[ad_1]
Kerala High Court
T.T.Kunhikannan vs State Of Kerala on 13 August, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 22ND SRAVANA,
1947
CRL.A NO. 1480 OF 2013
CC NO.5 OF 2003 OF ENQUIRY COMR.& SPECIAL
JUDGE,KOZHIKODE
APPELLANT/1ST ACCUSED:
T.T.KUNHIKANNAN
S/O.KUNHIKANNAN (FORMERLY CLERK AND SECRETARY
IN CHARGE, THERUMAMBALAM WEAVER'S INDUSTRIAL
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY), THEKKETHALAKKAL HOUSE,
CHITTARIKOVVAL, KANDOTH P.O., PAYYANNUR,
KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.M.SASINDRAN
SHRI.SATHEESHAN ALAKKADAN
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
KOCHI - 682 031.
SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR VACB ADV.RAJESH.A,
SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR VACB ADV.REKHA.S
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.08.2025, THE COURT ON 13.08.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:60948
Crl.A.No.1480/2013 2
"C.R"
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
================================
Crl.Appeal No.1480 of 2013-C
================================
Dated this the 13th day of August, 2025
JUDGMENT
The 1st accused in C.C.No.5 of 2003 on the files of the Enquiry
Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode, has preferred this appeal
challenging the conviction and sentence imposed against him in the above
case dated 11.09.2013. State of Kerala is the respondent herein.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the 1st accused/appellant as
well as the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. Perused the trial court records as well as the verdict
under challenge.
4. The prosecution case is that the 1st accused while
working as Clerk and Secretary-in-charge of Therumambalam Weaver’s
Industrial Co-operative Society (`Society’ for short hereinafter),
2025:KER:60948
Crl.A.No.1480/2013 3
Payyannur during the period 01.10.1993 to 03.09.1994 and the 2 nd accused
while working as Weaving-cum-Dyeing Master of the above Society
during the period 13.04.1984 to 31.03.1998 being public servants had
abused their position as public servants and committed criminal breach of
trust and fraudulently misappropriated clothes worth Rs.5,16,721/- and
cash amounting to Rs.560/- of the above society during the period
01.10.1993 to 03.09.1994 and caused loss of Rs.5,17,287/- to the Society
and had obtained undue pecuniary advantage of that amount for
themselves and thereby they had committed the offences punishable under
Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 (`PC Act‘ for short hereinafter) and under Section 409 r/w 34 of
the Indian Penal Code (`IPC‘ for short).
5. On getting final report filed after investigation in this
crime, the Special Court took cognizance of this matter and proceeded
with trial. During trial, PWs 1 to 13 were examined and Exts.P1 to P38
were marked on the side of the prosecution. DW1 to DW3 were examined
and Exts.D1 to D3 were marked on the side of the accused. Apart from
that, Exts.X1 and X2 were also marked.
2025:KER:60948
Crl.A.No.1480/2013 4
6. The Special Court appraised the contention raised by the
prosecution as well as the accused and finally found that the 1 st accused is
guilty for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read
with 13(2) of the PC Act as well as under Section 409 of the IPC.
7. While impeaching the veracity of the verdict of the trial
court, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the 1st accused/appellant
that the Special court went wrong in finding that the accused had dishonest
or fraudulent intention so as to misappropriate the amount alleged.
According to the learned counsel for the 1st accused, the 1st accused took
charge on 01.10.1993 and held the post of Secretary till 03.09.1994 and the
verification conducted by PW6 on 30.06.1994. PW6 deposed that stock
verification was not conducted by the Board of Directors for a long period.
Thus PW6 was not in a position to make any accurate report on that
aspect. Therefore, the stock verification at the instance of PW6 alleged to
be occurred on 30.06.1994 in between 10 a.m to 5 p.m whereupon the
entire prosecution allegation as to misappropriation was raised is not
believable. It is pointed out that as per clause 23(1)(f) of the bye-law of
the Society, the Secretary is the custodian of all the property, including the
2025:KER:60948
Crl.A.No.1480/2013 5
cash of the society. As per Ext.P14(a) statement regarding verification of
stock reveals that the 2nd accused was working in the Society as weaving
cum dyeing Master. As per Ext.P5, on 14.03.1984, the Director Board
took decision that responsibility of the entire stock, i.e finished goods,
yarn, looms and weaving equipments to be held by the Director Sri
Krishnan to be given to the 2nd accused. Ext.P14 issued by Junior Co-
operative Inspector District Industries Centre, Kannur revealed that the 2 nd
accused, namely P.V.Vijayan took charge of the entire stocks, i.e finished
goods, yarn, looms and weaving equipments and accessories. It is
submitted further that at the time when the 1st accused took charge of the
Secretary, there was no stock verification and the stock as such available
was made accountable by the 1st accused. Thus the misappropriation
alleged could not be at the instance of the 1st accused and the same may be
of continuous default of various persons, for which the accused alone is
not accountable. The learned counsel had given much emphasis on
Ext.P14, which would suggest that there is no practice of giving or taking
charge of stock after due verification. This paved way for evading
responsibility of stock.
