IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN, J
C.a.sasi - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala - Respondent
CRL.A NO. 132 OF 2013, CC NO.13 OF 2005
Decided On : 11-11-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. criminal appeal jurisdiction and structure (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. charges of misappropriation under pc act and ipc (Para 3) |
| 3. overview of trial process and evidence (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. defense arguments highlighting accused's leave (Para 6) |
| 5. prosecution's rebuttal on accountability (Para 7) |
| 6. evaluating key points of contention (Para 8) |
| 7. legal analysis under ipc and intent (Para 9 , 18 , 28) |
| 8. evidence from witnesses regarding cash handling (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 9. dw testimonies challenging prosecution's claims (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 10. ingredients for proving misappropriation and falsification (Para 19 , 24 , 29) |
| 11. final judgment and sentencing rationale (Para 30) |
JUDGMENT :
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’ for short) by the sole accused in C.C.No.13/2005 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, challenging the verdict of conviction and sentence dated 01.12.2012 in the above case.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the relevant documents.
3. In this matter, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'PC Act, 1988' for short) as well as under Sections 409 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short). The prosecution case in brief is that, while the accused was working as U.D. Accountant at Government College Hostel for Men, Thiruvananthapuram, during the period from 01.06.1998 to 15.05.1999, he had dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriated a total sum of Rs.93,719/- (Rupees ninety three thousand seven hundred and nineteen only), which had been entrusted to him in the capacity as a public servant during the period from 24.02.1999 to 30.03.1999. The further case of the prosecution is that, by way of making false entries in the cash book maintained at the hostel, the accused had claimed that Rs.58,064/- (Rupees fifty eight thousand and sixty four only) was remitted in the District Treasury, Thiruvananthapuram on 24.02.1999 vide challan Nos. 5637 to 5640. It is also alleged that by way of making similar false entries in the cash book, showing that a sum of Rs.35,655/- (Rupees thirty five thousand six hundred and fifty five only) was remitted in the District Treasury, Thiruvananthapuram on 30.03.1999 vide challan Nos.7171 and 7172, the accused had dishonestly misappropriated a total sum of Rs.93,719/- (Rupees ninety three thousand seven hundred and nineteen only). The prosecution also alleges that in order to misappropriate the amounts mentioned above, the accused, who was the person maintaining the cash book of the hostel, had made falsified entries with an intention to defraud and thereby, he had committed the offence punishable under Section 477-A of IPC apart from the offences punishable under Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1)(c) of the PC Act, 1988, and Section 409 of IPC.
4. The Special Court raised necessary issues and tried the case. PW1 and PW20 were examined and Exts.P1 to P41 were marked on the side of the prosecution. DW1 to DW3 were examined and Exts.D1 to D6 were marked on the side of the defence.
5. On appreciation of the evidence, the learned Special Judge found that the accused committed offences punishable under Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1)(c) of the PC Act, 1988 as well as under Sections 409 and 477A of IPC and sentenced him as under:
“……… the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) and in default of the payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under S.13(1)(c) r/w S.13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988. The accused is also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Ru
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.