IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 31ST OCTOBER 2008 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1930 CRL.A.No. 524 of 2000 (CC.NO. 12/1999 (V.C.5/92 OF V.A.C.B. THRISSUR) OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, THRISSUR). -------------------------- APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------- R. DANDAPANI, FORMER FOREST RANGE OFFICER, PARIYARAM, BY ADV. SRI.R.SATISH KUMAR RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.N.SUKUMARAN. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.A.No.524 OF 2000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 31st day of October 2008 JUDGMENT Appellant and two others were charge sheeted by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Thrissur, for the offences punishable under Sections 5(1)(c) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and also under Sections 409, 468, 471and 477-A read with Section 34 IPC. 2. It appears that accused No. 2 died even before the final report was filed before the court and therefore only the appellant who was arraigned as accused No.1 and the other (accused 3) were tried before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur. The trial court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution as well as the defence found the appellant guilty of the charges levelled against him. However, accused No.3 was acquitted. This appeal is at the instance of accused No.1. 3. The prosecution case in brief was that during 1982-1983, the three accused who were respectively working as Forest Range Officer, Section Forester and Forest Guard in Pariyaram Forest Range under the Chalakudy Forest Division had in furtherance of the common intention prepared forged vouchers showing as though wages had been disbursed to workers for various works connected with plantation work in the Range. The accused had falsified the accounts for this purpose and misappropriated a total sum of Rs.18,834.30/- fraudulently and dishonestly and thus obtained undue pecuniary advantage. The Crl.A.524/2000 2 accused had thus committed criminal mis-conduct coming within the purview of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and also committed criminal breach of trust, falsification of accounts, forgery for the purpose of cheating by using forged vouchers as though they were genuine. The three accused had thus committed the offences punishable under Sections 409, 468, 471 and 477A read with Section 34 IPC as well. 4. It may at once be noticed that the alleged offences were committed by the accused during 1982-1983; but the crime was registered in the year 1992. Ext.P25 is stated to be the First Information Report. 5. The prosecution had examined PWs 1 to 15 and marked Exts.P1 to P33 on its side. Exts.D1 and D2 were marked on the side of the defence, though no defence witness was examined. 6. As mentioned earlier, the trial court found the appellant guilty of the offences alleged against him whereas accused 3 was acquitted. Appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year under Section 5(1)(C) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years under Section 409 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 468 IPC. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 471 IPC and to suffer two years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 477 A IPC. It was Crl.A.524/2000 3 directed that the substantive sentence of imprisonment shall run concurrently. 7. Pws. 1 to 5 and 7, 8 and 10 are stated to be the workers in whose names vouchers were fabricated. To be specific, the prosecution case was that the accused had created false vouchers in the names of these witnesses as though they had worked in connection with the plantation work during the relevant period and as if wages had been received by them in connection with that work. Thus the charge framed against the accused was that they had misappropriated a total sum of Rs.18,834.30/-. PW1 deposed before the court that voucher No.13 dated, 31-3-82 which was shown to him while he was in the box had not been signed by him. But the address shown in the voucher was correct. He further stated that he had not received the sum of Rs.1,515/- shown in the voucher. He asserted that he had not signed any voucher. But he admitted that he had worked in the plantation for two days consecutively. In cross examination, he further stated that he had received wages for the two days' work in the plantation. He also stated that the Forester used to disburse the wages. He could not say whether he had gone for any work on March 31, 1982. 8. PW2 stated that he had never gone to the forest for any work. Voucher 15/31-3-82 was disowned by him. The signature seen in the voucher was not that of his. PW3 also stated that he had never gone for work in the forest. PW4 stated that he had worked in the forest for 5 to 8 days. But he could not remember whether it was in 1982. But he stated that he had not received any money in connection with that work Crl.A.524/2000 4 on the strength of any voucher. In cross examination, this witness asserted that wages were paid to him by the Forester. PW5 stated that he had never worked in the Pariyaram division. Voucher 18/31-3-82 was disowned by him. PW7 stated that the signature seen in voucher 14/31-3-82 might be that of his. He stated that he had worked in the forest for 2 to 3 days. This witness was declared hostile as requested by the prosecution. PW8 stated that voucher 17/31-3-82 did not bear his signature. PW10 was declared hostile by the prosecution, since he stated that he had worked in the forest and he could not remember whether he had received a sum of Rs.2,386/- on the strength of a voucher. 9. PW6, who was working as the U.D.Clerk in the office of the Divisional Forest Office at Chalakkudy since 1986, stated that the signatures seen in Exts.P1 to P11 vouchers were that of the three accused. He further stated that accused 1 and 3 had certified in those vouchers that the work had been satisfactorily carried out and that they had put their signature under the said endorsements. Ext.P12 file containing vouchers was marked through this witness. I will deal with the evidence of this witness a little later in detail. 