Misappropriation established when entrusted funds are not remitted; mere procedural delays do not negate criminal liability.

JUDGMENT :

The appellant was the Village Officer, Puthuppady Village during the period from 28.09.1994 to 18.06.1996. Alleging that he misappropriated various amounts remitted by PWs.1 to 5 in respect of revenue recovery proceedings, a crime was registered. After investigation, various instances of such criminal misappropriation by the petitioner misusing his official power were revealed. That resulted in the filing of three final reports. C.C.Nos.28, 29 and 30 of 2000 were thereby instituted in the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode. A joint trial was held. The Special Court convicted and sentenced the appellant in each of the said three cases. Assailing the said judgments of conviction and sentence, these appeals were filed invoking the provisions of Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code).

2. The allegations are that while remitting various amounts in respect of the revenue recovery proceedings by various persons, the petitioner in the capacity of the village officer used to issue receipts in the prescribed form. He, however, did not remit the entire amount to the bank concerned. Portions of such amounts he received from PWs.1 to 5 in connection with the respective revenue recovery files were misappropriated by the petitioner. The details of such collection and misappropriation are tabulated below:

3. The Special Court framed charges against the appellant in each of the cases for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and Sections 409 , 420 , 468 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). On the appellant pleading not guilty, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 20 and proved Exts.P1 to P113. During the examination under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code, the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances appeared against him. He maintained that he did not commit misappropriation of any amount. He added that the case was foisted against him. No defence evidence was let in.

4. The trial court, after considering the evidence in detail, found the appellant guilty of all the offences to which he was charged. On conviction, he was sentenced in each of the cases to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1) (d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each and a fine of Rs.1,000/- each under Sections 409 , 420 , 468 and 477A of the IPC . The terms of substantive sentence were ordered to run concurrently.

5. Heard the learned Senior Counsel, appeared on instructions, for the appellant and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor and the learned Special Public Prosecutor (Vigilance).

6. The case of the prosecution is that while working as the Village Officer, Puthuppady Village the appellant committed the charged offences. The fact that the appellant was the Village Officer, Puthuppady Village from 28.09.1994 to 18.06.1996 is borne by records. Ext.P39 is the attendance register for the year 1995 in that village office. His attendance during the year 1995 in the office is reflected from the said register. Ext.P84 attendance register for the year 1996 proved his attendance in 1996. Evidence of PW6, a Junior superint