IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2011 / 14TH POUSHA 1932 CRL.A.No. 4 of 2002() --------------------- CC.4/1998 of ENQUIRY COMMR. & SPL.JUDGE, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S): ACCUSED: ---------------------- K.P.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR, S/O. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, PUTHEN VEEDU, ANTHIYOORKONAM, KOLLODE P.O., MALAYAMKIZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. (FORMERLY SALES ASSISTANT,HANVEEV SHOW ROOM, VALANCHERY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT). BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.V.P.SUKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): /COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- Crl.A.NO.4 OF 2002 --------------------------------------------- Dated 4th January, 2011 JUDGMENT Accused in C.C.4/1998 on the file of Special Judge, Vigilance, Kozhikode filed the appeal challenging his conviction and sentence for the offences under Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 409 and 477 A of Indian Penal Code. Petitioner was admittedly Sales Assistant in charge of Handloom show room at Valancherry during the period 2/8/1993 to 22/1/1994. Prosecution case is that being the Sales Assistant in charge of the Handveev show room conducted by Kerala State Handloom Development Corporation, petitioner was responsible to maintain the cash book and for proper accounting of the Cra 4/02 2 money received at the show room. It is alleged that petitioner wrongly showed in the statement forwarded to the Regional Office that out of the sale proceed of Rs.16025/- for the month of December, 1993, Rs.16,000/- was sent to the Regional office by demand draft and Rs.25/- was spent as charges for obtaining the demand draft and the said amount was dishonestly misappropriated by the appellant. Since the cash book received at the Regional office showed a cash balance of over Rs.16,000/- which was not remitted in the Regional office, Kannur, PW1 the then in charge of the Regional Manager directed PW2, the Account Assistant in the Regional office to make an enquiry. PW2 inspected the show room on 11/1/1994 and verified the cash book and found that though there is an entry that Rs.16,000/- was sent by Cra 4/02 3 demand draft and Rs.25/- was spent as charges for obtaining demand draft, no such amount was received at the Regional office. PW2 reported the matter to the Regional Manager, PW1 in turn authorized PW3 who was the Manager of Kannur Handloom Show Room to make a detailed enquiry. PW3 inspected the show room on the afternoon of 17/1/1994 and finding that the entry in the statement discloses that demand draft was sent, conducted enquiry at Malappuram District Co-operative Bank and found that no demand draft was issued from the Bank. PW3 submitted Ext.P6 report to the effect that Rs.16,025/- was misappropriated by the appellant. On receipt of Ext.P6 report, Ext.P26 complaint was filed by PW1 before Valancherry police based on which the crime 20/1994 was registered. It was later transferred to Cra 4/02 4 Vigilance and Anti corruption Bureau, Malappuram. PW7, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Malappuram, investigated the case after re-registering the case under Ext.P31 FIR. PW8, his successor continued the investigation. PW8 obtained the specimen handwriting and signature of the appellant and sent them for comparison with the entries in Exts.P1 and P2 entries of the cash book to Forensic Science Laboratory and obtained Ext.P36 report. After completing the investigation, finding that the appellant falsely entered in the statement that Rs.16,000/- was sent to the Regional Office by demand draft and Rs.25/- was spent for charges and misappropriated Rs.16,025/-, PW8 the successor Deputy Superintendent of Police laid the charge before Special Judge, Vigilance. It Cra 4/02 5 was taken cognizance for the offences under 13 (1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 409 and 477 A of Indian Penal Code. Appellant appeared before Special Judge and pleaded not guilty, when charge for those offences were framed, read over and explained to him. 2. Prosecution examined nine witnesses and marked 36 exhibits. After closing the prosecution evidence, the appellant was questioned under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. He was called upon to enter on his defence and adduce evidence, if any. Appellant did not adduce any evidence. The only evidence on his behalf was portion of the statement of PW3 recorded under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure confronted and marked at the time of cross examination of PW3. Cra 4/02 6 3. On the evidence, learned Special Judge found the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.16,025/- for the offence under Section 13(1) (c) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was also convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year each for the offences under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 409 and 477 A of Indian Penal Code with a direction that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. 