Mr. K. Ramakrishnan, J. - The same accused in C.C. Nos. 6/2000 to 11/2000, 18/2000 to 20/2000, 24/2000 to 29/2000, 41/2000 to 50/2000 on the file of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram is the appellant in the above cases. The appellant in all these cases was charge sheeted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, VACB, Alappuzha in VC.1/94/ALP of VACB, Alappuzha under section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ''the P.C.Act'') and sections 409, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell was that the accused while working as the Employment Officer, Town Employment Exchange, Cherthala during 12.2.1992 to 9.7.1992, was entrusted with the amounts payable to unemployed persons (hereinafter called ''the beneficiaries'') on 20.3.1992, 28.3.1992 and 6.4.1992 and he had with the dishonest intention, fraudulently created 74 false vouchers in the name of fake persons for an amount of Rs. 800/- each, using the same as genuine documents, as a public servant dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriated the amounts covered by the above vouchers namely 74 x 800 = Rs. 59200/- and thereby he had committed the offence punishable under section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(2) of the P.C.Act, 1988 and sections 409 and 471 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. After investigation, twenty file split charges have been filed in respect of three vouchers each before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thhiruvananthapuram and the Special Judge had taken cognizance of the cases on the basis of split charges in respect of voucher numbers Exts.P2 to P4 as C.C.No.6/2000, Exts.P38 to P48 as C.C.No.7/2000, Exts. P41 to P43 as C.C.No.8/2000, Exts.P44 to P46 as C.C.No.9/2000 and Ext.P47 to P49 as C.C.No.10/2000, Exts.P50 to P52 as C.C. No. 11/2000, Exts.P53 to P55 as C.C. No. 18/2000, Exts.P56 to P58 as C.C. No. 19/2000, Exts.P59 to P61 as C.C. No. 20/2000 and Ext.P62 to P64 as C.C. No. 24/2000, Exts.P65 to P67 as C.C. No. 25/2000, Exts.P68 to P70 as C.C. No. 26/2000, Exts.P71 to P73 as C.C. No. 27/2000 and Exts.P74 to P76 as C.C. No. 28/2000 and Exts.P77 to 79 as C.C.No.29/2000, Exts.P80 to P82 as C.C. No. 41/2000, Exts.P83 to P85 as C.C. No. 42/2000, Exts.P86 to P88 as C.C. No. 43/2000, Exts.P89 to P91 as C.C. No. 44/2000, Exts.P92 to P96 as C.C. No. 45/2000, Exts.P96 to P99 as C.C. No. 46/2000, Exts.P100 to 102 as C.C. No. 47/2000, Ext.P103 to P105 as C.C. 48/2000, Exts.106 to P108 as C.C. No. 49/2000 and Ext.P109 and P110 as C.C. No. 50/2000.
4. When the accused appeared before the court below in all these cases, after hearing both sides, charge under sections 13(1)(c) read with section 13(2) of the P.C.Act, 1988 and sections 409, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code was framed and the same was read over and explained to him and he pleaded not guilty. Thereafter on the basis of the petition filed by the accused as Crl.M.P. No. 819/2000 for clubbing these cases for joint trial and the prosecution also agreed for the same as all these cases arose out of the same transaction and as the evidence to be collected and the documents produced are the same in all these cases, joint trial was allowed and evidence was recorded in C.C. No. 6/2000. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, Pws 1 to 36 were examined and Exts.P1 to P5, P5(a), P6, P6(a) to P6(f), P7, P7(a), P8, P9, P9(a) to ( c), P10, P10(a) to (g), P11, P11(a) to (e), P12, P12(a), P13, P13(a) to (g), P14, P14(a) to (j), P15, P15(a), P16, P16 (a) to (c ), P17, P17(a), P18, P18(a), P19, P19(a), P20, P21, P21(a) to (h), P22, P22(a) to (f), P23, P23 (a) to (p), P24, P24 (a) to (f), P25, P25(a), P26, P26 (a) and (b), P27, P27(a), P28, P28 (a) and (b), P29, P29 (a) to (h), P30, P30(a) to (c ), P31, P32, P32(a), P33, P33(a) and (b), P34, P34 (a) to (z) (a-a) and (a-b), P35, P35(a) to (z), P35, P35(a-a) to P35(a-u), P36, P36(a) to (m), P37, P37(a) to (k), P38 to P92, P92 (a), P93 to P111, P111(a) to (c), P112 to P118 and P118(a), P119 to P191, P191(a) to (j), P192 to P199 were marked on the side of the prosecution. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ''the Code'') and he denied all the incriminating circumstances brought against him in the prosecution evidence and he had further stated that he had not committed any offence and he is innocent of the same and he had not misappropriated any amount and he was only passing the vouchers on the basis of the entries made by the relevant clerks bona fide believing that they are genuine vouchers and thereby he had not committed any offence. He had also filed a statement stating that the entire responsibility of payment of Unemployment Assistance Scheme was managed by Vijayan, Goudhaman and Santhosh, the respective officials of the concerned section. Since large number of applicants will be present on that day, the vouchers were being prepared by his subordinate officials and they were being verified and the amounts were disbursed by them. Due to heavy rush on most of the days, after getting the vouchers signed by the applicants, the entry regarding the vouchers in the subsidiary cash book and the main cash book will be done by the concerned section clerks individually or with the help of others jointly as well. On almost all days, he used to go to the treasury, State Bank of Travancore, Cherthala branch for the purpose of withdrawing the amount and used to come during afternoon. On those occasions, there will be police escort and the same will be entered in the police station records. Believing his subordinate officers, he had counter signed the vouchers and the subsidiary cash book. The allegation that all the vouchers were filled in his handwriting as stated by the witnesses is not correct. They wanted to place the entire