N.K. Illiyas vs State Of Kerala

N.K. ILLIYAS ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF KERALA ..... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. The appellant stands convicted for offfences

punishable under Sections 13(1)(c) and (d) read with

Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

and under Sections 409, 471 and 477A of the Indian Penal

Code. The allegation is that while he was working as a

Lower Division Clerk in the Office of the Deputy

Superintendent of Police in the Vigilance Department, on

the 6th of June, 1989, he had temporarily misappropriated

an amount of `1,839/- being the telephone dues from 10th

February, 1992 to 4th March, 1992 and that he had

interpolated the records to show that the aforesaid

amount had been remitted to the post office on the 10th of

February, 1992, whereas the payment had actually been

made in the post office on the 4th of March, 1992, that is

after a delay of 21 days. The trial court and the High

Crl.A. 725/2006 2

Court have, accordingly, convicted the appellant under

Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) and have directed him to

undergo two years imprisonment and to pay a fine of

`1,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment

for three months under Section 13(2) of the Act for the

offences punishable under Section 3(1)(c) and (d) of the

Act, six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 471

IPC and one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section

409 IPC; all the sentences to run concurrently.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties

and also gone through the records. We are of the opinion

that the evidence against the appellant points to an

offence of temporary embezzlement only for a few days

and no case whatsoever under the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1985 can even be remotely made out. The conviction

of the appellants under the provisions of the Corruption

Act is thus wholly unwarranted.

3. We are further of the opinion that the offences

under the IPC alleged against the appellant are so

trivial and have caused no harm and are in fact no

offences in the eye of the law and the benefit of Section

95 of the Indian Penal Code is thus available to the

appellant. Admittedly, a sum of `1839/- had been

Crl.A. 725/2006 3

deposited in the post office before the due date i.e. 4th

March, 1992 and that no loss had been caused to the

Department, even if it is assumed that a false entry had

been made in the record to show the payment on the 10th

February, 1992.

4. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the

orders of the courts below and order the appellant's

acquittal.

........................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

........................J [GYAN SUDHA MISRA] NEW DELHI JULY 12, 2011.