Misappropriation by a public servant requires proof of entrustment and dishonest intention, both established here, confirming guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC.

JUDGMENT :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

1. Judgment in C.C.No.7/09 dated 25.10.2013 on the files of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, is under challenge in this appeal at the instance of the sole accused in the said case.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused as well as the learned Special Public Prosecutor. Perused the impugned judgment as well as the decisions placed by both sides.

3. In this matter, the prosecution allegation is that the accused committed the offences punishable under Section 13 (1)(c) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (`PC Act, 1988' for short) as well as Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short). The precise allegation is that the accused, while working as Cashier in KSEB Sub Engineer's Office at Tholikkodu, during the period between 19.08.2002 and 09.07.2004, when entrusted with collection of electricity charges from the consumers of the said electricity office, had collected Rs.1,37,277/- in between 23.01.2004 and 24.04.2004 by using provisional invoice receipt book No.40673, misappropriated the said sum without accounting the details of the amount collected as per the said receipt book in daily collection register and without remitting the same in the account of the KSEB.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused vehemently canvassed that no evidence was adduced by the prosecution to substantiate that Ext.P9, the provisional invoice receipt book No.40673 was pertaining to KSEB Office, Tholikkodu and the same was used by the accused to collect electricity charges as alleged. It is also submitted that similarly as per the evidence, the prosecution did not succeed in proving the offences against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. In such view of the matter, the prosecution evidence is insufficient to hold that the accused committed the offences punishable under Section 13 (1)(c) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 as well as Section 409 and 420 of IPC. Therefore the learned counsel for the appellant pressed for interference in the verdict impugned to record acquittal of the appellant.

5. Zealously opposing the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, it is submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that in this matter, even though Ext.P9 invoice receipt book doesn't contain anything to show the same as a book used at KSEB, Tholikkodu, the evidence of PW11 and PW15 coupled with Ext.P27 and Ext.P1(l)(a) notice would clearly show that Ext.P9 receipt book was entrusted to the accused, who was the sole Cashier of KSEB, Tholikkodu and he had used the same to collect electricity charges. That apart, the evidence of PW11 and PW15 would show that Exts.P27 and P1(l)(a) receipts were issued by the accused from Ext.P9 receipt book from KSEB, Tholikkodu and therefore, the collection of Rs.1,37,277/- by the accused while serving as Cashier at KSEB, Tholikkodu and misappropriation of the said sum without remitting the same in the account of the KSEB are established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Thus the verdict impugned is only to be confirmed.

6. Addressing the rival contentions, the question arises for consideration are:

(i) Whether the finding of the Special Court that the accused committed offence punishable under Section 13 (1)(c) r/w 13(2) of the P.C Act, 1988 is justifiable?

(ii) Whether the finding of the Special Court that the accused committed offence punishable under Section 409 of the IPC is justifiable?

(iii) Whether the verdict under challenge would require interference?

(iv) The order to be passed?

Points (i) to (iv)

7. In this case the entire dispute is centered on collection of electricity cha