10. As mentioned earlier, according to the prosecution, PW1 to 5 and 7, 8 and 10 had never worked in the plantation, though certain vouchers were fabricated in the names of these witnesses. It is true that these witnesses disowned the vouchers. It must be remembered that all these witnesses except Pws. 7 and 10 had admitted that they had worked in the plantation for a few days. The alleged offences were Crl.A.524/2000 5 committed way back in the year 1982. These witnesses were examined in the year 2000. All of them are semi-literate persons who had studied only upto 3rd or 4th standard. Exts.P1 to P11 were never marked through these witnesses. PW6, the U.D.Clerk, had proved these documents. 11. Significantly, no evidence was adduced by the prosecution to show who had prepared these vouchers. Anyhow, the prosecution did not have a case that any of the three accused had in fact prepared these vouchers. No opinion from the handwriting expert had ever been obtained. It may be true that the appellant and accused No.2/the Forester, who is no more, had made endorsement in these vouchers that the work had been carried out satisfactorily. Yet again, the prosecution did not have a case that no work of any kind had ever been carried out in the forest range under the relevant scheme during 1982-1983. If that be the position, it may not be safe to rely on the evidence of PWs 1 to 5 and 7, 8 and 10 only for the reason that they had stated before the court that they had never signed in the vouchers which were pressed into service by the prosecution. 12. In this context it may be noticed that the evidence of Pws. 1 to 5, 7, 8 and 10 did not in fact totally support the prosecution case. Of course, the evidence of Pw.8 was against the prosecution case and in support of the accused, whereas the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 only indicated that they had not signed in the vouchers in question. But they stated that they were not sure whether Pw.3 stated that the person named in Ext.P5 was not him. He also stated that the Forester (accused Crl.A.524/2000 6 No.2) used to make payment of wages in the evening at the tea shop nearby. Pw.1 also had stated that wages used to be paid by accused No.2, the Forester. This witness also only stated that he had not received the amount shown in Ext.P3 voucher. Pw.2 also did not categorically state anything in support of the prosecution. He merely said that the signature shown in Ext.P2 voucher was not that of his and he had not received the money indicated in that voucher. Pw.3 further stated that he had not been questioned by the Police. 13. It may also be pertinent to note that the court below has convicted the appellant (accused No.1) solely for the reason that he was responsible for disbursement of the amounts to the workers. The prosecution did not have a case that the work in connection with NREP was not carried out at all. In other words, it has to be assumed that the work in connection with NREP had been carried out and the workers had been paid their wages also. This has to be assumed so in the absence of any evidence on the side of the prosecution to show that the accused had misappropriated the funds allotted for the NREP work, without carrying out any such work. As mentioned earlier, Pw.1 to 5 , 7, 8 and 10 did only say that they had not received the amount indicated in the vouchers, of which Exts.P3 to P6 relating to Pws.1 to 4 had been considered or relied on by the Vigilance Court. The evidence of Pws.1 to 4 in relation to these 4 vouchers, in my view, does not inspire any confidence. As indicated earlier, accused No.2, the Forester, had passed away even before the Police had laid the charge sheet before the Court. Accused No.3, the Forest Guard, was Crl.A.524/2000 7 acquitted by the Court on the ground that there was no direct evidence to show that he was on duty on the day when Exts.P10 and P11 vouchers were prepared and payments were made. It may also be pertinent to note that the evidence of the witnesses will show that the Forester (accused No.2) had been making payment of the wages to the workers , as directed by the Department. 14. It may be true that accused No.1, the appellant, had no case that he was not the disbursing officer. He had conceded that he had made entries in the vouchers. But according to the appellant, he had made those entries on the basis of the report of his subordinate officers (accused Nos.2 and 3), the Forester and the Guard respectively. According to the appellant, the other two accused were directly responsible for supervising the work and reporting the matter to the superior officer viz., the appellant. The evidence of Pw.3 also clearly corroborated the above defence version given by the appellant. In that view of the matter, I am satisfied that there is considerable force in the contention raised by the appellant that he had made the endorsements in the vouchers on the basis of the report submitted by his subordinate officers. 15. I am persuaded to take the above view for yet another reason. As mentioned earlier, there is nothing on record to show that the vouchers in question had been prepared by the appellant or that money had been misappropriated without making payment to the workers. There were no complaints with regard to non payment of wages to any of the workers who had worked in the forest under the Crl.A.524/2000 8 project in question. The alleged incident had taken place somewhere in the year 1982. The charge sheet was laid only in the year 1992 after a lapse of 10 years. The witnesses, as mentioned earlier, were only semi literate or illiterate. They had stated before the court that the vouchers shown to them were not signed by them. But they had worked in the range for a few days during that period. Further, the prosecution had not properly explained the long delay in completing the investigation. 16. Having given my anxious consideration to the totality of the facts and circumstances, particularly the evidence of the material witnesses, I am satisfied that the appellant is entitled to get the benefit of doubt. Therefore while setting aside the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant, he is found not guilty and he is acquitted. The appeal is allowed. A.K. Basheer Judge. jes/an.