4. Appellant would contend that learned Special Judge did not properly appreciate the evidence and did not afford sufficient opportunity to the appellant to defend the case by producing evidence and examining the Cra 4/02 7 witnesses. It is contended that there is no evidence to prove that there was any entrustment of the property to the appellant and hence an offence under Section 13(1)(c) and 13(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act or Sections 409 of Indian Penal Code would not be attracted and learned Special Judge, wrongfully relied on the evidence of PW9, the expert to come to the conclusion that the entries in Exts.P1 and P2 cash book were in the handwriting of the appellant. It is contended that evidence show that apart from the appellant one Ashraf was also working as Sales Assistant and when there is no evidence to prove the entrustment of the property with the appellant, he could not have been convicted. It is further contended that entries in the cash register was made by Ashraf and it Cra 4/02 8 was wrongfully found by the Special Judge relying on Ext.P36 report that it is the handwriting of the appellant and when it is the admitted case that cash book was in loose sheets and it was the practice to send sale proceeds by way of demand draft to the Regional office, when there are more than one employee, appellant cannot be convicted without conclusive proof, as has been done by the learned Special Judge and therefore, conviction and sentence are liable to be set aside. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor were heard. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently argued that when there is no evidence for the entrustment and the evidence is insufficient to Cra 4/02 9 prove that the disputed writings in Exts.P1 and P2 are that of the appellant the conviction is not sustainable. It was also argued that in any case the sentence awarded is excessive and hence it is to be reduced if the conviction is upheld. 6. The points for consideration are 1) Whether appellant dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriated Rs.16,025/- from the sale proceeds of the show room of KSHDC at Valanchery ? 2) Whether appellant, to cover up the misappropriation of Rs.16,025/- willfully and with intend to defraud, made false entries in the cash book of the show room that Rs.16,000/- was sent by demand draft and Rs.25/- was spent as charges for obtaining the demand draft. 3) Whether conviction of the appellant for the offences under Cra 4/02 10 Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 409 and 477 A of Indian Penal Code are sustainable? 4) Whether sentence awarded is proper? 7. The points:-Ext.P16 proceedings of the Regional Manager of Kerala State Handloom Development Corporation, Kollam dated 2/8/1993 establish that appellant, joined in the office as per order G2/SA/31/1612/93 dated 21/7/1993 and he was posted as in charge of the proposed show room at Valanchery. Appellant was directed to take charge of the show room forthwith and was also directed to attend the preliminary work connected with the inauguration of the proposed show room on 7/8/1993. Ext.P13 joining report submitted by the appellant to the Regional office, KSHDC, Kannur establish that appellant reported for duty at Valanchery Cra 4/02 11 KSHDC show room on 2/8/1993. Ext.P17 the attendance register of the show room establish that appellant had taken charge as the officer in charge of the show room as directed in Ext.P13 order. He marked his attendance from that day onwards. Apart from the appellant, one Ashraf who was appointed as a temporary Sales Assistant, was also working in that show room. Though appellant contended that there were other employees also, there is no evidence to prove that, apart from the appellant who was appointed as Sales Assistant in charge of the show room and Ashraf the temporary Sales Assistant, any other employee was working therein. Evidence of Pws.2 and 3 establish that sale proceeds received at the show room is to be remitted to Regional office either by cash or by demand draft. This aspect was not Cra 4/02 12 disputed when the witnesses were examined or appellant was questioned under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure or before the trial court in the appeal. Ext.P1 is the relevant cash book for the month of December, 1993 maintained at Valanchery show room and forwarded to the Regional Office, Kannur. It shows that there was a closing balance of Rs.16,140.13 as on 31/12/1993. Ext.P2 is the cash book for the month of January 