Public servants misappropriating funds and failing to remit them can be convicted under the PC Act and IPC. The absence of documentation does not exempt accountability for the misappropriation.

JUDGMENT :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

1. These appeals have been filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging common judgment dated 24.06.2009 in C.C.Nos.21/2005, 22/2005, 23/2005, 24/2005 and 25/2005 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, whereby the appellant, who got arrayed as the first accused, was convicted and sentenced in all the cases while acquitting the second accused. The State of Kerala, represented by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) is the respondent in all these appeals.

2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/1^st accused and the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the VACB in detail. Perused the relevant records, including the decisions placed by the learned Special Public Prosecutor.

3. In C.C.No.21/2005, the prosecution case in brief as under:

The first accused was working as Cashier and the second accused as Administrative Assistant in the office of the Superintendent of Police (hereinafter referred to as 'SP' for short), Telecommunication Headquarters, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram, during the period from 1995 to 1997. Being public servants, they were entrusted with the Government cash and documents of the above said office. They entered into criminal conspiracy and in pursuance of the said conspiracy, they dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriated or otherwise converted to their own use an amount of Rs.45,495/- (Rupees forty five thousand four hundred and ninety five only), which was drawn during the period from 07.06.1996 to 27.07.1997 through three contingent bill Nos.52/96-97, 79/96-97 and 95/96-97 from the Sub Treasury, Vellayambalam, towards the cost of electricity charges of the office of the SP, Telecommunication Headquarters. They did not remit the said amount and misappropriated the same. Thereby accused Nos.1 and 2 committed offences punishable under Sections 13 (2) r/w. 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PC Act, 1988’ for short) as well as under Sections 409 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘ IPC ’ for short).

4. In C.C.No.22/2005, the prosecution case in brief as under:

The first accused was working as Cashier and the second accused as Administrative Assistant in the office of the SP, Telecommunication Headquarters, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram, during the period from 1995 to 1997. Being public servants, they were entrusted with the Government cash and documents of the above said office. They entered into criminal conspiracy and in pursuance of the said conspiracy, an amount of Rs.89,030/- (Rupees eighty nine thousand and thirty only) was withdrawn between the period from 06.12.1996 and 07.05.1997 through four contingent bill Nos.108/97-89, 160/97-98, 203/97-98 and 5/97-98 from the Sub Treasury, Vellayambalam, towards the cost of electricity charges of the office of the SP, Telecommunication Headquarters and they did not remit the said amount for the said purpose and dishonestly misappropriated the said amount and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 13 (1)(c) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 as well as under Sections 409 and 120B IPC.

5. In C.C.No.23/2005, the prosecution case in brief as under:

The first accused was working as Cashier and the second accused as Administrative Assistant in the office of the SP, Telecommunication Headquarters, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram, during the period from 1995 to 1997. They being public servants were entrusted with the Government cash and documents of the above said