responsibility on him even for the dereliction of duty committed by them. All the witnesses have stated that only after making entries in the subsidiary cash book the amounts mentioned in the vouchers will be paid. The vouchers numbers were allotted and written by the clerks Gaudhaman and Vijayan which was admitted by them. He had not entered anything in the subsidiary cash book or main cash book and this was admitted by the witnesses as well. The investigating officer had not taken his specimen handwriting and not sent the same for expert opinion to compare the same with the handwriting in the disputed vouchers. So he is totally innocent in this case. Except marking Ext.D1, a contradiction by PW31 in his 161 statement, no other defence evidence was adduced on his side. After considering the evidence on record, the court below found the appellant not guilty for the offence under section 468 of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted him of that charge but found him guilty for the offence under section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and sections 409 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each in each cases and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months each in all cases for the offence under section 13(1) (c) read with section 13(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each for the offences under sections 471 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code in each case and directed the substantive sentences in all cases to run concurrently. Set off was allowed for the period of detention already undergone under section 428 of the Code. Since the Special Judge was not satisfied with the manner of investigation conducted and also dissatisfied with the action of certain witnesses namely Pws 30 to 31, who were responsible for the entries made in Exts.P34 and P35 came to the conclusion that these witnesses cannot be said to be innocent and without their knowledge, it could not have been committed by the present accused and directed the department to take necessary action in this regard. The court below also found that the department may consider as to whether any action has to be taken against Smt. Saraswathi Amma, who was the then head clerk of the office at the relevant time as some of the entires in Ext.P34 were written by her, which includes certain disputed payments made by using the disputed vouchers. The court below also made some comments regarding the acts done by PW8, who had made some of the entries in Ext.P35 register at page 34 and also gave reasons for not implicating these persons as accused under section 319 of the Code considering the stage at which the alleged involvement could be revealed and also directed the department to initiate proceedings against the erring officers to recover the loss, if any caused in this case. Aggrieved by the same, the above appeals were filed by the appellants/accused in the respective cases.
5. Since all these appeals arose out of a common judgment on the basis of the common evidence adduced, this Court is also disposing of all these appeals by a common judgment.
6. Heard Sri. Ramakumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant in all these cases and Sri. Rajesh Vijayan, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the records.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the court below has not properly appreciated the evidence in this case. It will be seen from the evidence that on the date of disbursement of unemployment wages under the scheme, there will be lot of crowd and it was not possible to enter the vouchers in the subsidiary cash book on the same day. Though the clerks, namely Pws 8, 30 and 31 have stated that the signature seen in the disputed vouchers appears to be theirs, but they have not really singed the same and they have not done the verification of vouchers as well, no attempt was made on the part of the investigating officer to prove that the handwriting or signature in the disputed vouchers were that of the accused by sending the same for expert opinion. Further, the court below found that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had forged the documents and acquitted him of the charge under section 468 of the Indian Penal Code. So under such circumstances, the court below should not have convicted the accused for the charge under section 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Further from the nature of evidence adduced, it is not possible for the accused alone to misappropriate the amount and in the absence of any convincing evidence to show that it was the accused alone who had committed the offence, the court below was not justified in convicting the appellant alone for the offences alleged. Further, the Postmen who made the endorsement in the returned postal cover were not examined. The necessary registers maintained in the village office showing the particulars of persons eligible for unemployment wages under the said scheme were not seized by the investigating officer. In such circumstances, it is no safe to rely on the evidence of the Postmasters, who were having only hear-say knowledge about the endorsement made, and the reports of the village officers coupled with their evidence to come to the conclusion that the persons mentioned in the vouchers are fake persons and they are not in existence so as to come to the conclusion that the there was no possibility of payment being made as per the said vouchers and thereby the accused had misappropriated the amount. So the court below was not justified in convicting the appellant for the offences alleged. Learned counsel relied on the decisions reported in Kajal Dey v. State of Tripura (204 KHC 3518), Manilal v. State of Kerala (1998 (2) KLT 101) and Raghvan v. State of Kerala (2012 KHC 420) in support of his case.
