Kerala High Court
Padmaprasad vs State Of Kerala on 13 October, 2025
2025:KER:75975
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 21ST ASWINA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 1578 OF 2011
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.07.2011 IN C.C. NO.25 OF 2009 ON THE FILES
OF THE COURT OF THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
PADMAPRASAD
ASSISTANT MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR, NEYYATTINKARA.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL)
SRI.MANU SEBASTIAN
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
SPL PP VACB - ADV.RAJESH.A, SR PP VACB - ADV.REKHA.S
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.09.2025, THE
COURT ON 13.10.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:75975
Crl.A. No. 1578 of 2011
2
"C.R"
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 13th day of October, 2025 The sole accused in C.C. No.25/2009 on the files of the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, has filed this appeal, under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Judge as per the judgment dated 29.07.2011. The State of Kerala, represented by the Public Prosecutor is arrayed as the sole respondent herein.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Perused the verdict under challenge and the records of the trial court.
3. Parties in this appeal shall be referred as 'accused' and 'prosecution', hereafter.
4. This case arose out of the same FIR, wherefrom C.C. Nos.26 and 27 of 2009 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, also got registered against the accused/appellant herein. In 2025:KER:75975 Crl.A. No. 1578 of 2011 3 this matter, the prosecution allegation is that, the accused, while working as an Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, Sub Regional Transport Office, Neyyattinkara, during the period from 17.04.2002 to 24.06.2004, was authorized to collect fees and fines in respect of the vehicles, had collected Rs.1,97,755/- being the fees and fines directly and through other officials in the office, using TR5 receipts, which were entrusted to him and possessed by him during the period from 18.04.2002 to 30.03.2003. It is alleged further is that, out of Rs.1,97,755/- collected by the accused, he had remitted only Rs.64,040/- in the office and he dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriated the balance amount of Rs.1,33,715/-. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred as 'P.C. Act' for short] and under Sections 409, 420 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code [hereinafter referred as 'IPC' for short].
5. After, framing charge for the offences under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) of the P.C. Act and under 2025:KER:75975 Crl.A. No. 1578 of 2011 4 Sections 409 and 477-A of the IPC, the Special Court recorded evidence and tried the matter. During trial, PWs 1 to 17 were examined and Exts.P1 to 24 were marked on the side of the prosecution. After questioning the accused under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C, Exts.D1 to D5 were marked on the side of accused as defence evidence.
6. On appreciation of evidence, the Special Court found that the accused was guilty for the offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) of the P.C. Act and under Section 409 of the IPC. Accordingly, he was convicted for the said offences and sentenced as under:
Considering the facts and circumstance of this case, the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of ₹1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty thousand only) and in default of the payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under S.13(2) r/w S.13(1)(c) of P.C. Act, 1988. The accused is also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of ₹1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) and in default of payment of fine to undergo 2025:KER:75975 Crl.A. No. 1578 of 2011 5 rigorous imprisonment for three months under S.409 of I.P.C. It is directed that the sentence of imprisonments shall run concurrently. Set off under S.428 of Cr.P.C. is allowed.
7. While impeaching the verdict impugned, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that, in order to prove entrustment of Exts.P7 to P7(h) TR5 receipts to the accused, PWs 5 and 6 given evidence and it has come out in evidence that, apart from the accused, PWs 3, 4 and 7 to 9 also collected fees and fines using the said TR5 receipts. Therefore, the liability of misappropriation could not be attributed solely as against the accused and the witnesses cited in this case ought to have been arrayed as accused. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused further that, merely relying on the evidence of PWs 5 and 6, supported by the evidence of PWs 3, 4 and 7 to 9 and that of PW10, the Special Court found that the accused misappropriated Rs.1,33,715/-, as alleged by the prosecution. It is further pointed out that, the receipt of TR5 receipts by the accused was proved through the evidence of PW5 and 6. The FSL 2025:KER:75975 Crl.A. No. 1578 of 2011 6 report marked as Ext.P14 in this regard proved through PW12, the Assistant Director (Documents), FSL, Thiruvananthapuram, in no way consistently attributed that, it was the accused, who made entries in the disputed TR5 receipts. According to the learned counsel for the accused, since the prosecution failed to prove entrustment of TR5 receipt to the accused and consequential use and collection of money by the accused, the finding of the Special that the accused committed the offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) of the P.C. Act and under Section 409 of the IPC is erroneous and the same would require interference.
