Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 29652
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. G. Ajithkumar, J
GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.APPEAL NO. 2514 OF 2007
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU, SRI.P.M.RAFIQ
For the Respondents: NSMT REKHA S, SRI A RAJESH,
Misappropriation of funds by a public servant, regardless of temporary retention, indicates dishonest intention under specific criminal statutes.
Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d), and 13(2) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 409 - Criminal misappropriation - Accused convicted on evidence of misappropriation of energy charges - The existence of dishonest intention and misappropriation supported by sufficient evidence, not interfered with. (Paras 1-18)
(B) Burden of Proof - Prosecution must establish each element of the offence of misappropriation beyond a reasonable doubt - Temporary misappropriation does not absolve unless lack of dishonest intention is established. (Paras 15-17)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was a Cashier at KSEB, charged with misappropriating energy charges totaling Rs.68,727/- between 1995 and 1996. The prosecution presented sufficient evidence that demonstrated his misappropriation and failure to remit full amounts.
Findings of Court:
The Special Court confirmed that the appellant's actions constituted misappropriation, holding him accountable for the amounts not remitted in a timely fashion.
Issues: Determining if the appellant acted with dishonest intention and whether evidentiary standards to convict were met.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found significant evidence of misappropriation and concluded that the temporary nature of the appellant's actions did not negate his dishonest intent to permanently deprive the KSEB of funds.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts establishing misappropriation by public servant. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. evidence validating prosecution claims of financial misconduct. (Para 5 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. arguments challenging reliability of evidence against the accused. (Para 6 , 8 , 12) |
| 4. legal rationale supporting conviction despite temporary misappropriation. (Para 14 , 15 , 18) |
JUDGMENT
The appellant was the sole accused in C.C.No.15 of 2003 on the files of the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. He was charged with offences punishable under Sections 13 (1)(c) and 13(1)(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 ). As per the judgment dated 13.12.2007, he was convicted for the offences punishable under (1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read with (2) of the PC Act and Section 409 of the . He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for each of the said offences. The terms of sentence were ordered to run concurrently. The said judgment of conviction and sentence is under challenge in this appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code).
2. The case of the prosecution is the following:
The appellant was working as a Cashier at Arthunkal Section of the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) during the period from 30.08.1995 to 31.12.1995. He was in charge of Thiruvizha Centre. He allegedly had misappropriated an amount of Rs.68,727/-, which he collected towards energy charges from various consumers coming under LT-IV connections. Since he did such a criminal misappropriation misusing his position as a public servant, he is said to have committed the aforementioned offences.
3. The Special Court framed a charge and read over the same to the appellant. Since he pleaded not guilty, the prosecution has examined PWs1 to 17 and proved Exts.P1 to P45. During his examination under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code, the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances that appeared against him in evidence. He further stated that he had remitted the entire amount he had collected from the consumers. Thus, he maintained that he was innocent. Exts.D1 and D2 were marked on his side. The trial court, after considering the evidence that came on record, held that the appellant misappropriated Rs.68,727/-. The finding was that out of the said amount, the appellant did not pay at all Rs.37,575/- till the misappropriation was detected in the inspection conducted by PW8, the Accounts Officer on 01.01.1996 and 03.01.1996. However, in the case of the remaining amount of Rs.31,152/-, there was only temporary misappropriation, since the appellant remitted the amount in bank after a few days of collection. The Special Court accordingly concluded that the appellant committed the offences under Sections 13 (1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the PC Act and Section 409 of the IPC . The appellant assails the said findings in this appeal.
4. Heard the learned Senior Counsel, appeared on instructions, for the appellant and the learned Special Public Prosecutor (Vigilance).
5. The findings of the Special Court that the appellant was working as a Cashier at the Arthunkal Section of the KSEB from 30.08.1995 to 31.12.1995 and he was a public servant as defined in Section 2(c) of the PC Act is not challenged. Ext.P13 is the sanction accorded by PW7, the Chief Engineer on 22.01.2002 to prosecute the appellant. Based on the evidence of PW7, it was held that there was a valid sanction for prosecution of the appellant. The said finding is devoid of any infirmity.
6. The findings of the Special Court that the appellant was in charge of Thiruvizha Centre and various amounts collected were misappropriated by him, are strongly assailed. It is contended that the evidence is insufficient to find that the appellant was in charge of Thiruvizha Centre in Arthunkal Section of the KSEB during the relevant period.
