed that once entrustment of funds is proven, the burden shifts to the accused to demonstrate no misappropriation occurred; failure to do so results in conviction under the Prevention ....
The court ruled that discrepancies in misappropriation charges do not invalidate proceedings if sufficient evidence supports the allegations, affirming the procedural integrity of inspections.
The prosecution must establish misappropriation, but once entrustment is proven, the burden shifts to the accused to explain the handling of the property.
Criminal Law – Offence of Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or b banker, merchant or agent – Appeal against Acquittal – Whether Acquittal justified - Prosecution has also to prove that the ....
The prosecution is not obliged to prove the precise mode of misappropriation, and failure to account for entrusted property can lead to an inference of misappropriation.
Public servants found guilty of misappropriating funds by fabricating documents in a criminal conspiracy, invoking sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC.
The accused was convicted for misappropriating public funds by failing to account for money entrusted to her, establishing criminal breach of trust and corrupt practices under the relevant sections.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