1994 forwarded to Valanchery show room and forwarded to Regional office, Kannur. Ext.P2 shows that on 3/1/1994 an entry is recorded to the effect that Rs.16,000/- was sent to Regional office by demand draft and Rs.25/- was paid as demand draft charge. Both Exts.P1 and P2 are in loose sheets. Evidence establish that cash book used to be prepared at the show room by the Sales Cra 4/02 13 Assistant in charge and will be forwarded to the Regional office at the end of each month. It is the prosecution case that though relevant entry in Ext.P2 (marked as Q3(a) by PW9, the handwriting expert) shows that Rs.16,000/- was sent by demand draft and Rs.25/- was spent as charges for obtaining the demand draft, there was no such remittance and no demand draft was taken and no amount was spent for the obtaining demand draft. It is the case that Rs.16,025/- which was allegedly sent and spent, were misappropriated by the appellant dishonestly and for that purpose, false entries was made in Ext.P2 to the effect that Rs.16,000/- was spent by demand draft and Rs.25/- was spent for obtaining the demand draft. 8. Fact that the appellant was appointed as Sales Assistant of Valanchery Cra 4/02 14 Branch and he was working there as Sales Assistant from 2/8/1993 till 20/1/1994 is not disputed either when the prosecution witnesses were examined or the appellant was questioned under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. As stated earlier, Ext.P16 appointment order and Ext.P13 joining report and Ext.P17 attendance register establish this fact. 9. Though appellant raised a contention that he was only one of the Sales Assistant and as there were more employees and he was not in charge of the show room and therefore, in the absence of evidence to prove entrustment of Rs.16,025/- with the appellant, he cannot be convicted for the offences under Prevention of Corruption Act or Indian Penal Code, evidence establishes that the appellant was appointed as Cra 4/02 15 officer in charge of the show room and he had taken charge as the Sales Assistant in charge of the show room and he was functioning as the Sales Assistant in charge of the show room. Ext.P16 conclusively establish that appointment of the appellant was as Sales Assistant in charge of the show room and he joined duty as Sales Assistant in charge of the show room as evidenced by Ext.P13 report submitted by him. Ext.P17 attendance register further conclusively establish that he was the Sales Assistant in charge of the show room during August 1993 till 22/1/1994. Though Ashraf was also working as temporary Sales Assistant, evidence of Pws.2 and 3 establish that it was only a temporary appointment and Ashraf was not even appointed by KSHDC, but was temporarily appointed by the appellant in his Cra 4/02 16 capacity as Sales Assistant in charge of the show room. Therefore, as rightly found by the learned Special Judge, appellant cannot be heard to contend that there was no entrustment of the sale proceeds of the show room with the appellant. As the appellant is in charge of the show room, it is the appellant who alone could be responsible for the sale and receipt of the sale proceeds of the show room no separate entrustment is to be proved. The fact that as on 31/12/1993 there was cash balance of Rs.16,140.13 as shown in Ext.P1 cash book is not in dispute. Being the Sales Assistant in charge of the show room, that amount should necessarily be in the domain of the appellant, who alone would be liable for that amount. 10. Ext.P2 cash book sent from the show room to Regional Office, Kannur establish that Cra 4/02 17 it was claimed in the cash book for the month of January 1994 that on 3/1/1994, Rs.16,000/- was sent by demand draft and Rs.25/- was spent for obtaining the demand draft. Evidence of Pws.2 and 3 who verified the records on inspecting the show room and also verifying with Malappuram District Co-operative Bank and the evidence of Pws.4 and 5, respective Managers of the said Bank establish that no such demand draft was taken by the appellant in the name of the show room at Valanchery to be paid to Regional office, Kannur. Evidence of Pws.4 and 5 on that aspect or evidence of Pws.2 and 3 based on the personal verification, were not challenged at the time of their examination. Evidence conclusively establish that Rs.16,025/- which was admittedly received as sale proceeds of the show room at Cra 4/02 18 Valanchery was not remitted to the Regional Office by demand draft by the appellant or in the name of the show room at Valanchery or remitted to Regional office, Kannur. Evidence also conclusively establish that Rs.25/-, which was allegedly spent for obtaining demand draft, was not in fact spent. On the evidence, learned Special Judge was perfectly correct in finding that Rs.16,025/- being the sale proceeds obtained by the appellant in his capacity as the