While asserting that non-accounting of entrusted public funds constitutes misappropriation per se, the Kerala High Court (Ernakulam Bench) upheld the conviction and sentence of a government officer (appellant-accused) under the IPC as well as Prevention of Corruption Act, affirming that his conduct in dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriating the fees and fines collected by him in the capacity of an Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector of the Regional Transport Office, amounted to deliberate misappropriation and falsification of official records.
The Court held that once it is proved by the prosecution that there was entrustment of public money without proper accounting, the burden shifts to the accused to explain the discrepancy, and the failure to do so clearly constitutes misappropriation and criminal breach of trust. Accordingly, the Court also upheld the sentence of rigorous imprisonment and fine imposed on the appellant.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen observed that erasing one letter from the original receipts to show a lesser amount clearly establishes falsification of accounts, purposefully and dishonestly done by the accused (Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector) to facilitate his attempt to misappropriate Government money. Hence, the Single Judge upheld his conviction under Sections 13(1)(c), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act), and 409, 477-A of the IPC.
The Bench explained that, once it is proved by the prosecution that there was entrustment of property and there was no proper accounting of the entrusted property, then the burden is on the accused to prove that there was no misappropriation and to explain what happened to the property so entrusted. If the accused fails to discharge his burden or explain the misappropriated property, he is said to have committed the offences of criminal breach of trust and misappropriation.
Briefly, the case arose from the charge sheets against the accused, an Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, who was alleged to have collected Rs. 4.93 lacs but remitted only Rs. 2.12 lacs, thereby misappropriating sums amounting to Rs. 2.81 lacs. He was also accused of falsifying 10 TR5 receipts to conceal the embezzlement.
Resultantly, the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) initiated an investigation following an audit report that exposed discrepancies in fee collections, and the Special Judge convicted the accused, sentencing him to concurrent terms of rigorous imprisonment and fines amounting to Rs. 3.20 lacs.
Appearances:
Advocates George Varghese and Manu Sebastian, for the Appellant
Advocate Rajesh A., and Rekha S., for the Respondent
