Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: matsyafed in Smt. S.Anitha vs State Of Kerala on 5 March, 2025Matching Fragments
6. Ext.P10 is a cheque for an amount of Rs.50,000/- drawn in an account maintained in the name of the Matsyafed. As per the said cheque, Rs.50,000/- was found drawn by the appellant on 18.08.1997. Ext.P11 series are the receipts evidencing disbursing of various amounts as loan to the fishermen. After analyzing the evidence in the light of oral testimonies of PW5, PW7 and PW10, it was concluded that out of the said amount of Rs.50,000/-, the appellant disbursed only Rs.47,000/-. In that account, she had misappropriated Rs.3,000/-.
7. Ext.P1 is the file containing various documents concerning handing over of charge to the appellant and connected matters. Ext.P2 is the cash book maintained in the Anchuthengu office of the Matsyafed. With reference to the said documents and the oral testimony of PW3 from whom the appellant took charge, the Special Court rendered a finding that Rs.150.85 was handed over to the appellant as the cash balance available at the time of handing over of the charge. On the basis of the aforesaid findings, the Special Court found the appellant guilty and convicted. The appellant assails the aforesaid findings in this appeal.
11. Going by the provisions of Section 19(1)(c) of the PC Act, the authority competent to remove a public servant is competent to accord sanction for prosecution. The appellant being the Sub Inspector of Fisheries attached to the Matsyafed, its Director can remove her from service and therefore, Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the PC Act is applicable in the case of the appellant. When PW6 in the capacity of Director of Fisheries accorded sanction, the contention of the learned Amicus Curiae that Ext.20 is invalid and insufficient to prosecute the appellant cannot be countenanced.
12. PW1 deposed before the court that on account of the unauthorised absence, charge of the office of the appellant was entrusted with Smt.D.Anithakumari. The said 2025:KER:20254 fact is reflected from Ext.P1 file. It is seen that Smt.Anithakumari submitted a report to PW1 regarding the irregularities in the accounts of the office, which is Ext.P7(b). Based on the said report, this crime originated and culminated in filing of the final report against the appellant. The evidence of PW1 would further show that since the appellant was not reaching the office, Smt.Anithakumari was allowed to open the almirah in the office and to verify the records. The report would show that in the presence of Sri.Parameswaran Asari, a staff member in the Matsyafed, the almirah was opened and the records were examined. It is also the version of PW1 that Sri.Anilkumar, a cashier from his office, was directed to verify the accounts. He accordingly verified the accounts and found irregularities and embellishments in the accounts.