Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 1965
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
P. Mariappan - Appellant
Versus
State represented by the Inspector of Police, CBI/ACB/Chennai - Respondent
Crl.A(MD)No. 65 of 2008
Decided On : 03-10-2018
For the Appellant :K. Shankar, R. Diwakaran, Advocates.
For the Respondent: N. Nagendran, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases.
The main legal point established is that a public servant's misappropriation of funds and falsification of accounts can lead to conviction under relevant sections of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Headnote:
Misappropriation - Cashier's Duty - IPC 409, 477-A, P.C. Act 13(2), 13(1)(c) - 409, 477-A IPC, 13(2), 13(1)(c) P.C. Act
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a Cashier at NIT Trichy, was found guilty of misappropriating funds and falsifying accounts. The appellant appealed against the sentence and conviction, arguing that the charges were not proven beyond doubt.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant had manipulated Daily Collection Reports and Abstracts, misappropriating a substantial sum. The court also noted that the appellant's defense was not sufficient to refute the evidence presented by the prosecution.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant had misappropriated the entrusted funds and falsified accounts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence presented, including witness testimonies and documents, to establish the appellant's guilt. The court also considered the appellant's role as a public servant and the specific details of the misappropriated funds.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court.
1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment made in C.C.No.10 of 2005 on the file of the learned Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Madurai, dated 23.01.2008.
2. The appellant herein, who is the sole accused in the case, was found guilty of offences punishable under Sections 409, 477-A IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as 'P.C. Act'].
3. The gist of the charge against the appellant/accused is that while he was working as Receipt Cashier in National Institute of Technology [NIT], Trichy [previously known as Regional Engineering College, Trichy], he has received cash from the students towards remittance of College Fees, Examination Fees, Hostel Fees, Miscellaneous Fees, etc. and has issued computer generated receipt to the payee. However, he had manipulated Daily Collection Reports/Abstracts to camouflage certain receipts received by cash and not accounted. He has falsified the accounts by generating print-outs containing incorrect data and thus, misappropriated a sum of Rs.1,38,750/-. Taking note of the fact that the appellant/ accused has substantially repaid the money he appropriated, the Trial Court has imposed sentence of 1 year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment for each of the offence found guilty. The Trial Court has also directed the sentence of imprisonment shall run concurrently and period of detention if any already undergone, shall be set off against the terms of imprisonment awarded. Aggrieved by the sentence and conviction, the accused has preferred the present appeal.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused would submit that the Trial Court has erred in taking cognizance of the offence, when there is no ingredient in the charge to attract provisions under P.C. Act. According to the learned counsel, the appellant/accused was the Cashier, whose duty is to collect cash from the students towards various heads and submit Daily Collection Reports along with category-wise abstracts. On a vague allegation alleging there was misappropriation of fund during March 2001 to October 2003, a belated complaint filed by the Director in-charge on 08.02.2005 was taken on file for investigation by CBI.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused would further submit that the duty of a Receipt Cashier is very limited and he is supposed to submit Daily Collection Reports to his immediate superior along with the cash. If at all there was any misappropriation, it will be detected on the same day. When in the complaint itself it is stated that group of cashiers have misappropriated the fund and First Information Report was registered for offence under Section 120-B read with 409 IPC against this appellant/accused as well as unknown others, for the reason best known the investigation had confined only to the appellant/accused and he alone has been prosecuted. The Trial Court ought to have taken note of this truncated investigation and ought to have acquitted this accused.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused would also submit that the appellant under threat was forced to pay nearly Rs.2 lakhs which is more than the alleged misappropriation. The prosecution witnesses have targeted the appellant/accused and had put the entire shortage in the account against this appellant. The Trial Court has erroneously relied upon the testimony of interested witnesses to believe that for years together the appellant/accused alone was manipulated the computer data and submitting false accounts which has not been noticed by the concerned authorities, who is supposed to verify the account submitted by the appellant/accused and the same was detected when statutory audit was conducted after lapse of three years. The Trial Court also did not give due weightage for