Sale Assistant in charge of the show room was not remitted at the Regional office and was not sent by demand draft and it was misappropriated, as the appellant did not account for the same. 11. The contention of the appellant before the learned Special Judge and in the appeal was there was one more employee by name Cra 4/02 19 Ashraf, in that show room, in the absence of conclusive evidence to prove the relevant entry in Ext.P2, to the effect that Rs.16,000/- was sent by demand draft and Rs.25/- was spent as charge for demand draft, appellant cannot be found guilty. Learned Special Judge on the evidence found that the relevant entry in Ext.P2 that Rs.16,000/- was sent by demand draft and Rs.25/- was spent as demand draft charges are in the handwriting of the appellant. Argument of the appellant is that there is no conclusive evidence to prove the identity of the handwriting and the evidence of PW9, the expert and Ext.P36 report should not have been accepted. Evidence of PW9 with Ext.P36 establish that the questioned document namely, the relevant entry in Ext.P2, which shows that Rs.16,000/- was sent by demand draft Cra 4/02 20 and Rs.25/- was spent as demand draft charges, as well as the other entries and the admitted handwriting and the signature of the appellant in Ext.P7 leave application and Ext.P8 joining report, are in the handwriting of the appellant. PW9 is the Joint Director and Head of the Document Division of Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram who is a well qualified and experienced handwriting expert. His evidence proves that he verified the questioned documents, which are marked as Exts.Q1 to Q3 at the laboratory with the admitted signatures in the leave application of the appellant as well as the specimen signatures and the writings collected by the investigating officer and forwarded to him and based on the detailed examination of the questioned documents and the specimen writings, Cra 4/02 21 the questioned documents were found written by the same person who had written the specimen writing forwarded to him including the admitted handwriting and signatures. Though the appellant has a case that, Ext.P36 report and the evidence of PW9 should not have been accepted, on going through the evidence and evidence of PW9 with Ext.P36, I find no reason to differ with the findings of the learned Special Judge on that aspect. I have also compared the handwriting seen in Exts.P1 and P2 cash register including the questioned writings as well as the admitted handwriting of the appellant in Ext.P13 as well as Exts.P7 and P8. I have no hesitation to hold that, as rightly found by PW9, the expert, they are all the handwriting of the same person. If that be so, as rightly found by the learned Special Cra 4/02 22 Judge, evidence establish that Rs.16,025/- being the sale proceeds of the show room at Valanchery, received by the appellant as Sales Assistant in charge of the show room, was misappropriated by him by not properly account the same and not remitting the same to the Regional office as he should have done. Evidence also conclusively establish that appellant made the false entries in Ext.P2 cash register to the effect that Rs.16,000/- was sent by demand draft and Rs.25/- was spent for obtaining the demand draft. The evidence conclusively establish that it was the appellant who made false entries in Ext.P2 to felicitate misappropriation of Rs.16,025/- which was under his domain, in his capacity as the Sales Assistant in charge of the Handloom show room at Valanchery. In the light of the Cra 4/02 23 said findings, conviction of the appellant for the offences under Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act is perfectly correct. So also on the evidence, conviction of the appellant for the offence under Sections 409 and 477 A of Indian Penal Code is also absolutely correct and warrants no interference. 12. Then the only question is regarding the sentence. Though learned Special Judge awarded separate sentence for the offence under Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also for the offences under Sections 409 and 477 A of Indian Penal Code, sentences were directed to be run concurrently. Sentence awarded was rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.16,025/-, without providing Cra 4/02 24 default sentence for the offence under Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and rigorous imprisonment for one year each for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 409 and 477 A of Indian Penal Code. Appellant is entitled to set off. In such circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the sentence also. Appeal is therefore dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence. Special Judge, Vigilance, Kozhikode is directed to execute the sentence. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.