Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. Just because the prosecution is barred under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the accused will not automatically get an acquittal as regards the conviction under Sections 409, 468 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code. The effect of the above finding on prosecution sanction is only that the conviction and sentence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act will have to be set aside.

8. Now, the question is whether the conviction under Sections 409, 468 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code can be sustained, if the case stands proved on facts. The  Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in so many decisions that misappropriation by a public servant, or breach of trust by such public servant, or falsification of accounts, or forgery of documents for the purpose of such misappropriation or breach of trust, cannot at all be said to be part of official functions, and so, in such prosecutions, the accused can be convicted even in the absence of sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. Here, the prosecution has not produced any sanction as required under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. A public servant will get protection under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. only in cases where he happened to be prosecuted in connection with something done by him in the discharge of official duty, or as part of his official functions. The provision under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is meant to provide protection to public servants who happened to be implicated or arraigned as accused in connection with some lapses or wrongs which they happened to commit in the discharge of the official functions as public servants. What is alleged in this case is  not such lapse or mistake or malfeasance in the discharge of official functions. What is alleged in this case is clear criminal misappropriation and falsification of accounts, amounting to culpable misconduct on the part of a public servant. Such culpable misconduct involving voluntary act of falsification of accounts and misappropriation in breach of trust will never get the protection of law under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. So I find that the conviction under Sections 409 or 468, 477A of IPC can be sustained in this case, if the factual aspects as regards such allegations stand properly proved. Anyway, in view of the finding on the question of sanction, the accused is entitled for acquittal as regards the offence under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

19. I feel it not necessary to discuss the other evidence of misappropriation. On a perusal of the lower  court judgment, I find that the findings made by the court below regarding those instances are also well acceptable. There is nothing to show that the court below has erred in any of the findings regarding such instances of misappropriation.

20. On an examination of the various instances of misappropriation proved in evidence by PW1 and the other engineers and officials, the court below found that the accused had misappropriated total amount of 97,642/- collected from various consumers, in breach of the trust reposed on him as a public servant, and that he misappropriated the said huge amount by falsifying the accounts, and without remitting it at the Bank. I find no reason to reverse the findings of the court below on such different instances of misappropriation. Of course, it is true that a conviction in this case is not possible under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act because, there is no prosecution sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of  Corruption Act. But, a clear case of misappropriation in breach of trust by falsification of accounts is well proved by the evidence of the material witnesses, including PW1. True it is that, there is no sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. I have already found that the accused will not get the benefit of the protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. in this case. Falsification of accounts or criminal misappropriation in breach of trust by a public servant will never get the protection under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. It was submitted that pending the proceedings, the petitioner's father-in-law had remitted an amount of 68,767/-. Though not very much proved, it is practically admitted that there was such payment from the father-in-law of the appellant. Of course, such payment will not absolve the accused from the criminal liability otherwise incurred. Payment of amount later, in cases of misappropriation will not condone such instances of misappropriation. Such offence once committed, is committed, and it cannot be condoned by making payment  later. Anyway, that is an aspect for consideration in the matter of sentence. In view of the clear findings made above, the conviction against the appellant under Sections 409 and 477A of IPC will have to be confirmed. I find no reason or ground for interference in the findings made by the trial court. I have already found that the conviction under Section 468 of IPC is liable to be set aside, in view of the conviction otherwise under Section 409 and 477A of IPC.

21. In the particular circumstances of this case, I feel it appropriate to reduce and modify the sentence imposed by the court below. The prosecution is prominently brought under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. But the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau miserably failed to sustain the prosecution by the culpable failure to produce a proper and legal prosecution sanction. The other offences under the Indian Penal Code are incidentally alleged along with the charge under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The alleged misappropriation  was done years back, and the appellant brought appeal before this Court in 2006. Now we have entered the calendar year 2017. The crime was registered at the prime age of the accused. He was 32 at that time. The long lapse of years since initiation of prosecution, and the trauma of prosecution which the appellant must have undergone for the last so many years also can be considered by the court. On a consideration of all the relevant aspects, I feel it appropriate to reduce the term of sentence to imprisonment for six months. Subject to this reduction in sentence, the conviction under Sections 409 and 477A of IPC can be confirmed.

In the result, this appeal is allowed in part. The appellant is not found guilty of the offence under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13(2)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 468 of IPC. The conviction and sentence imposed on him by the court below under those Sections will stand set aside, and the appellant will stand  acquitted of those offences in appeal under Section 386(b)

(i) Cr.P.C. But the conviction under Sections 409 and 477A of IPC is confirmed. However, the sentence imposed by the court below will stand modified, and reduced to rigorous imprisonment for six months each. The fine sentence under Section 409 of IPC is maintained, but the default sentence will stand reduced to rigorous imprisonment for three months. The appellant will get the benefit of set off as already ordered by the trial court.