2025:KER:60948
Crl.A.No.1480/2013 6
8. Opposing the contentions raised by the learned counsel
for the 1st accused, the learned Public Prosecutor argued that as per the
report of PW6 marked as Ext.P33, which was prepared as directed by the
General Manager, District Industries Centre, Kannur on 30.06.1994, it was
found that there were shortage of articles to the tune of Rs.5,22,611.55 and
the responsibility of the same was fixed in favour of the 1 st accused, who
held the charge of the Secretary during the relevant period. It is pointed
out by the learned Public Prosecutor further that on getting notice
regarding the misappropriation at the instance of the 1 st accused, the 1st
accused applied for leave and went abroad. It was thereafter his cousin
intervened and paid Rs.2,25,000/-, but the balance amount of
Rs.2,93,734.45 was not paid at all. According to the learned Public
Prosecutor, the 1st accused, who held the post of Secretary from
01.10.1993 to 03.09.1994 could not evade his responsibility in the matter
of shortage of stocks for the amount of Rs.5,22611.55 and the same is a
huge amount during 1994. It is submitted that the details of the available
stock would establish the fact that the 1 st accused alone is responsible for
the shortage of loss as he misappropriated the same and also swallowed the
2025:KER:60948
Crl.A.No.1480/2013 7
proceeds out of the same with dishonest intention by misutilising the
public wealth. Soon he absconded to screen himself from prosecution.
9. Appraising the rival submissions, the points arise for
consideration are:
(i) Whether the Special Court went wrong in finding that the 1 st
accused committed offence punishable under Section 13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of
the PC Act?
(ii) Whether the Special Court went wrong in finding that the
1st accused committed offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)
of the PC Act?
(iii) Whether the Special Court went wrong in finding that the
1st accused committed offence punishable under Section 409 of the IPC?
(iv) Whether the verdict would require interference?
(v) The order to be passed? Point Nos.(i) to (v)
10. The allegation against the 1st accused is that while he was
working as Clerk of the society, Secretary of the society Nalini went on
Maternity Leave on 01-10-1993 and the 1st accused was put in charge of
2025:KER:60948
Crl.A.No.1480/2013 8the Secretary of the society on 01-10-1993. Thereafter Nalini joined duty
only on 05-09-1994 and the 1st accused left the office even before Nalini
rejoined for duty, that too, without handing over the charge to Nalini.
Then the 1st accused had attended the office on 03-09-1994 and had
withdrawn Rs.5,000/- from the bank account of the society and had
disbursed wages to the workers and thereafter he had not attended the
office. A perusal of Ext.P25 document which is the Cheque Book
containing counterfoils of cheque leaves issued by the society, the same
would show that the 1st accused had issued Cheque No.258911 on 03-09-
1994 for Rs.5,000/-. This fact is admitted by the 1 st accused when he was
questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of Criminal Procedure Code. Wages
Register which is marked as Ext.P3 also would show that wages were
distributed to the workers on 03-09-1994. So, the fact that the 1 st accused
had attended the office on 03-09-1994 is proved by these documents. It is
true that in the Attendance Register which is marked as Ext.P8, 1 staccused
had signed only up to 11-08-1994. But the Petty Cash Book which is
marked as Ext.P22 would show that he had written the Cash Book up to
31-08-1994 and he had made endorsement in Page 209 of that book which
2025:KER:60948
Crl.A.No.1480/2013 9
is marked as Ext.P2(b) that he had handed over the charge on 31-08-1994 and
had signed it. So, even though he had not signed in the Attendance
Register from 11-08-1994 onwards, these documents would reveal that he
had attended the office and had attended his duties as Secretary till 03-09-
1994. Even though he had made an endorsement in the Day Book that he
had handed over the charge to Nalini on 31-08-1994 and he had put his
signature, there was no endorsement made by Nalini that she had received
charge from the 1st accused on that day and Nalini, who rejoined duty on
05.09.1994, could not take charge on 31.08.1994. On the other hand,
Nalini had made endorsement that she had received Rs.2,453/- on 05-09-
1994. A perusal of the Minutes Book which is marked as Ext.P6, the same
would reveal that in the meeting of the Director Board held on 07-09-
1994, it was recorded that Nalini took charge on 05-09-1994 and it is
marked as Ext.P6(c). Ext.P6 document also reveals that resolution was
taken by the Director Board evidenced by Ext.P6(b) that the 1 st accused
had disbursed wages on 03-09-1994 and even though the 1 st accused had
made entry in the Day Book that he had handed over the charge to Nalini
on 31-08-1994, though actually and recordically Nalini took charge only
2025:KER:60948
Crl.A.No.1480/2013 10
on 05-09-1994 and the 1st accused did not hand over the charge to Nalini.