8. Repelling the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the accused, it is specifically pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that, in the instant case, Exts.P7 to P7(h) are TR5 receipts entrusted to the accused to collect fees and fines, during the period from 18.04.2002 to 30.03.2003 and it was through PW6, Exts.P7 and P7(a) were tendered in evidence. Similarly, by examining PW5, Exts.P7(b) to P7(h) were also tendered in evidence. It is also 2025:KER:75975 Crl.A. No. 1578 of 2011 7 submitted that, Ext.P6 stock register of TR5 books would show that it was the accused, who received the said TR5 receipts to collect fees and fines, as alleged by the prosecution. It is pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor further that, as deposed by PW10, PWs 3, 4 and 7 to 9 also collected fees and fines occasionally, using the TR5 receipts, during the relevant period and they had given consistent evidence that, the money so collected using TR5 receipts was entrusted back to the accused. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the misappropriation could not be detected during the tenure of the accused in the office and it was detected by PW10, after transfer of the accused from the office, where the occurrence took place. In support of the prosecution materials, the learned Public Prosecutor has given reliance on Ext.P11 Enquiry Report against the accused, submitted by PW10, proved through him to contend that misappropriation of Rs.1,33,715/- was found during departmental enquiry also. Thus, entrustment of TR5 receipts to the accused and collection of fees and fines by him and by PWs 3, 4, 7 to 9 were proved in this 2025:KER:75975 Crl.A. No. 1578 of 2011 8 case, beyond reasonable doubt. In such a case, the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Special Judge as against the accused are liable to sustain, is the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor.
9. In view of the rival submissions, the questions arise for consideration are:
1. Whether the Special Court is justified in finding that the accused/appellant committed the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) of the P.C. Act?
2. Whether the Special Court is justified in finding that the accused/appellant committed the offence punishable under Section 409 of the IPC?
3. Whether the verdict of the Special Court would require interference?
4. Order to be passed?
10. Point Nos.1 and 2:- In order to address these questions, it is necessary to evaluate the evidence, in this case. PW1, who was working as Joint RTO at the Sub RT Office in Neyyattinkara, during the period from 09.06.2004 to 28.02.2005, had sent Ext.P1 letter dated 06.10.2004 to PW17, the Sub Inspector of Police, Neyyattinkara, stating that the Audit Wing of the Accountant General conducted 2025:KER:75975 Crl.A. No. 1578 of 2011 9 audit at Sub RT Office, Neyvattinkara and misappropriation of Government money by the accused was detected in the audit and it was reported that the accused, while he was working as AMVI at the Sub RT Office, Neyyattinkara, had collected compounding fee using TR5 Books while conducting checking and the accused had collected a total amount of Rs.7,44,470, out of which he remitted only Rs.3,23,640/- in Sub RT Office, Neyyattinkara and he did not remit the balance amount of Rs.4,20,830/-. It was also stated in the said letter that the Transport Commissioner had directed to lodge complaint with the police against the accused and consequently, PW1 sent Ext.P1 letter requesting to register a case against the accused. On 19.11.2004, PW1 produced Ext.P2 Joining Report of the accused, Exts.P3 to P5 Fee Acceptance Registers, Ext.P6 Stock Register of TR5 Receipts Books (26 TR5 receipt books including Exts.P7 to P7(h) and Exts.P8 to P8(b) documents) written in the handwriting of the accused before the police. PW1 had also produced Ext.P9 order by which the accused was transferred to the office of PW1, before the Police.
2025:KER:75975 Crl.A. No. 1578 of 2011 10 Ext.P10 is the Audit Enquiry Report prepared by the Audit Officer attached to the Audit Wing of the Accountant General. Ext.P11 is the Enquiry Report on the embezzlement of Government money by the accused, prepared by the Accounts Officer attached to the office of the Transport Commissioner of Motor Vehicle Department. PW2 who was working as Head Accountant at Sub RT Office, Neyyattinkara, during the period from August, 2002 to 01.06.2006, is the witness to Ext.P12 inventory, as per which Ext.P10 was taken into custody by the Investigating Officer.
11. Additionally, PWs 3 to 6, who were working as Clerk, U.D. Clerk, L.D. Clerk and U.D. Clerk respectively at Sub RT Office, Neyyattinkara, were also examined by the prosecution. That apart, PWs 1 and 2, PWs 7 to 9, who were working as MVI, AMVI, and AMVI respectively at Sub RT Office, Neyyattinkara were also examined to prove the prosecution case further. PW10, who was working as Accounts Officer at the Office of the Transport Commissioner, Motor Vehicle Department, 2025:KER:75975 Crl.A. No. 1578 of 2011 11 Thiruvananthapuram, was the Head of the Internal Audit Team who conducted audit at Sub RT Office, Neyyattinkara, and PW1 prepared Ext.P11 report in this regard.
