The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused obtained a pecuniary advantage through misconduct; mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.

JUDGMENT

The appellant was the 1^st accused in C.C.Nos.111 of 2008, 112 of 2008 and 113 of 2008 on the files of the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam. The Special Court convicted him for the offences under Sections 13 (1)(c) and (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and Sections 409 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC ) in all the cases. He was accordingly sentenced also. The common judgment rendered by the Special Court in that regard is under challenge in these appeals filed under Section 374 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code).

2. The appellant was the Executive Officer (rechristened as Secretary), Karimannoor Panchayat during 1992-1993. Alleging that he hatched a conspiracy with the other accused arraigned in the respective cases for committing misappropriation of money allocated for maintenance of various roads in the Panchayat and in furtherance of their conspiracy, various amounts were misappropriated in connection with maintenance work carried out to three roads in the Panchayat. Each of these cases relates to separate incidents. Details of the calendar cases corresponding to the appeals are tabulated below:

3. Sri.M.Gopala Pillai, who was the 3^rd accused in C.C.No.112 of 2008 and 2^nd accused in C.C.No.113 of 2008 expired before commencement of the trial. When charges were framed and read over, the appellant and the other co-accused denied. At the common trial, PWs.1 to 15 were examined and Exts.P1 to P74 besides Exts.X1 and X1(a) were marked on the side of the prosecution. The accused were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code. He denied the incriminating circumstances appeared against him in evidence. The appellant filed a statement. He maintained that the respective works were carried out under the supervision of Engineers, who were responsible for the same and also to make good loss, if any, occasioned to the Panchayat in relation to the works. The Engineers measured the works and certified. Based on such measurement and certification, amounts were released. The appellant did not have any technical knowledge in the matter. When the Engineers certified satisfactory execution of the works, who were duly paid remuneration, the appellant cannot be held responsible. Accordingly, he maintained that he was innocent and falsely implicated in these cases. Although no document was produced, DW1 was examined on the side of the appellant. The Special Court, after considering the evidence on record, found the appellant alone guilty and convicted him. The findings of the Special Court leading to his conviction are assailed in these appeals.

4. The appellant expired. His wife got impleaded as additional 2^nd appellant.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Special Public Prosecutor (Vigilance) and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

6. The appellant was the Secretary of Karimannoor Panchayat during the relevant period. That fact is not disputed. In order to prosecute him, sanction under Section 19(1) of the PC Act has been accorded. Ext.P72 is the order of sanction. The fact that he entered into agreements with the 2^nd/3^rd accused in regard to the execution of the road works in question, and he disbursed the estimated amount are also not in dispute. The allegation of the prosecution is that although the maintenance work of all the three roads were carried out, the quantum of work was much less than the estimated cost. The case of the prosecution is that the excess amounts in that regard were misappropriated by the appellant. Although it was alleged that the appellant in connivance with the Engineers, who were put in charge of supervision of the works, did the misappropriation, the Special Court found that the role