8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence in this case will go to show that the modus operandi of the accused was to prepare false vouchers making false entries containing registration numbers of persons who are not in existence or belonging to some other persons as per the registers and appropriated the amount mentioned in the vouchers for his purpose. It is also brought out in evidence that it was the accused who used to withdraw the amount for disbursement and it was he who was directly disbursing the amount as well as in most of the vouchers, the amount paid was written by the accused and he had put his signature under that entry. The witnesses examined have deposed that the hand-writings in the vouchers were that of the accused and they are competent to speak about the same as well. Further, the village officers'' reports coupled with the evidence of village officers and the returned postal articles coupled with the evidence of the Postmaster will go to show that the letters sent in the address shown in the disputed vouchers were not in existence and they are fake persons. No attempt was made on the part of the accused to prove that amounts were paid to the real candidates and the entries regarding the registration number and roll number etc were made by mistake. So under the circumstances, the court below was perfectly justified in convicting the appellant in all these cases for the offences alleged and no interference is called.
9. The case of the prosecution as emerged from the prosecution witnesses was as follows:
As there were complaints of irregularities in disbursement of the amounts under the Unemployment Assistance Scheme during the period 1991-92 in Cherthala Town Employment Exchange, as per the directions of the Director of Employment Exchange, PW1, the then District Employment Officer of Alappupzha District Employment Exchange, conducted audit regarding the irregularities committed in this aspect in the Employment Exchange in Alappuzha District and accordingly he had conducted inspection of Cherthala Employment Exchange for the period from 19.3.1992 to 24.7.1992. During his enquiry it was revealed that amounts were disbursed with fake names and he found out 74 such vouchers namely Exts.P2 to P4, P38 and P110 created at the rate of Rs. 800/- per candidate and those amounts were misappropriated and so he gave Ext.P1 report showing these aspects to have a vigilance enquiry in this regard and accordingly vigilance enquiry was conducted and it was found that there were irregularities and misappropriation by making false documents and on the basis of Ext.P1, PW34, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Alappuzha as per the directions of the Director of Vigilance registered Ext.P198 First Information Report against the accused as VC1/94/ALP of VACB under sections 13(1)(c) and (d) read with section 13(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and under sections 403, 409 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code. The investigation in this case was conducted by Pws 33, 34, 35 and 36. PW34 had undertaken investigation of this case from 1994 and he had seized disputed 74 vouchers and Exts.P34, P35, P111 as per Ext.P199 inventory. The subsequent investigation was conducted by PW32, his successor from 15.1.1996. He had seized 68 registered letters sent in the address mentioned out of 74 vouchers which were returned with the endorsement as no such addressee or not known as per Ext.P190 inventory and ten covers out of 68 covers, which were not marked through the concerned Postmasters were marked through the witnesses as Ext.P191 series. Further investigation in this case was conducted by PW33, the successor of PW32. He had seized Ext.P1 report as per Ext.P192 inventory. He had seized the record of registration registers, UAS ledger folio registers in respect of registration number and roll numbers mentioned in the disputed 74 vouchers as per Ext.P123 inventory and the list prepared on that basis as Ext.P194. He had seized Exts.P139, 151, 153, 154, 165 and 169 returned postal covers in respect of six persons mentioned in the voucher and record of registration registers, Ext.P5 to P20, UAS ledger folios Exts.P21 to P33, attendance Ext.P189 as per Ext.114 inventory as produced by the concerned clerk. He had seized Ext. P37 series counterfoils of the cheques, Ext.P36 cash book and Ext.P196 appointment order of the accused appointing him as the employment officer in that exchange as per Ext.P115 inventory. He had also obtained report of the village officers regarding the persons mentioned in the vouchers namely Exts.P92, P93, P118, P118(a), P119, P155, P159, P160, P164, P168, P170 and P171. He questioned the witnesses and recorded their statements. He completed the investigation and submitted final report to the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) for filing sanction for prosecution and filing final report. The files were sent to Vigilance Director for sanction to prosecute the accused and it was granted by the Principal Secretary of the Vigilance Department marked by PW6as per Ext.P112 sanction order, which is seized as per Ext.P197 inventory. On the basis of the records, his successor, PW36, submitted 25 split charge sheets in this case before court.