12. PW1 deposed that, while he had been working as Joint RTO at Sub RT Office, Neyyattinkara, the accused was working as AMVI at the same office. The accused was transferred from the office of PW1 on 25.06.2004. Ext.P10 report showed that the accused had collected a sum of Rs.7,44,470/- using 26 numbers of TR5 receipt books and out of that amount, the accused had remitted only Rs.3,23,640/- in the office and the accused did not remit a sum of Rs.4,20,830/-. On the basis of the aforesaid report, PW1 with the permission of his official superiors, sent Ext.P1 letter to the police. PW1 had produced Exts.P2 to P9 before the police. PW1 had also produced 26 numbers of TR5 books before the police and Exts.P7 to P7(h) are 9 numbers of TR5 receipt books out of the said 26 numbers of TR5 receipt books. It is evident from Ext.P6 that, Exts.P7 to P7(h) were issued to the accused. The accused was transferred to the office of PW1 under Ext.P9 Order. The 2025:KER:75975 Crl.A. No. 1578 of 2011 12 officers, namely, Joint RTO, MVI, AMVI and Cashier (the Clerk attached to the counter) are authorized to collect money using TR5 receipt. The used TR5 receipts are to be returned to the Head Accountant. The amount collected by AMVI using TR5 receipts is to be handed over to the Clerk in the counter. The money collected using TR5 receipts is to be entered in Exts.P3 to P5 Fee Acceptance Registers. At the time of audit conducted at Sub RT Office, Neyyattinkara, it was revealed that the accused had not returned TR5 receipt books issued to him. So the accused was asked to return the TR5 receipt books, and accordingly he returned all TR5 receipt books. After conducting audit, the Audit Officer attached to the office of Accountant General, prepared Ext.P10 report. Another audit team conducted audit at the office of PW1 and they prepared Ext.P11 report. It is stated in Ext.P11 that the accused has not remitted the full amount which he had collected.
13. PW2 testified that the accused had worked at Sub RT Office, Neyyattinkiara, where she had also worked as Head Accountant. The used TR5 receipt book, after its 2025:KER:75975 Crl.A. No. 1578 of 2011 13 exhaustion, would be handed over to the Head Accountant. When the accused was relieved of his duty from the office of Sub RT Office, Neyvattinkara, he did not return 26 numbers of TR5 receipt books issued to the accused from the Store Section to PW2. When notice of inspection was received from the Office of Accountant General, it was found that the TR5 receipt books returned by the accused did not tally with the books actually issued to the accused from the Store Section. PW2 had informed the Transport Commissioner regarding this anomaly. Later, the accused returned all TR5 receipt books to PW2. Page No.15 of Ext.P6 would show that Ext.P7 TR5 book was issued to the accused and the accused put his signature in Ext.P6 acknowledging the receipt of Ext.P7. It is evident from page No.16 of Ext. P6 that on 20.05.2002, the accused put signature in Ext.P6 acknowledging the receipt of Ext.P7(a). The accused put signature in page No.20 of Ext.P6 on 26.07.2002, admitting that he received Ext.P7(b). It is evident from page No.21 of Ext.P6 that the accused had put signature therein on 28.08.2002 acknowledging the receipt 2025:KER:75975 Crl.A. No. 1578 of 2011 14 of Ext.P7(c). The accused put his signature in page No.23 of Ext.P6 on 17.10.2002 acknowledging the receipt of Ext.P7(d). The accused has put his signature in page No.23 of Ext.P6 on 25.10.2002 acknowledging the receipt of Ext.P7(e). It is evident from page No.23 of Ext. P6 that the accused, on 01.11.2002, put his signature therein acknowledging the receipt of Ext.P7(f). It is also evident from page No.26 of Ext.P6 that the accused put his signature on 09.01.2003 acknowledging the receipt of Ext.P7(g). The accused put his signature in page No.28 of Ext. P6 on 19.02.2003 acknowledging the receipt of Ext.P7(h).
14. PW3 also given evidence in support of the prosecution. According to her, she had been working as Clerk at Sub RT Office, Neyyattinkara during the period from August 2001 to June 2005. She had worked at the cash counter, where tax and fees were collected. The accused was working as AMVI at the said office. The money collected by AMVI using TR5 receipt book towards fees and fine would be handed over to the Clerk at fee counter.
2025:KER:75975 Crl.A. No. 1578 of 2011 15 When PW3 was working at the counter, the accused had handed over money collected by him to PW3. The amount given to the counter will be acknowledged on the last office copy of used TR5 receipts. Such acknowledgment was seen on the rear side of the receipt No.3 in Ext.P7. In Ext.P3 at page No.77, it was written that a sum of Rs.20,000/- was received from the accused towards compounding fee. From page Nos.147 and 323 of Ext.P3 it could be seen that, PW3 had received money from the accused on 01.06.2002 and 30.07.2002. Ext.P4 would show that PW3 had received money from the accused on 02.11.2002, 03.01.2003 and 10.01.2003. Ext.P5 also would show that on 10.02.2003, PW3 had received remittance from the accused.
