Sri..D.Ramachandran vs State Of Kerala on 9 May, 2022
20. Assailing the findings, the learned counsel contended that,
essential documents were not produced before the court below. The
learned counsel further contended that, there was long delay in
investigation and prosecution of the case, which affected the principles
Crl.Appeal.427 of 2001 and connected matters
20
of natural justice. Considering the nature of long drawn litigations and
the trauma that it has caused from the parties, appellant was entitled
for an acquittal, it was contended. To substantiate it, learned counsel
relied on the decisions reported in Peethambaran v. State of Kerala
[1998 KHC 114], Pankaj Kumar v. State of Maharashtra [2008
(4) KHC 799], Ratnadas v. State of Kerala [1999 KHC 2074] and
Lokesh Kumar Jain v. State of Rajasthan [2013 KHC 4529]. It is
true that the present incident happened during the period 1986 to
1988. Crime was registered much thereafter. There is also some
substance in the contention in the learned counsel for the above
appellant that he was permitted to retire with full emoluments. It was
also contended that the trial had taken place for a long period.
However, considering the fact that the allegation relates to
misappropriation of funds by public officer, I feel that, merely on the
ground of long drawn litigations, one is not entitled to an acquittal,
though this can be considered at the appropriate stage while
considering the sentence imposed on the appellant,