1989 (7) TMI 348 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction and sentence under Sections 409 and 477A, IPC, and Sections 5(2) and 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
2. Entrustment and misappropriation of diesel.
3. Falsification of accounts and clerical errors.
4. Proper sanction under Section 6(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
5. Applicability of Section 219, Cr. P.C.
6. Double jeopardy under Section 300, Cr. P.C. and Article 20(2) of the Constitution.
7. Evidence of physical removal of diesel.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction and Sentence:
The appellant was convicted for offences under Sections 409 and 477A, IPC, and Sections 5(2) and 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year for each offence and fined Rs. 15,000/- under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, with an additional one-year imprisonment in default of payment.

2. Entrustment and Misappropriation of Diesel:
The appellant, a Storekeeper in the Cochin Shipyard, was in charge of a diesel pump from 6-2-1980 to 4-2-1982. During his tenure, 38,000 litres of diesel were supplied by the Indian Oil Company. The prosecution alleged that the appellant misappropriated 3710 litres of diesel by falsifying stores indent vouchers (SIVs) and ledger entries.

3. Falsification of Accounts and Clerical Errors:
The appellant was accused of adding zeros to SIVs, inflating the quantities from 190 litres to 1900 litres, and making corresponding ledger entries. The appellant contended these were clerical errors, but the court found the alterations deliberate. The court noted that the appellant's explanation of errors due to information from mazdoors was not credible, as the entries were consistent and made by a single individual.

4. Proper Sanction:
The court examined the sanction order (Ext. P37) and found it valid. It was issued by the Controller of Contracts and Stores, who had the authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings. The court dismissed the argument that the sanction was invalid due to procedural requirements involving consultation with the Manager (Personnel).

5. Applicability of Section 219, Cr. P.C.:
The appellant argued that he was charged with more than three offences within a span of 12 months, violating Section 219, Cr. P.C. The court referred to Sections 212 and 220, Cr. P.C., which allow for the joinder of charges in cases of criminal breach of trust and falsification of accounts. The court concluded that the charges were properly framed and tried together.

6. Double Jeopardy:
The appellant claimed that a previous discharge in C.C. 4/83 barred a second trial under Section 300, Cr. P.C., and Article 20(2) of the Constitution. The court held that the discharge was due to a lack of proper sanction, rendering the initial proceedings void ab initio. Thus, it did not constitute an acquittal, and the second trial was not barred.

7. Evidence of Physical Removal of Diesel:
The appellant contended that there was no evidence of physical removal of diesel from the Shipyard. The court found this argument unconvincing, noting that the appellant's falsification of documents and the discrepancy in the diesel stock were sufficient to prove misappropriation. The court suggested that the appellant might have removed diesel through clandestine methods, possibly in collusion with private contract carriers.

Conclusion:
The court upheld the conviction but modified the fine from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-, with a default imprisonment of five months. The sentences were to run concurrently. The appeal was dismissed with the above modification in the sentence.