15. PW4, who was working as U.D. Clerk at Sub RT Office, Neyyattinkara, testified that he had worked at the cash counter and he had received money collected by the accused using TR5 receipt. PWs 7,8 and 9 are familiar to PW4. The handwriting in receipt Nos.5 to 31 in Ext.P7(a) would show that money was collected by PW8 using receipt Nos.5 to 31 contained in Ext.P7(a). Receipt Nos. 29, 30, 34, 2025:KER:75975 Crl.A. No. 1578 of 2011 16 35 and 37 contained in Ext.P7(h) would show that PW7 had collected money using the said receipts. Receipt No.86 contained in Ext.P7(h) would show that PW9 had collected the amount shown in the said receipt. PW4 is familiar with the handwriting of the accused and PWs 7 to 9. From the handwriting in the other receipts in Exts.P7 to P7(h) would show that the money as per those receipts was collected by the accused.
16. PW5, who was working as L.D. Clerk at Sub RT Office, Neyyattinkara, given evidence that the accused is familiar to him. PW5 had worked as Cashier at the counter and store clerk at the said office. While he was working as Store Clerk, he had issued TR5 receipt books to the accused also. The Store Clerk was keeping Stock Register. Ext.P6 Stock Register was being maintained by the Store Clerk at Store Section. When PW5 was working as Cashier at the counter, he had received fine collected by the accused, from the accused. It is evident from page No.171 of Ext.P4 that on 12.11.2002, PW5 had received remittance from the accused. It is also evident from page No.84 of Ext.P5 that 2025:KER:75975 Crl.A. No. 1578 of 2011 17 on 04.03.2003, PW5 had received remittance from the accused. It is apparent from page No.20 of Ext.P6 that on 27.07.2002, PW5 issued Ext.P7(b) to the accused. It is also evident from page No.21 of Ext. P6 that on 28.08.2002, PW5 issued Ext.P7(c) to the accused. It is evident from page No.23 of Ext. P6 that on 17.10.2002, PW5 issued Ext.P7(d) to the accused. It is also evident from the aforesaid page that on 25.10.2002, PW5 issued Ext.P7(e) to the accused and that on 01.11.2002, PW5 issued Ext.P7(f) to the accused. It is evident from page No.26 of Ext.P6 that on 09.01.2003, PW5 issued Ext.P7(g) to the accused and it is apparent from page No.28 of Ext.P6 that on 19.2.2003, PW5 issued Ext.P7(h) to the accused. The accused had received Exts.P7 to P7(h) putting his initials in Ext.P6.
17. PW6 deposed that, while he was working as U.D. Clerk at Sub RT Office, Neyyattinkara during the period from February, 1999 to August, 2003, he had been holding the charge of Store Section. According to him, as per page No.15 of Ext.P6, on 17.04.2002, PW6 issued Ext.P7 to the accused, who received the same putting his initial in Ext.P6.
2025:KER:75975 Crl.A. No. 1578 of 2011 18 He deposed further that, from page No.16 of Ext.P6 it was discernible that on 20.05.2002, PW6 issued Ext.P7(a) to the accused, who received the same putting his initial in Ext.P6. He testified further that, it is written in page No.46 of Ext.P5 that on 14.02.2003, PW6 had received remittance from the accused and on that date PW6 was working as Clerk at the counter. PW7 given evidence that he had been working as MVI at Sub RT Office, Neyvattinkara during the period from 30.05.2002 to December, 2003. The accused was familiar to him. The accused and PWs 8 and 9 were working as AMVI, when PW7 was working at the said office. The receipt Nos.29, 30, 34, 35 and 37 in Ext.P7(h) were written by PW7. The amount collected by PW7 on the basis of the aforesaid receipts was handed over to the accused, who was the custodian of Ext.P7(h). The accused was liable to remit the said amount in the office. When PW7 was conducting checking, he received the aforesaid receipts from the accused as the TR5 receipt book issued to PW7 was exhausted.
18. PW8 deposed that he had been working as AMVI 2025:KER:75975 Crl.A. No. 1578 of 2011 19 at Sub RT Office, Neyyattinkara since 01.06.2002. The accused was also working at the said office. The receipt Nos.5 to 31 in Ext.P7(a) were written by PW8, when the learners driving test was conducted. ExtP7(a) was issued to the accused. As per the aforesaid receipts a sum of Rs.3,690/- was collected by PW8. The said amount was handed over to the accused, who was the custodian of Ext.P7(a), for remitting the same in the office. It was endorsed on the rear of Receipt No.31 that the said amount was handed over to the accused. PW8 returned Ext.P7(a) to the accused. All other receipts in Ext.P7(a) were written by the accused.
19. The evidence of PW9 is that, he was working as AMVI at Sub RT Office, Neyyattinkara in 2003. The accused had worked as AMVI with PW9. Ext.P7(h) TR5 Book was issued to the accused. PW9 received receipt No.86 in Ext.P7(h) from the accused and the same was written by PW9 as he was not in possession of TR5 receipt book issued to him, when checking was conducted. The amount collected on the basis of the said receipt was handed over 2025:KER:75975 Crl.A. No. 1578 of 2011 20 to the accused, who was liable to remit the said amount in the office.