The day book would reveal further that the 1st accused did not attend the
office from 04-09-1994 onwards and he had not given any leave letter and
he did not hand over the charge of the stock to Nalini. Thus decision was
taken to verify the stock of the society by the Director Board. Ext.P6
document further would reveals that decision was taken by the Director
Board on 24-10-1994 that on verification of stock by Directors they found
that there was shortage of stock of the society to a tune of about
Rs.5,00,000/- and odd and misappropriation of stock was done by the 1 st
accused and they took a decision to suspend the 1 st accused and to prefer a
complaint against him before the Police. Decision taken by the Director
Board on 03-11-1994 evidenced by Ext.P6(f) would show that, it was
recorded that A1 had absconded on 04-09-1994 and Nalini had joined duty
after cancelling her leave on 05-09-1994, as per the request made by the
President and she found that 1st accused had made endorsement in the Day
Book that he had handed over the charge on 31-08-1994 and she verified
the stock and found that the 1st accused had withdrawn an amount of
Rs.5,000/- from the account of the society and did not hand over the
2025:KER:60948
Crl.A.No.1480/2013 11
balance amount after disbursing the wages to the workers. Then Nalini
had reported this fact to the President on 22-09-1994 and in pursuance of
the same, President requested Nalini to verify the stock and when she
verified the stock, she found shortage of stock and it was reported by her
on 12-10-1994. Thereafter request was made by the society to District
Industries Centre, Kannur to depute a person to verify the stock and
complaint was filed against the 1st accused before Payyannur Police and 1st
accused was suspended from service. Thereafter the staff of District
Industries Centre, Kannur verified the stock and found that there was huge
deficit in stock.
11. PW10, who is the Director of the Society testified with
regard to the decision to entrust the stocks of the Society to the 1 st accused.
According to him, Director Board took such a decision in the Director
Board meeting and he had attended those meetings and signed in the
minutes book. PW10 deposed further that Nalini took charge on
05.09.1994 and during her absence the 1st accused held the charge of
Secretary from 01.10.1993 to 03.09.1994. The presence of the 1 st accused
till 03.09.1994 and discharge of his duties as a Secretary till that date also
2025:KER:60948
Crl.A.No.1480/2013 12
was deposed by PW10. As per the minutes book, the 2 nd accused was
given the charge of stock of the Society and retail sale of the goods of the
Society, but as per clause 23(1)(f) of the Bye-law of the Society marked as
Ext.P9, the Secretary is the custodian of all the properties including cash of
the Society and therefore as per Bye-law of the Society Secretary is the ex
officio trustee of the Society. PW5, who conducted the stock verification
categorically given evidence that without the direction of the 1st accused,
the 2nd accused, who is the weaving cum dyeing Master, could not sell the
finished goods. PW10, the Director of the Society also supported Ext.P9
and given evidence that Secretary is the custodian of the stock. Based on
this evidence, the Special Court found that the 1st and 2nd accused had joint
liability regarding custody of the stock and without the knowledge of the
1st accused, the 2nd accused (who was no more during trial) could not do
any misappropriation in the stock. The said finding is only to be justified.
