JUDGMENT

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated

06.08.2019 in C.C.No.30/2005 passed by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. By the impugned judgment, the appellant/accused was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 and Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The prosecution case is briefly narrated as below:- The Government of Kerala introduced a Savings- Cum-Relief Scheme for fishermen. The scheme contemplated to collect Rs.45/- per month from each fishermen during a period of eight months from July to February every year. The Central and State Governments would contribute Rs.45/- each to the fund so accumulated. The entire amount would be deposited in a consolidated account maintained by the Deputy Director of Fisheries. The amount would be distributed in equal monthly installments to the beneficiary fishermen during the period from March to June. The accused was working as Fisheries Development Officer in charge of Poothura, Thazhampally, Marianadu and Perumathura villages. During the period from 27.06.1995 to 22.07.1996, he was entrusted with the responsibility of collecting subscription from the fishermen towards the said scheme. The accused collected a sum of Rs.2,36,250/- from the fishermen during the period from July, 1995 to February, 1996. The accused remitted only a sum of Rs.2,31,870/- in the account No.F-12 of the State Bank of Travancore, Puthenchantha Branch. The accused failed to remit a sum of Rs.43,880/- and misappropriated the same. The accused was entrusted with an amount of Rs.8,59,980/- by way of ten cheques issued to him for the disbursement of the relief amount to the fishermen. The accused disbursed during the relevant period only a sum of Rs. 7,67,205/- to 717 beneficiaries. The accused remitted back an amount of Rs.16,950/- in the State Bank of Travancore Puthenchantha Branch. He failed to disburse or remit back an amount of Rs.75,825/- and dishonestly or fraudulently converted the amount for his own use. The accused thereby misappropriated a total sum of Rs.80,205/- during the relevant period.

3. The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 8 and proved Exts.P1 to P21. The defence case is that the accused had not misappropriated any amount as alleged. The accused was not given sufficient facilities for collecting amount from the fishermen. He has not deliberately caused any loss to the Government even if there occurred any shortage on the amount remitted and disbursed. It was not deliberate and it might have happened due to an inadvertent omission occurred during the time of collection and disbursal of the amount. The accused also contended that he was entrusted with the responsibility of collecting the amounts from the fishermen as an additional responsibility. However assistance of no other person was extended to him.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and the learned Special Government Pleader (Vigilance) appearing for the respondent State.

5. The case of the prosecution is that during the period from 27.06.1995 to 22.07.1996 the accused collected a sum of Rs.2,36,250/- from the fishermen and remitted in the relevant bank account only a sum of Rs.2,31,870/-. The further case of the prosecution is that though a sum of Rs.8,59,980/- was entrusted to the accused for disbursal among the fishermen during the relevant period, he disbursed only a sum of Rs.7,67,205/-. Therefore, the accused is alleged to have misappropriated a sum of Rs.80,205/-.

6. The prosecution mainly relied on the oral evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 8 and Exts.P1 to P21 to establish the allegation against the accused.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused relied on the following grounds to attack the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence.

(i) The FIS and FIR originally registered by Vanchiyoor Police in Crime No.216/1996 were not produced and tendered in evidence by the prosecution.

(ii) The oral evidence of