20. PW10, who has been working as Accounts Officer at the office of Transport Commissioner, Motor Vehicle Department, Thiruvananthapuram, deposed that he was the head of the Internal Audit Team, who conducted a detailed enquiry on the non remittance of Government money by the accused during his tenure at Sub RT Office, Neyyattinkara, for the period from 17.04.2002 to 25.06.2004. After conducting the detailed enquiry, PW10 prepared Ext.P11 enquiry report. Ext.P11 bears his signature. As per the direction of the Transport Commissioner, the inspection team consisting of PW10 and other officials conducted inspection at three offices, where the accused had worked. The irregularities committed by the accused at Sub RT Office, Neyyattinkara, are stated in para No.5 of Ext.P11. On inspection, it was revealed that the accused had accepted 26 TR5 receipt books during the period from 17.04.2002 to 25.06.2004. The said fact is mentioned in Annexure-1 to Ext.P11. All the leaves of TR5 2025:KER:75975 Crl.A. No. 1578 of 2011 21 books were verified one by one and the collection details date were shown in Annexure-2 to Ext.P11. On inspection, it was found that though TR5 book No.987/2002 was issued to the accused as per the entry in Ext.P6, the said TR5 book was not available for verification. It was revealed that the accused had used TR5 receipt book No.1093, which was not issued to the accused as per Ext.P6 and the accused had collected money using the said receipt. The Inspection Team reached a conclusion that the accused might have used TR5 receipt book No.987/2002, which was issued to him, writing the number of TR5 receipt book No.1093. On verification of the records, it was found that the amount collected by the accused using TR5 receipt at Sub RT Office, Neyyattinkara was Rs.7,10,105/- (wrongly written in the deposition of PW10 as Rs.7101955/-). However, the accused had remitted only a sum of Rs.3,23,640/- from the amount collected by him. The Internal Audit was conducted following Ext.P10 report. As per Ext.P10, the amount collected by the accused was Rs.7,44,470/-. However, the amount remitted by the accused in both the reports is 2025:KER:75975 Crl.A. No. 1578 of 2011 22 same. The amount collected under Exts.P7 to P7(h) is Rs.19,260/-, 20,960/-, 10,820/-, 10,440/-, 11,560/-, 12,765/-, 31,010/-, 37,690/- and 43,250/- respectively. The details of the remittance are shown in Annexure-3 to Ext.P11. The remittance during the period from 22.04.2002 to 22.03.2003 is shown as Sl. Nos. 1 to 27 in Annexure-3.
21. In order to prove the prosecution sanction issued by the Additional Transport Commissioner, he was examined as PW11. He deposed that, while he was holding the full additional charge of Transport Commissioner, on 06.05.2008 issued Ext.P13 prosecution sanction as per order dated 05.05.2008 in tune with Clause (C) of sub section (1) of Section 19 of the P.C. Act, for the prosecution of the accused for the offences punishable under S.13(2) read with S.13(1)(c) of P.C. Act and S.409, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 477-A of I.P.C. Ext.P13 would reveal that PW11 meticulously gone through the prosecution records and applied his mind, while issuing Ext.P13. In fact, no challenge raised insofar as sanction is concerned.
22. The prosecution examined PW12, who was the 2025:KER:75975 Crl.A. No. 1578 of 2011 23 Assistant Director (Documents) at Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram, on 31.01.2006, to prove Ext.P14 FSL report. She testified that, she had examined the questioned documents and standard documents received from the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nevyattinkara, in the FSL, Thiruvananthapuram, and she prepared Ext.P14 report. Exts.P15 to P15(x) are the Standard documents referred to as Document Nos.S1 to S25 in Ext.P14. PW12 deposed that, her opinion was that, the person who wrote the blue enclosed standard writings and signatures stamped and marked A1 to A3 and S1 to S25 probably also wrote the red enclosed questioned writings and signatures similarly stamped and marked Q2 and Q2(a). Q2 and Q2(a) are Receipt No.10 in TR Receipt Book No.19/2003 and receipt No.10 in TR Receipt Book No.185/2003. 27 number of TR5 Receipt Books were received in the laboratory for examination, requested the court to minimize the questioned items, considering the said request Q2 and Q2(a) out of the receipts in TR5 Books were forwarded by the court for examination. It is true that, 2025:KER:75975 Crl.A. No. 1578 of 2011 24 as regards to red enclosed questioned signatures stamped and marked as (Q) and Q(a) to Q(c), PW12 deposed that, it was not possible to arrive at a conclusion. Thus, the evidence of PW12 and Ext.P14 is not fully in support of the prosecution case. However, as regards to (Q) and Q(a), the expert opined that the same were not that of the accused. Indubitably, the law is well settled that expert evidence is only an opinion evidence of corroborative nature and in the absence of corroborative evidence, substantive evidence could be safely relied on to prove a fact in issue.
