The court upheld the conviction for misappropriation under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC, affirming that voluntary admissions and credible evidence established guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the Special Judge (SPE/CBI)-II, Ernakulam in C.C.Nos.1 of 1999, 7 of 1999 and 8 of 1999. The conviction is for offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). In each of the cases, she was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of six months for each of such offences.

2. The appellant was a Clerk in charge of savings bank section in the Cantonment Branch of the Canara Bank at Thiruvananthapuram during the period from 29.05.1993 to 17.02.1998. She had SB account No.35522 and an overdraft account No.1128. She along with her husband (Sri.Jayachandran) had a joint SB account No.72275. Her brother-in-law (Sri.K.P.Dinachandran) had SB account No.36838; all in the same branch. Sri.Dinachandran availed a loan of Rs.10,000/-from the bank.

3. On 10.02.1998, PW23 Sri.Abdul Salam reached the bank and complained that there were unauthorised withdrawals from the account of his daughter, Smt.Latheefa Ashraf. PW1 was the Senior Manager to whom PW23 complained. On that day, the appellant was on leave, She being the person dealing with SB accounts, PW1 contacted her over phone and enquired about the said discrepancy. She assured PW1 that she would explain about it on the next day. In the ensued verification, discrepancies like unauthorised withdrawals, particularly from inoperative accounts; totalling 21 accounts, were found. On the next day, i.e., 11.02.1998 the appellant reached the bank. It is alleged that on that day she gave Ext.P2 statement admitting such withdrawals and she remitted Rs.2,18,000/-. On the next day i.e. on 12.02.1998 she remitted Rs.21,000/- also and thereby refunded the entire amount she had unauthorisedly withdrawn.

4. On the premises that the appellant unauthorisedly withdrew amounts from several accounts and misappropriated such amount a crime was registered by PW33. Ext.P71 is the FIR. The appellant was placed under suspension on 17.02.1998. After investigation, final reports were filed, based on which the three cases were instituted.

5. The appellant denied the charges framed against her. Hence, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 33 and proved Exts.P1 to P82. After closing the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code) in all the cases. She denied the incriminating circumstances appeared against her in evidence. She claimed that she was innocent. She further stated that she was on duty from 11.02.1998 till 16.02.1998. On 12.02.1998, she was asked to write down a few debit slips and credit slips saying that those documents were required in order to correct the mistakes that occurred on the part of the members of the staff. Believing the words of PW1, PW20, PW21 and PW32, who were her senior officers, she wrote and signed in such debits and credit slips. It was thereafter, she was placed under suspension. Ext.Dl was produced on her side. No witness was, however, examined by her.

6. The Special Court, after considering the evidence on record, and hearing both sides, rendered a common judgment convicting the appellant in all the three cases. The Special Court took the view that amounts were illegally withdrawn from the seven accounts in question and misappropriated the same by the appellant. The appellant assails the said findings on various grounds and contends that the Special Court went totally wrong in convicting her.

7. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned.Standing Counsel for the CBI.

8. PW1deposed that discrepancies and unauthorised withdrawals from 21 accounts, most of which were inoperative ones, were detected in the verification by the special team following the complaint by PW23, which is Ext.P1. PW1added that in rega