Misappropriation by a public servant constitutes criminal misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act, maintaining liability even if funds are later returned.

JUDGMENT

A teacher shall be a role model, not only for the students but also for the society. But, the appellant, who was a teacher and a headmistress, did not prove to be so. It is unfortunate that she had shown deviance from the path of honesty and integrity.

2. The appellant is the sole accused in the case C.C No.69/2011 on the file of the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam. She stands convicted and sentenced by that court for committing the offences punishable under Sections 13 (1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act').

3. The gist of the prosecution is as follows: The accused was the headmistress of the Government Tribal Upper Primary School, Kombukuthy during the period from 01.06.2006 to 19.03.2008. Smt.Joice Rose Thomas (PW3) and Smt.Radhamaniamma (PW4) were teachers in that school during the year 2006. On 16.10.2006, the accused, dishonestly and fraudulently, by abusing her official position as a public servant, withdrew Rs.24,960/-each from the General Provident Fund (GPF) account of PW3 and PW4, without their knowledge and she misappropriated that money. Neither PW3 nor PW4 had made any application for sanctioning loan from the GPF.

4. The trial court framed charge against the accused for the offences under Section 13 (1)(c) read with 13(2) of the Act and (1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act. The accused pleaded not guilty and she claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution examined the witnesses PW1 to PW13 and marked the documents Exts.P1 to P32. No evidence was adduced by the accused.

6. The trial court found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 13 (1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act and convicted her thereunder. The trial court sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months each for the offences under (1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act and directed that the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.

7. This appeal is filed by the accused challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed against her by the trial court.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the records of the case.

9. The accused was the headmistress of the Government Tribal Upper Primary School, Kombukuthy (hereinafter referred to as 'the school') during the period from 01.06.2006 to 19.03.2008. She was a public servant as defined under Section 2(c) of the Act. PW3 and PW4 were teachers of the same school during the year 2006. There is no dispute with regard to these facts.

10. Ext.P1 is the copy of the order dated 04.08.1999 issued by the Director of Public Instruction. It shows that the headmistress of a government school had the authority to sanction temporary advance (loan) from the GPF upto an amount of Rs.25,000/-.

11. PW1 is a person who had worked as Superintendent in the office of the Deputy Director of Education at Kottayam for a long period. He has given evidence with regard to the procedure to be followed for sanctioning loan from the GPF and encashment and disbursement of the loan amount to the persons concerned. The evidence of PW1 reveals that the following procedure had to be followed in that regard. The teacher concerned should make an application, with necessary particulars, for sanctioning loan from the GPF. The application shall be in the prescribed form. The headmaster would verify whether the amount is in credit in the GPF account of the applicant. Loan could be sanctioned by the headmaster wit