23. PW13, who was working as Dy.S.P. at the Unit of VACB, Thiruvananthapuram on 06.09.2005, testified that as instructed by the Director of VACB, he had inspected the Documents concerned in Crime No.736/2004 of Neyyattinkara Police Station and on the basis of those documents PW13 registered this case as Crime No. VC.7/2005/Tvpm and Ext.P16 is the FIR. The evidence of PW14, who was working as Circle Inspector of Police at Neyyattinkara on 08.10.2004, would show that on the aforesaid date, he took over the investigation into crime No.736/2004 of Neyyattinkara Police Station, which was 2025:KER:75975 Crl.A. No. 1578 of 2011 25 registered by PW17, Sub Inspector of Police.
24. It was PW14, who took Exts.P2 to P7(h) produced by PW1 from his office on 19.11.2004 into custody under Ext.P17 inventory, and that on the aforesaid date, PW1 produced Exts.P8 to P8(b) before PW14 who took the same into custody under Ext.P18 inventory. The evidence of PW14 also shows that on 24.11.2004, he arrested the accused. Ext. P19 is the sale deed which was taken into custody by PW14 under Ext.P20 mahazar, on the basis of the information received from the accused. It is also evident from the evidence of PW14 that Exts.P15 to P15(f) are the specimen writings of the accused taken at the office of PW14 in the presence of the witnesses, that on 29.11.2004, PW14 took Ext.P9 order produced by PW1, into custody under Ext. P21 inventory, and that PW14 submitted the forwarding note to the Court requesting to send the questioned writings and specimen writings to the FSL. According to PW14, as the Director of FSL had requested the Court to send TR5 receipts minimizing the same, receipt No.10 from TR5 Receipt Book No.19/2003 and 2025:KER:75975 Crl.A. No. 1578 of 2011 26 receipt No.10 from TR5 Receipt Book No.183/2003 were sent to the FSL. The evidence of PW14 is that he had recorded the statements of the witnesses and that as per the order of DGP, the case was handed over to VACB on 13.07.2005.
25. The evidence of PW15, who was working as Inspector at the Unit of VACB, Thiruvananthapuram on 12.09.2005, shows that he took over the investigation into this case on the aforesaid date, that he filed a report in the Magistrate Court, Neyyattinkara, requesting to forward the documents concerned in this case, filed in the Magistrate Court and that on 18.05.2006, he took Ext.P11 report produced by the Senior Superintendent attached to the office of the Transport Commissioner into custody under Ext.P22 Inventory. According to PW15, on the same date, he took Ext.P10 report produced by the Joint RTO attached to the office of PW1 into custody under Ext. P12 inventory. The evidence of PW16, who was working as Dy.S.P. at the Unit of VACB, Thiruvananthapuram, on 23.09.2009, shows that on the aforesaid date, he verified the records of this case and 2025:KER:75975 Crl.A. No. 1578 of 2011 27 he prepared the final report and submitted the same to the Court. Ext.P23 is the report filed by CW34, Inspector in the Court deleting the Sections of offences, namely, 418, 466 and 474 of IPC and incorporating Section 477-A of IPC. The evidence of PW16 shows that 3 split charge sheets were prepared in respect of the several instances of misappropriation committed by the accused and those split charge sheets were submitted to the Court and this case is related to one of the split charge sheets. Crl.Appeal Nos.140 of 2013 and 141 of 2013, disposed of today are the other two cases arose out of the other two split charge viz. C.C. No.26 of 2009 and 27 of 2009. The evidence of PW16 also shows that, the allegation in this case is that, the accused had collected a total amount of Rs.1,97,755/- using TR5 receipts contained in Exts. P7 to P7(h) during the period from 18.04.2002 to 30.03.2003 and out of the said amount the accused remitted only Rs.64,040/- in the office, and he dishonestly misappropriated the balance amount of Rs.1,33,715/-. The evidence of PW17, who was working as Sub Inspector of Police at Neyyattinkara Police Station on 2025:KER:75975 Crl.A. No. 1578 of 2011 28 07.10.2004, shows that on the aforesaid date, he registered a case as Crime No.736/2004 under Sections 409, 408, 418, 464, 466 and 456 of IPC on the basis of Ext.P1 letter sent by PW1 and Ext.P24 is the FIR.
26. Ext.D1 is the photo copy of the chalan. Exts. D2 to D4 are the photo copies of the circular Nos.1/79, 12/92 and 14/98 of the Transport Commissioner. Ext.D5 is the photo copy of page No.40 of Kerala Treasury Code, Vol.I, Part II, containing Rule 90 of the Kerala Treasury Code.