12. While addressing the question as to whether the shortage
of stock had occurred during the tenure of the 1st accused or not, the stock
verification was conducted on 30.06.1994 and as on 31.12.1994, the
shortage was found on 30.06.1994 as well as 31.12.1994. If so, the
2025:KER:60948
Crl.A.No.1480/2013 13
shortage occurred in between 30.06.1994 and 31.12.1994 and it is proved
that during these periods the 1 st accused attended the office upto
04.09.1994 and he held the post of Secretary being the custodian of the
stock. The said finding of the Special Court also to be justified from the
records. It is true that there was no practice of stock verification at the
time of handing over of the charge. In this connection, it is relevant to
note that when Nalini took charge on 05.09.1994, she noticed that the 1 st
accused, though had falsely created record to the effect that he had handed
over the charge to Nalini on 31.08.1994, he did not return the balance
amount after spending the amount for disbursement of wages since he had
misappropriated that amount also. Accordingly the said fact was reported
by Nalini to the Director Board on 22.09.1994. Thereafter, the Director
Board Requested Nalini to verify stock and on verification she found
shortage of stock and was reported to the Director Board on 12.08.1994.
Therefore, there is no possibility to occur any shortage as on 05.09.1994.
Thus the Special Court observed that the 1st accused attempted to create
suspicion as he left the office without handing over the charge and without
informing the Director Board after making the false endorsement in the
2025:KER:60948
Crl.A.No.1480/2013 14
day book that he had handed over his charge on 31.081994. The above
conduct of the 1st accused was to believe that he was ready to hand over
the charge of Secretary to Nalini though he had something to hide, which
was found to be in shortage.
13. In this case, on the side of the accused, DW1 to DW3
were examined. Exts.D1 to D5 were marked. Ext.X1, the order issued by
the Government of Kerala, granting permission to write off the debts of the
Societies also got marked. Production of Ext.X1 was to apprise the fact
that since Rs.2,25,000/- was collected from the relatives of the 1 st accused,
the remaining amount of Rs.2,93,734.45 to be written off. DW1 supported
Ext.X1. As far as the evidence given by DW1 and Ext.X1 is concerned,
the same has no bearing in the instant case, where the allegation as to
commission of the offence by the accused is to be evaluated
independently. If at all Government decided to write off the
misappropriated amount of a public servant, that by itself would not efface
his criminal culpability and writing off of a liability also factually a loss to
the Society. DW2 gave evidence that he is the brother-in-law of the 1 st
accused and an agreement was entered into between the Secretary of the
2025:KER:60948
Crl.A.No.1480/2013 15
Society as party No.1 and himself and Rajan, who is the brother of the
accused, as party No.2 on 25.03.1996. According to DW2, the said
agreement was executed because of the continuous threat from one
Govindan, the President of the Society and accordingly as per Exts.D1 to
D5 series, a total sum of Rs.2,25,000/- was repaid. In fact, the evidence of
DW2 and Exts.D1 to D5 would show partial discharge of the liability, the
accused did not execute any agreement. DW3 was examined to prove
Ext.X2 letter received from the General Manager, District Industries
Centre, Kannoor, requesting to write off the liability and the Society was
administered by the Director Board, controlled by the CPI(M) party. As I
have already observed, evidence of DW2 and Ext.X2 also have no much
bearing in this case.
14. The crucial question herein is whether the
misappropriation of Rs.5,22,611.55 by manipulating the stock of the
Society was done by the 1st accused?
15. A perusal of Ext.P14 and P14(a) document shows that
PW5 who is the Junior Co-Operative Inspector (Handloom) of District
Industries Centre, Kannur had submitted Ext.P14 report dated 30-06-1995
2025:KER:60948
Crl.A.No.1480/2013 16
stating that he had inspected the society involved in this case and
conducted stock verification and found that there was deficit of stock of
finished goods to a tune of Rs.5,22,611.55 as on 31-12-1994 and he had
submitted detailed statement showing the stock position of finished goods
as on 31-12-1994 and the value of excess and deficit stock found in each
item of finished goods and that statement is marked as Ext.P14(a) and the
report submitted by him is marked as Ext.P14. PW5 has given evidence
that while he was working as Junior Co-Operative Inspector (Handloom),
District Industries Centre, Kannur he attended departmental training from
01-10-1994 to 07-11-1994 and PW9 held his charge during that period and
the Deputy Registrar of District Industries Centre, Kannur issued Ext.P34
Proceedings for conducting urgent and detailed inspection of the society
involved in this case. Pursuant to the same Proceedings, PW9 along with
Senior Supervisor Shylaja conducted inspection of the society and
submitted a report to the Deputy Registrar. Acting on that report, direction
was given to PW5 to conduct detailed inspection of the society and he
conducted inspection and verified the stock, PW5 in turn submitted
Ext.P14 report and Ext.P14(a) statement after verifying the stock as on 31-
2025:KER:60948
Crl.A.No.1480/2013 17
12-1994. During inspection PW5 found that there was deficit of stock of
finished goods to the tune of Rs.5,22,611.55. Nothing is brought out to
discredit these versions of PW5. A perusal of Ext.P14(a) statement would
show that Weaving-cum-Dyeing Master of the Society who was the 2 nd
accused (no more), signed it and the Director of the Society had also
signed it stating that the stock was verified in their presence. PW5 also
signed in Ext.P14(a) document. Ext.P14(a) document further would reveal
that in certain items of finished goods stock was found excessive and in
majority of items of finished goods stock was found deficit. Thus it is
clear that actual physical verification of the stock was conducted by PW5.
