Public servants are criminally liable for misappropriation of entrusted property through forgery, supported by identification of handwriting, fulfilling requirements of the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC.

JUDGMENT :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

1. Sri.A.P.Ramachandran, who is the 2^nd accused in C.C.No.18/2009 as well as C.C.No.19/2009 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode, is the appellant in both these appeals. The appellant assails common judgment dated 30.03.2017 in the above cases. The State of Kerala, represented by the Vigilance and Anti-corruption Bureau is the respondent herein.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the accused/appellant as well as the learned Special Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the records of the Special Court as well as the common verdict impugned.

3. I shall refer the parties in these appeals as ‘appellant’ and ‘prosecution’ for easy reference.

4. In both these cases, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 13 (2) r/w Sections 13 (1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PC Act, 1988’) and under Sections 409 , 420, 465, 468, 471 and 477A r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’),by the accused. The prosecution case in C.C.No.18/2009 is that the 2^nd accused, who worked, as public servant as helper, along with 1^st accused, who was the accountant in Hotel Malabar Mansion, Kozhikode, a hotel run by Kerala Tourism Development Corporation, (KTDC), after sharing common intention to make illegal monetary gain, misappropriated a sum of Rs. 1,76,000 in between 25.06.2001 to 20.12.2001 by forging and falsifying the records. In C.C.No.19/2009, the allegation is that, in similar way, in between 15.01.2002 to 21.12.2002 an amount of Rs. 2,60,000 was misappropriated by forging and falsifying the records by the accused.

5. The Special Court framed charge and jointly tried both cases. PW1 to PW17 were examined and Exts.P1 to P64 were marked on the side of the prosecution. During cross-examination of PW3 and PW5, Ext.D1, Ext.D1(a) and Ext.D2 contradictions were marked on the side of the defence.

6. The special court addressed the evidence and found that the accused committed the above offences and accordingly, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as under:

“C.C.18/2019

a) He shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand only) and, in default of payment of the fine, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(c) of the P.C. Act.

b) He shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand only) and, in default of payment of the fine, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act.

c) He shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) and, in default of payment of the fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for offence under Section 409 IPC.

d) He shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) and, in default of payment of the fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for offence under Section 420 IPC.

e) He shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 465 IPC.

f) He shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) and, in default of payment of the fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for offence under Section 468 IPC.

g) He shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 471 IPC

h) He s