27. In this matter, the allegation of the prosecution is that, while the accused had been working as AMVI at Sub RT Office, Neyyattinkara, during the period from 17.04.2002 to 24.06.2004, he had misappropriated a total amount of Rs.4,39,525/- during the said period out of the amount collected towards fees and fines using TR5 receipts which were issued to him from the Store Section. As the accused committed several instances of misappropriation three separate charge sheets were submitted to the Court, as already discussed and this case is related to one of the split charge sheets covering the period from 18.04.2002 to 2025:KER:75975 Crl.A. No. 1578 of 2011 29 30.03.2003. It is the allegation of the prosecution that, the accused while working as AMVI at Sub RT Office, Neyyattinkara during the period from 18.04.2002 to 30.03.2003, he had collected an amount of Rs.1,97,755/- being the fees and fines directly and through other officials using TR5 receipts issued to him and out of the said amount, he remitted only Rs.64,040/- and he dishonestly misappropriated the balance amount of Rs.1,33,715/-, which was under his control.
28. On thorough scrutiny of the evidence of PWs 1 to 9 and Exts.P2 and P9, it is discernible that, the accused while working as AMVI at Sub RT Office, Neyyattinkara, during the period from 17.04.2002 to 24.06.2004 and the allegation of misappropriation was from 18.04.2002 to 30.03.2003. The accused also did not dispute that he had not worked as AMVI at Sub RT Office, Neyyattinkara during the above period, otherwise the same is substantially proved by the evidence discussed in detail.
29. The Audit Wing of the Accountant General conducted audit at Sub RT Office, Neyyattinkara and the 2025:KER:75975 Crl.A. No. 1578 of 2011 30 Audit Officer attached to the office of Accountant General prepared Ext.P10 Audit Report. The accused joined Sub RT Office, Neyyattinkara as AMVI on 17.04.2002 and was relieved of his duty from that office on 25.06.2004, pursuant to an order of transfer. Ext.P10 would show that the accused had collected a total amount of Rs.7,44,470/ during the aforesaid period and he remitted only Rs.3,23,640/- in the office and he failed to remit the balance amount of Rs.4,20,830/. On the basis of Ext.P10, PW1 sent Ext.P1 letter to PW17, who registered a case as Crime No.736/2004 for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 408, 418, 464, 466 and 468 of IPC at Neyyattinkara Police Station. Ext.P24 is the FIR. After registering the case, PW14 investigated the case. While so, as directed by the DGP, this case was subsequently handed over by PW14 to VACB. Subsequently, PW13 registered this case as VC.7/2005/Tvpm, on the direction of the Director of VACB. Thereafter, PWs 15 and 16 conducted investigation into this case and after the completion of the investigation PW16 submitted the final report to this Court.
2025:KER:75975 Crl.A. No. 1578 of 2011 31
30. The Special Court, after considering the evidence, found that, in this case, the money collected by the accused using TR5 receipts during the period from 18.4.2002 to 30.3.2003 is relevant. It has already been found that the accused had collected money during the aforesaid period, using the receipts in Exts.P7 to P7(h). The evidence of PW10 shows that the amount collected as per Ext.P7 was Rs.19,260/-, the amount collected as per Ext.P7(a) was Rs.20,960/-, the amount collected as per Ext.P7(b) was Rs.10,820/-, the amount collected as per Ext.P7(c) was Rs.10,440/-, the amount collected as per Ext. P7(d) was Rs.11,560/-, the amount collected as per Ext.P7(e) was Rs.12,765/-, the amount collected as per Ext.P7(f) was Rs.31,010/-, the amount collected as per Ext.P7(g) was Rs.37,690/-, and the amount collected as per Ext. P7(h) was Rs.43,250/-. The total amount collected as per Exts.P7 to P7(h) comes to Rs.1,97,755/-. Out of the said amount, the accused had remitted only Rs.64,040/-. The balance amount which was not remitted by the accused was Rs.1,33,715/-.
2025:KER:75975 Crl.A. No. 1578 of 2011 32
31. Before conclusion, it is relevant to consider what are the essentials to be proved to complete an offence under Section 409 of IPC. In the decision reported in [(2012) 8 SCC 547 : AIR 2012 SC 3242] Sadhupati Nageswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh , the Apex Court held that, in order to sustain a conviction under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, two ingredients are to be proved: namely: (i) the accused, a public servant or a banker or agent was entrusted with the property of which he is duty bound to account for; and (ii) the accused has committed criminal breach of trust. What amounts to criminal breach of trust is provided under section 405 IPC. The basic requirement to bring home the accusations under section 405 IPC are the requirements to prove conjointly (i) entrustment and (ii) whether the accused was actuated by a dishonest intention or not, misappropriated it or converted it to his own use or to the detriment of the persons who entrusted it.
32. That apart, it is also the essential requirement that, it should be shown that the accused has acted in the 2025:KER:75975 Crl.A. No. 1578 of 2011 33 capacity of a public servant, banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, as held by the Apex Court in the decision reported in [2015 CrLJ 4040 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 724 : (2015) 8 Scale 95], Robert John D'Souza v. Stephen V Gomes.