PW5 has also given Certificate to the effect that the figures shown in it are
correct. Report submitted by PW9 and Shylaja is marked as Ext.P32 and
the same would show that they had conducted only a preliminary
verification and they found shortage of stock and had made a request to
conduct detailed verification of the stock. PW9 has also given evidence
that he didn’t conduct a detailed verification of the stock and only
preliminary verification of the stock was done by him and he had made a
request in his report for conducting detailed verification of the stock. PW9
2025:KER:60948
Crl.A.No.1480/2013 18
has also given evidence that while he was holding the charge of PW5, he
received Ext.P34 communication from the Deputy Registrar of District
Industries Centre, Kannur dated 27-10-1994 directing him to conduct
urgent inspection and himself and Shylaja conducted inspection and
submitted Ext.P32 report and when PW5 joined duty after training, he
handed over Ext.P34 communication to PW5 and thereafter PW5 had
conducted detailed inspection and verification of stock. So, the evidence of
PW9 would prove that PW5 had conducted actual physical verification of
the stock of the society and found that there is deficit of stock of finished
goods to a tune of Rs.5,22,611.55 as on 31-12-1994 in the society involved
in this case. Prosecution has produced the Stock Registers of the society
which is marked as Ext.P19 and P20. A perusal of those documents shows
that the entries shown in Ext.P14(a) statement as per the register tallies
with the entries seen in Ext.P19 and P20 documents. So, as per Ext.P14
report, there is deficit of stock of finished goods worth value of
Rs.5,22,611.55 as on 30-12-1994.
16. Evaluation of the evidence would show that loss of
Rs.5,22,611.55 was sustained to the Society and it was so happened during
2025:KER:60948
Crl.A.No.1480/2013 19
the tenure when the 1st accused held the post of the Secretary of the
Society and his involvement in this misappropriation could be established
beyond any reasonable doubt. Even though the relatives of the 1 st accused
paid a substantial amount to the Society and the Government decided to
write off the remaining amount, the offence committed by the 1st accused
could not be effaced. Therefore, there is no reason to hold that the trial
court went wrong in convicting the accused.
17. In this matter, validity of sanction marked as Ext.P36
also is under challenge on the submission that the sanction was issued by
the Board of Directors of the Society, who, in fact, made the complaint
which led to registration of this case.
18. Law regarding sanction is settled by the various
decisions of the Apex Court. Reading Section 19(1) of the P.C. Act, what
mandated is that, no court shall take cognizance for offences punishable
under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a
public servant, except with previous sanction embodied under Section
19(1)(a) to (c), subject to Section 19(2) of the P.C. Act. Section 19(3)
carves out exception to 19(1). Section 19(3)(a) of the P.C. Act emphasizes
2025:KER:60948
Crl.A.No.1480/2013 20
that, no finding, sentence or order passed by a special judge shall be
interfered on the ground of absence of, or any error, omission or
irregularity in, the sanction required under sub-section (1), unless in the
opinion of court, failure of justice occasioned thereby. Section 19(3)(b)
provides that, for the same ground, no court shall stay the proceedings
under this Act. As per Section 19(4) of the P.C. Act, the absence of, or any
error, omission, or irregularity in, sanction has occasioned or resulted in a
failure of justice, the court shall have regard to the fact that, whether the
objection could and should have been raised at an earlier stage of the
proceedings. It is relevant to note further that, error includes competency
of the authority to grant sanction.
19. Going by various decisions on this point, majority of
the decisions would emphasize the point that, failure of justice if not
occasioned, by way of the absence of, or any error, omission or
irregularity in sanction, the same by itself is not a ground to interfere
the finding, sentence or order passed by the Special Judge. It is the
fundamental principle of interpretation of statute that, when provisions
of a statute are interpreted, the interpretation should be by giving effect
2025:KER:60948
Crl.A.No.1480/2013 21
to all the provisions, without making any of the provisions redundant
or inoperative.
