Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (2.63 seconds)
Unknown vs Union Of India Through The Secretary To ... on 25 July, 2016 cites

N.K. Illiyas vs State Of Kerala on 12 July, 2011

14. At the time of final hearing, learned counsel for the applicant has placed before us a copy of judgment passed by the Honble Apex Court in the case of N.K.Illiyas versus State of Kerala decided on 12.7.2011 in which it has been held that temporary embezzlement of government money is no offence. The facts of this case are that one Shri N.K.Illiyas stood convicted for offences punishable under Sections 13(1) ( c ) and (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under sections 409, 471 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation is that while he was working as a Lower Division Clerk in the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police in the Vigilance Department, on the 6th of June, 1989, he had temporarily misappropriated an amount of Rs.1,839/- being the telephone dues from 10th February, 1992 to 4th March, 1992 and that he had interpolated the records to show that the aforesaid amount had been remitted to the post office on the 10th of February, 1992, whereas the payment had actually been made in the post office on the 4th of March, 1992, that is after a delay of 21 days. The trial court and the High Court have, accordingly, convicted the appellant under Sections 13 (1) ( c) and 13 (1) (d) and have directed him to undergo two years imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months under Section 13 (2) of the Act for the offences punishable under Section 3 (1) (c ) and (d) of the Act, six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 471 Indian Penal Code and one years rigorous imprisonment under Section 409 Indian Penal Code; all the sentences to run concurrently. The Honble Supreme Court has held that We are further of the opinion that the offences under the Indian Penal Code alleged against the appellant are so trivial and have caused no harm and are in fact no offences in the eye of the law and the benefit of Section 95 of the Indian Penal Code is thus available to the appellant. Admittedly, a sum of Rs.1839/- had been deposited in the post office before the due date i.e. 4th March, 1992 and that no loss had been caused to the Department, even if it is assumed that a false entry had been made in the record to show the payment on the 10th February, 1992.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C, Etawah ... vs Hoti Lal & Anr on 11 February, 2003

19. Having been punished with a debarment in the past, a recurring offence when proved, naturally invites a harsher and more stringent punishment, and this seems to be the case presently. Therefore, In view of this, we feel that the punishment awarded to the applicant is neither excessive nor it is disproportionate. Even the Honble Apex Court in the case of Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C. Etawah & Ors. Vs. Hoti Lal & Another (2003(2) J.T. Page 27) where the State had suffered only a loss to the tune of Rs.16/- on account of the fact that conductor was carrying ticketless passengers and certain old and used tickets were found from his possession, the Honble Court has held that  It is not only the amount involved but the mental set up, the type of duty performed and similar relevant circumstances which go into the decision-making process while considering whether the punishment is proportionate or disproportionate. If the charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning. It would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands. Where the person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity, highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness is must and unexceptionable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 270 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1   2 Next