The court ruled that discrepancies in misappropriation charges do not invalidate proceedings if sufficient evidence supports the allegations, affirming the procedural integrity of inspections.

ORDER :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the petitioners, who are accused 1 and 2 in C.C.No.2/2021 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge(Vigilance), Thiruvananthapuram, arising out of Crime No.7 of 2016 of VACB, Kollam, seeking quashment of Annexures 1 to 4 and the further proceedings thereon in the above case.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the prosecution records.

3. Here the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (`PC Act’ for short hereafter) as well as Sections 409 , 420 r/w 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (`IPC’ for short), by the accused. The prosecution allegation as per the final report reads as under:

“A1, former Officer in Charge of Sub Depot Main, Kollam and A2, former Godown Asst. of Sub Depot main Kollam who were the employees of the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Kollam Sub Depot during the period from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013 had misappropriated the property and money belonging to the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation and also cheated the Civil Supplies, Corporation for ulterior and illegal pecuniary gain for them and thereby caused a huge loss to the Supply Co, for an amount of Rs. 5,95,844.82/- (Rupees five lakhs ninety five thousand eight hundred and forty four and eighty two paise only). 1^st and 2^nd accused gained excess stock of commodities by not issuing the rationed articles for public distribution and shortage of varieties of some commodities of rationed articles are due to the unauthorised sale by diverting the issue for public distribution system. The 1^st and 2^nd accused thereby committed misappropriation of rationed articles for public distribution and it is punishable U/S 13(2) r/w13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and Sec.409,420 & 34 of IPC.”

4. While canvassing quashment of Annexures 1 to 4 and the further proceedings in the above case, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Civil Supplies Police and Vigilance have no consistency with regard to the allegation of the petitioners. In this connection, it is pointed out that as per Annexure 1, the quantified liability would come to Rs.14,68,695.89. As per Annexure 2 FIR also, the liability would come to Rs.14,68,695.89. In Annexure 3, the allegation is that by misusing their position, the accused caused a loss of Rs.14,68,695.89. But when Annexure 4 final report had been filed, the amount of misappropriation was found to be Rs.5,95,844.82 during the period from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, no materials were collected to show misappropriation of the said amount, as alleged in the final report. It is submitted that as per the document form part of the final report, nothing available to find commission of offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC as well as the other offences. In Annexure 6 inspection report, no independent witness is cited and the statement of witness No.14, who is the District Supply Officer and who conducted inspection on 20.03.2013, and therefore no evidence could be gathered from the same. The other allegation is that, in the procedure prescribed in paragraph 13 of this Crl.M.C, the provisions 7.01(2) and 7.01(5) contained in Chapter VII of Kerala Civil Supplies Manual, 1978 , are to be followed for verification of stock in view of the decision of this Court reported in [ AIR 1999 KER 119 ], N.Sarojini v. District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram & Ors. which read as under:

“13. The provision 7.01 (2) contained in Chapter VII of the Kerala Civil Supplies Manual, 1978 is as under:

The actual stock on hand at the t