20. In the latest decision of the Apex Court reported in
[2025 INSC 654] Dashrath v. The State of Maharashtra, the Apex
Court referred Neeraj Dutta’s case (supra) and the decision reported in
[(2015) 2 SCC 33] Manzoor Ali Khan v. Union of India, and held in
paragraph Nos.12 and 13 that, it is no longer res integra that
requirement of sanction has a salutary object. Provisions requiring
sanction to prosecute, either under Section 19, PC Act or Section 197
of the (now repealed) Cr. PC or under Section 218 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 are intended to protect an innocent
public servant against unwarranted and mala fide prosecution.
Indubitably, there can be no tolerance to corruption which has the
effect of undermining core constitutional values of justice, equality,
liberty and fraternity; however, at the same time, the need to prosecute
and punish the corrupt is no ground to deny protection to the honest.
This is what was held by this Court in its decision in Manzoor Ali
Khan v. Union of India while repelling a challenge raised in a Public
2025:KER:60948
Crl.A.No.1480/2013 22
Interest Litigation to the constitutional validity of Section 19 of the PC
Act. Even otherwise, merely because there is any omission, error or
irregularity in the matter of granting sanction, that does not affect the
validity of the proceedings unless the court records its own satisfaction
that such error, omission or irregularity has resulted in a failure of
justice.
21. In another decision of the Apex Court reported in
[2025 INSC 50], The State of Punjab v. Hari Kesh, after referring
S.Subbegowda’s case (supra), the apex Court considered the combined
effect of sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 19 and reiterated that, in
view of sub-section (3) clearly forbids the court in appeal,
confirmation or revision, the interference with the order passed by the
Special Judge on the ground that the sanction was bad, save and
except in cases where the failure of justice had occurred by such
invalidity.
22. Thus, the law emerges is that, in order to take
cognizance for the offences under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 of the
P.C. Act, alleged to have committed by a public servant, sanction is
2025:KER:60948
Crl.A.No.1480/2013 23
necessary. After taking cognizance, during trial, when considering the
validity of sanction on the ground of absence of, any error or omission
or irregularity in the sanction, including the incompetency of the
authority to grant sanction, a court in appeal, confirmation or revision
on the said ground, no finding, sentence or order passed by the special
judge shall not be interfered, unless the court finds that such error or
omission or irregularity has resulted in failure of justice. Therefore,
even though sanction is necessary to take cognizance for offences
under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 of the P.C. Act alleged to be
committed by a public servant, unless there is no failure of justice in
the finding, sentence or order passed by the Special Judge, the same
shall not be reversed or altered by a court in appeal, confirmation or
revision.
23. No doubt, in the instant case, the challenge against the
sanction is mainly on alleging that, though sanction was issued by the
competent authority, the said authority is the aggrieved party as well. As
per explanation to Section 19(3)(a) of the P.C. Act, it has been specifically
provided that any error or omission or irregularity in granting sanction,
2025:KER:60948
Crl.A.No.1480/2013 24
that doesn’t affect the validity of proceedings, unless failure of justice is
not occasioned. In the instant case, merely finding an irregularity in the
sanction, this Court cannot interfere with the conviction and sentence
under challenge herein unless there is no failure of justice. On evaluation
of evidence, this Court could not found that there was failure of justice in
this case, if at all any irregularity in the matter of grant of sanction.
Therefore, interference of the verdict impugned, on the said ground would
also not succeed.
24. Coming to the sentence, taking note of the serious
allegations, involving misappropriation of a huge sum of Rs.5,22,611.55
during 1993-1994, the sentence also is found to be reasonable and I am not
inclined to revisit the sentence. Therefore, the sentence also is confirmed.
25. In the result, this appeal must fail and is accordingly
dismissed. Consequently the conviction and sentence imposed by the
Special Court are confirmed. As a sequel thereof, the order suspending
sentence and granting bail to the accused stands cancelled and the bail
bond also stands cancelleed.
26. The accused is directed to surrender before the Special
2025:KER:60948
Crl.A.No.1480/2013 25
Court to undergo the sentence forthwith, failing which the Special Court
shall execute the sentence forthwith.
Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the
Special Court for compliance and further steps.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE
rtr/
[ad_2]
Source link