CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION – MISAPPROPRIATION BY PUBLIC SERVANT – PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 (PC ACT), SECTION 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) – INDIAN PENAL CODE (IPC), SECTIONS 409, 468, 420.
2025 KER 55049 : (2025) 7 KCD 253
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2025
CRL.A NO. 2496 OF 2010 (Against the Judgment in CC NO.56 OF 2003 of Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge, Kozhikode, dated 30.11.2010)
K.M. MATHEW Vs. STATE OF KERALA
FACTS: The appellant, a Lower Division Clerk (LD Clerk) and cashier at the Kerala State Housing Board (KSHB), Wayanad Division, Kalpetta, was accused of abusing his official position and dishonestly misappropriating Rs. 86,332/- collected from loanees between 04.06.1998 and 14.12.2000. The Special Court took cognizance and, after trial, convicted the accused under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the PC Act, while acquitting him of charges under Sections 409, 468, and 420 of the IPC. The accused filed a criminal appeal challenging this conviction.
ACCUSED’S CONTENTION: The appellant argued that the conviction was based on conjectures, and the prosecution failed to prove misappropriation with dishonest/fraudulent intent. It was contended that other individuals also collected money, and the Accounts Officer, who was responsible for verifying cash and daily books, was not examined by the prosecution. The appellant asserted that merely being entrusted with the cash section was insufficient to prove criminal culpability when others were also involved in collections and supervisory lapses occurred. The appellant conceded that the misappropriated amount was repaid for reinstatement after suspension.
PROSECUTION’S CONTENTION: The Special Public Prosecutor argued that as per Ext.P3 Office Order, the accused was exclusively assigned the duty of cash collection and related record maintenance, making it his sole responsibility to remit collected amounts. It was highlighted that Ext.P21, supported by Ext.P22 series, clearly showed a deficit of Rs. 86,332/-, which was not remitted to the bank. The prosecution relied on the principle that once entrustment and improper accounting are proved, the burden shifts to the accused to explain the irregularities and prove no misappropriation. Fraudulent intention can be inferred from circumstantial evidence.
HIGH COURT’S RULING: The High Court confirmed the conviction, finding that the prosecution successfully proved the accused’s dishonest and fraudulent misappropriation of Rs. 86,332/-, as evidenced by Ext.P21 and Ext.P22 series, and the subsequent repayment by the accused after the case registration.
- The Court noted that Ext.P3 Office Order emphatically established the accused’s entrustment with cash collection duties as a cashier.
- Despite arguments that others also collected money, the primary responsibility for remitting the collected amounts rested with the accused as the cashier in charge.
- The Court dismissed the oral evidence of PW2 regarding excess remittances as false, given the documentary evidence of shortage (Exts.P21 and P22 series).
- Applying the principle from Vijayakumar K. V. State of Kerala, 2016 KHC 635, the Court affirmed that once entrustment and non-accounting are proved, the burden shifts to the accused to explain. The fraudulent intention can be inferred from attending circumstances.
- The Court held that the trial court’s finding that the accused committed offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the PC Act was justified and warranted confirmation.
SENTENCE: While confirming the conviction, the High Court partially allowed the appeal regarding the sentence. The rigorous imprisonment for 2 years each for the offences under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the PC Act was modified to 1 year each, along with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for two weeks. The substantive sentences are to run concurrently, and default sentences separately. The accused was directed to surrender to the special court within two weeks.