33. It is equally the well settled law that, once it is proved by the prosecution that there was entrustment of property and there was no proper accounting of the entrusted property, then the burden is on the accused to prove that there was no misappropriation and to explain what happened to the property so entrusted. When the accused fails to discharge his burden or failed to explain or account for the misappropriated property, the accused is said to have committed the offences of criminal breach of trust and misappropriation. The fraudulent intention of the accused could be inferred from the attending circumstances from the evidence adduced and the same could not always be proved by direct evidence. Thus, the law on the point is that, prosecution has the duty to prove entrustment of property to the accused and then it is the duty of the accused to account for the same or to explain the same. The 2025:KER:75975 Crl.A. No. 1578 of 2011 34 same ingredients of criminal breach of trust and misappropriation have to be proved by the prosecution for convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(c) of the P.C. Act, 1988 as well. Decisions reported in Jaikrishnadas Manohardas Desai and Another v. State of Bombay, 1960 KHC 694: AIR 1960 SC 889: 1960 (3) SCR 319: 1960 CriLJ 1250, Krishan Kumar v. Union of India, 1959 KHC 635: AIR 1959 SC 1390: 1960 (1) SCR 452: 1959 CriLJ 1508, State of Kerala v. Vasudevan Namboodiri,- 1987 KHC 518: 1987 (2) KLT 541: 1987 KLJ 270: 1987 (1) KLT SN 7, Bagga Singh v. State of Punjab,- 1996 KHC 3288: 1996 CriLJ 2883 (SC), Vishwa Nath v. State of J. & K, 1983 KHC 420: AIR 1983 SC 174: 1983 (1) SCC 215: 1983 SCC (Cri) 173: 1983 CriLJ 231, Om Nath Puri v. State of Rajasthan, 1972 KHC 414: AIR 1972 SC 1490 :
1972 (1) SCC 630: 1972 SCC (Cri) 359: 1972 (3) SCR 497:
1972 CriLJ 897, T. Ratnadas v. State of Kerala,- 1999 KHC 2074: 1999 CriLJ 1488, State of Rajasthan v. Kesar Singh,1969 CriLJ 1595, Roshen Lal Raina v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, 1983 KHC 584: 1983 (2) SCC 429: AIR 1983 SC 631: 1983 SCC (Cri) 533: 1983 CriLJ) 975 and 2025:KER:75975 Crl.A. No. 1578 of 2011 35 Raghavan K v. State of Kerala, 2012 KHC 420 are in support of this view.
34. On evaluation of the evidence, it would appear that, the misappropriation done by the accused, who was entrusted with Ext.P7 to P7(h) TR5 receipts is well established beyond reasonable doubt, from the substantive evidence available, though Ext.P14, expert opinion is not fully in support of the prosecution. Even though, it is argued by the learned counsel for the accused that, since the expert report at the option of PW12 did not support the prosecution allegation, the same is fatal to the prosecution, it is well settled law that, insufficiency of opinion evidence being corroborative in nature would not make the substantive evidence discussed in abundance unbelievable, as substantive evidence would stand independently and corroborative evidence would not stand independently, without the aid of substantive evidence.
35. It is true that, the TR5 receipts entrusted to the accused were used by PWs 3, 4 and 7 to 9 and they also collected small amounts of fees and fines using the said TR5 receipts. But, they had given consistent evidence 2025:KER:75975 Crl.A. No. 1578 of 2011 36 supported by documents marked, with the aid of PW2, the Head Accountant that, the small amount so collected using the said TR5 receipts were entrusted back to the accused and the said evidence is not shaken.
36. In the instant case, as already discussed, the entrustment of TR5 receipts and amount alleged to be collected by the accused are proved by the prosecution and the accused has no explanation otherwise to justify that he did not misappropriate the amounts, as alleged by the prosecution.
37. Point Nos.3 and 4:- Thus, on reappreciation of evidence, it could be gathered that, the prosecution evidence categorically established commission of offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) of the P.C. Act and under Section 409 of IPC, by the accused, beyond reasonable doubt as found by the Special Court. Therefore, the conviction imposed against the accused by the Special Court does not require any interference.
38. Coming to the sentence, the same seems to be very reasonable considering the gravity of the offences. Therefore, I am inclined to confirm the sentence imposed by 2025:KER:75975 Crl.A. No. 1578 of 2011 37 the Special Court, as such. Therefore, the verdict impugned does not require any interference and in such view of the matter, the appeal must fail.
39. In the result, this criminal appeal stands dismissed. All interlocutory applications pending in this appeal stand dismissed.
40. The order suspending sentence and granting bail to the appellant shall stand vacated and the bail bond executed by the appellant/accused stands cancelled. The appellant/accused is directed to surrender before the Special Court and to undergo the sentence, within two weeks from today, failing which, the special court shall execute the sentence, without fail.
Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Special Court, forthwith, for information and further steps.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN SK JUDGE