AHAMMAD Vs. STATE OF KERALA
LAWS(KER)-1963-6-20
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on June 21,1963

AHAMMAD Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF KERALA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SATWANT SINGH V.THE STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
HORI RAM SINGH V. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
MATAJOG DOBEY V. H.C.BHARI [REFERRED TO]
SHREEKANTIAH RAMAYYA MUNIPALLI VS. STATE OF BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
OM PARKASH GUPTA RAM GOBIND SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH:STATE OF VINDHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
VAIDYANATHA AYYER VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
SANKARANKUTTY MENON VS. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICETRICHUR [REFERRED TO]
H H B GILL VS. KING [REFERRED TO]
ALBERT WEST MEADS VS. KING [REFERRED TO]
PHANINDRA CHANDRA NEOGY VS. KING [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

P.GOVINDA MENON,J. - (1.)THE petitioner was convicted by the Sub Divi­sional Magistrate of Hosdrug for offences of criminal breach of trust and falsification of accounts.On appeal the learned Sessions Judge of Tellicherry set aside the conviction and sentence under section 477 -A I.P.C .,as there was no requisite sanction under section 197 Crl.P.C,but con­firmed the conviction and sentence under section 409 I.P.C.The accused has,therefore,come up in revision to this court.
(2.)THE charge against the accused was that on 17th September 1957 in his capacity as a public servant being the clerk in the Government College,Kasaragod he was entrusted with a sum of Rs.428.06 and that he misappropriated the amount for his own use and to cover up the fraud he falsified the accounts maintained in the college.The accused was a clerk in the office of the Government College,Kasaragod during the period 22nd July 1957 and 15th November 1957.P.W.8 was then the Principal of the College.He has deposed that the accused was the sole clerk in the office,that he was himself receiving and disbur­sing the monies and maintaining the accounts;that Ext.P -2 the cash book used to be written by the accused,that it used to be put up before him at the end of the day and that he used to verify and sign the cash book.P.W.7 was the attender of the college at the relevant time and he was the person who used to go to the treasury and cash bills.
Towards the value of certain books purchased by the college from Mangalodayam Company Limited,Trithur a sum of Rs.428.06 had to be paid.Ext.P -3 is the invoice.For payment of this amount and also for another sum of Rs.33.81 a contingent bill was drawn on 17th September 1957.The sum of Rs.33.81 was to be received in cash and Rs.428.06 had to be obtained by way of draft to be sent to the Mangalodayam Company,but the entire amount of the bill was actually received in cash from the treasury.P.W.7 the attender's evidence and the treasury officer's evidence show that actual cash for the entire bill was paid by the treasury to P.W.7.P.W.7 has deposed that the entire money under the bill was received in cash and as usual he had handed over the same to the accused.That is not denied by the accused.The cash book writ­ten in the handwriting of the accused however,shows that only Rs.33.81 had been received in cash and the sum of Rs.428.06 has been received by way of draft.Ext.P -4 the despatch register of the college shows that a letter had been sent to the Trichur company,probably to show that the draft had been sent along with it.P.W.6 the manager of the company has sworn that no such letter or draft was received by him.

(3.)P .W.2,the Principal who succeeded P.W.8 has given evidence that after he took charge,the Accountant -General's Office raised an objection that the payee's receipt for payment made to the Mangalodayam Company for purchase of the books had not been received by him.The company was addressed and Exts.P -5 and P -5(a)are the two letters in December 1957 and Exts.P -6 and P -7 are the two replies from the company stating that they had not till then received any money.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.