State of Kerala Vs. M. Gopalan
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 580 of 1995
Petitioner: State of Kerala
Respondent: M. Gopalan
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 580 of 1995
Judges: Dr. A.S. ANAND, CJI, R.C. LAHOTI & DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 14, 2000
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 409 – Misappropriation – Allegation relating to period 12.3.77 to 26.2.79 – Auditor inspecting the institution on 29.2.79 – Cash balance verified and certificate issued in cash book – Further allegation that accused obtained signatures on 22.2.79 and did not pay – Nothing to show that amount was misappropriated. Held that acquittal by High Court was justified. Allegations of 27.2.79 were not subject-matter of charge concerned. Appeal dismissed.
(Para 2,3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The respondent was a cashier of Government Polytechnic and it was his duty to draw the amount from Government Treasury for disbursement to the staff and students, who were entitled to receive stipends and scholarships under different heads. The respondent is alleged to have drawn different amounts from the Government Treasury for payment to the staff and students during the period between 12.3.1977 to 26.2.1979. It is alleged by the prosecution that instead of disbursing the amount to those, who were entitled to receive the amounts, the respondent misappro-priated an amount to the tune of Rs.54,921.44. The amount was drawn from the Government Treasury and was required to be kept in the cash chest but according to the prosecution the respondent did not do so. This version of the prosecution, however, is not established.
2. The Accounts Officer of the Director of Technical Education appeared as PW 6 in the trial court. He admitted that it was his duty to conduct departmental audit in respect of the Govern-ment Polytechnic, Kozhikode. He deposed that when he inspected the Government Polytechnic, on 29.2.1979 and verified the cash balance, he found that the cash balance tallied with the ac-counts. He gave a certificate to that effect in the cash book which was exhibited at the trial as Ex. P21 (ae). On the basis of this certificate, it would appear that there was no misappro-priation committed by the Respondent during the relevant period for which charge of misappropriation had been framed against him.
3. According to the prosecution case it was on 27th February, 1979 that the respondent obtained signatures from different payees in the acquittance roll but actually did not pay a single pie to any one of those payees. Assuming that to be so, the alleged misappropriation on 27.2.1979 was not the subject-matter of the charge concerning misappropriation. Unless the prosecu-tion was able to establish that the respondent had misappropriat-ed the amount, prior to 26.2.1979, charge under Section 409 I.P.C. could not stand scrutiny. The High Court, therefore, rightly took note of this fact situation and came to the conclu-sion that if any shortage was found after 26.2.1979, the respond-ent may be liable to make good the shortage and there could be civil liability but he could not be convicted on the ground that he had misappropriated the amount prior to 26.2.1979. The prose-cution miserably failed to establish that the respondent commit-ted any misappropriation during the period 12.3.1977 to 26.2.1979. The High Court, therefore, acquitted the
respondent and in our opinion, rightly.
4. The view taken by the High Court, in the established facts and circumstances of the case, is unexceptionable. We do not find any reason to interfere with the well merited order of acquittal. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed.
5. The respondent is on bail. His bail bond shall stand dis-charged.
1. The respondent was a cashier of Government Polytechnic and it was his duty to draw the amount from Government Treasury for disbursement to the staff and students, who were entitled to receive stipends and scholarships under different heads. The respondent is alleged to have drawn different amounts from the Government Treasury for payment to the staff and students during the period between 12.3.1977 to 26.2.1979. It is alleged by the prosecution that instead of disbursing the amount to those, who were entitled to receive the amounts, the respondent misappro-priated an amount to the tune of Rs.54,921.44. The amount was drawn from the Government Treasury and was required to be kept in the cash chest but according to the prosecution the respondent did not do so. This version of the prosecution, however, is not established.
2. The Accounts Officer of the Director of Technical Education appeared as PW 6 in the trial court. He admitted that it was his duty to conduct departmental audit in respect of the Govern-ment Polytechnic, Kozhikode. He deposed that when he inspected the Government Polytechnic, on 29.2.1979 and verified the cash balance, he found that the cash balance tallied with the ac-counts. He gave a certificate to that effect in the cash book which was exhibited at the trial as Ex. P21 (ae). On the basis of this certificate, it would appear that there was no misappro-priation committed by the Respondent during the relevant period for which charge of misappropriation had been framed against him.
3. According to the prosecution case it was on 27th February, 1979 that the respondent obtained signatures from different payees in the acquittance roll but actually did not pay a single pie to any one of those payees. Assuming that to be so, the alleged misappropriation on 27.2.1979 was not the subject-matter of the charge concerning misappropriation. Unless the prosecu-tion was able to establish that the respondent had misappropriat-ed the amount, prior to 26.2.1979, charge under Section 409 I.P.C. could not stand scrutiny. The High Court, therefore, rightly took note of this fact situation and came to the conclu-sion that if any shortage was found after 26.2.1979, the respond-ent may be liable to make good the shortage and there could be civil liability but he could not be convicted on the ground that he had misappropriated the amount prior to 26.2.1979. The prose-cution miserably failed to establish that the respondent commit-ted any misappropriation during the period 12.3.1977 to 26.2.1979. The High Court, therefore, acquitted the
respondent and in our opinion, rightly.
4. The view taken by the High Court, in the established facts and circumstances of the case, is unexceptionable. We do not find any reason to interfere with the well merited order of acquittal. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed.
5. The respondent is on bail. His bail bond shall stand dis-charged.
