Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: 477A IPC in Pushpakumary vs State Of Kerala on 4 March, 2026Matching Fragments
8. Whether the Special Court went wrong in finding that the appellant/1st accused committed offence punishable under Section
9. Whether the Special Court went wrong in finding that the appellant/1st accused 2026:KER:19595 CRL.A.NOS.1353, 1382, 1383 1389 & 1391 OF 2009 committed offence punishable under Section
10. Whether the Special Court went wrong in finding that the appellant/1st accused committed offence punishable under Section 477A of IPC in C.C.No.24/2005?
11. Whether the Special Court went wrong in finding that the appellant/1st accused committed offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w.13(1)(c) of the PC Act, 1988 in C.C.No.25/2005?
12. Whether the Special Court went wrong in finding that the appellant/1st accused committed offence punishable under Section
13. Whether the Special Court went wrong in finding that the appellant/1st accused committed offence punishable under Section 477A of IPC in C.C.No.25/2005?
39. Tracing the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 477A of IPC, Section 477A provides as under:
"Section 477A - Falsification of Accounts :
"Whoever, being a clerk, officer or servant, or employed or acting in the capacity of a clerk, officer 2026:KER:19595 CRL.A.NOS.1353, 1382, 1383 1389 & 1391 OF 2009 or servant, willfully, and with intent to defraud, destroys, alters, mutilates or falsifies any book, electronic record, paper, writing, valuable security or account which belongs to or is in the possession of his employer, or has been received by him for or on behalf of his employer, or willfully, and with intent to defraud, makes or abets the making of any false entry in, or omits or alters or abets the omission or alteration of any material particular from or in any such book, electronic record, paper, writing, valuable security or account, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both."
44. Here, the learned senior counsel for the 1st accused raised contention regarding the non-availability of GD entries showing the receipt of money alleged to have been misappropriated by the 1st accused and the same was pointed out as a serious anomaly to disbelieve the prosecution case. Similarly, the learned senior counsel for the 1st accused raised the challenge regarding the lack of clarity in respect of the TP wireless messages. In fact, these challenges have no locus standi in the instant case, as the 2026:KER:19595 CRL.A.NOS.1353, 1382, 1383 1389 & 1391 OF 2009 prosecution has succeeded in proving entrustment of the money alleged to have been misappropriated by the 1 st accused and it is the duty of the 1 st accused to explain how the amount was spent and the said duty is not that of the prosecution. If so, this contention cannot be countenanced. Thus, on an evaluation of the entire evidence, there is no reason to find any illegality in the conviction entered by the Special Court, holding that the 1st accused committed offences punishable under Section 409 of the IPC and under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) of the PC Act, 1988 in C.C.Nos.21/2005, 22/2005 and 23/2005. Similarly, the conviction entered into by the Special Court in C.C.Nos.24/2005 and 25/2005 finding commission of offences punishable under Sections 409, 201 as well as under Section 477A of IPC and for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(c) r/w.13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 also are liable to be confirmed.