10. The points that arise for consideration are as follows:
i. whether the court below was justified in holding that there was valid sanction for prosecuting the accused?
ii. whether the court below was justified in holding that the false documents were fabricated by the appellant with the fraudulent intention to use the same as genuine documents?
iii. whether the court below was justified in holding that the impugned vouches were not genuine vouchers and fabricated in the names of fake persons?
iv. whether the court below was justified in holding that the accused as a public servant had fraudulently with the dishonest intention misappropriated the amounts entrusted to him?
v. whether the court below was justified in holding that the accused with the intention had committed the criminal breach of trust by misappropriating the amount entrusted to him?
vi. Whether the court below was justified in convicting the appellants for the offence under section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and sections 409 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code?
vii. If so, the sentence imposed is proper and legal?
11. Point No. i:
It is not disputed that the accused was working as the Employment Officer in Cherthala Town Employment Exchange during the relevant time. Ext.P112 sanction was granted by the Secretary of the Vigilance Department which was proved through PW6, the Under Secretary of that Department and she had categorically stated that all the material documents were received and they were processed by her to the Principal Secretary, who had after application of mind, granted Ext.P112 sanction to prosecute the accused for the offences under sections 13(1)(c) read with section 13(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and sections 409, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and sanction was accorded to prosecute him for the offence under section 197(1) of the Code and under section 19(1)(b) of the P.C. Act. This witness was not cross examined by the accused as well. So, under the circumstances, the court below was perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that the sanction accorded was proper and the finding of the court below in this regard is perfectly legal and that does not call for any interference. The point is answered accordingly.
12. Points ii to vi:
Before going into the facts of this case, let me consider the relevant penal provisions and the precedents on the aspects. Sections 405, 409, 463, 464, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code read as follows:
405. Criminal breach of trust:-Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, expresses or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do commits "criminal breach of trust".
409. Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent:- Whoever, bring in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine".
463. Forgery:-[Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury], to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.
464. Making a false document:-[a person is said to make a false document or false electronic record-
First - who dishonestly or fraudulently-
(a) makes, signs,seals or executes a document or part of a document;
(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;
(c) affixes any [electronic signature] on any electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the [electronic signature], with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or [electronic signature] was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed;or
Secondly-Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with [electronic signature] either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or
Thirdly-Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his [electronic signature] on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration.]
468. Forgery for purpose of cheating:- Whoever commits forgery, intending that the [document or electronic record forged] shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
471. Using as genuine a forged [document or electronic record]:- Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any [document or electronic record] which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged [document or electronic record], shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such [document or electronic record].
Section 13(1)(c) of the P.C. Act reads as follows:
13.Criminal misconduct by a public servant:-(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,-
(a) xxxx xxxx
(b) xxxx xxxx
(c) If he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do;
13. In order to prove the offence under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, it must be proved by the prosecution that there was entrustment of the property with the accused and he had dishonestly misappropriated the same for his purpose.
14. It is settled law that in order to convict the accused for the offence of criminal breach of trust, it must be proved by the prosecution that there was entrustment of property with the accused and he had dishonestly misappropriated the same for his purpose. Once it is proved by the prosecution that there was entrustment and there was no proper accounting of the amount entrusted, then the burden shifts to the accused to prove that there was no misappropriation and explain the irregularities found in the disbursement. It is also settled law that if entrustment is proved and explanation given by the accused is not satisfactory or there was no proper explanation, then it can be presumed that the accused had committed the offence of criminal breach of trust and misappropriation. The modus operandi of the accused, how he committed the misappropriation etc need not be proved by the prosecution. The fraudulent intention of the accused can be inferred only from the attending circumstances and those things cannot be proved by the prosecution by direct evidence and it has to be inferred from the circumstantial evidence adduced by the accused on this aspect. The same ingredients of criminal breach of trust and misappropriation have to be proved by the prosecution for convicting the accused for the offences under sections 13(1)(c) of the P.C Act, 1988 as well. This was so held in the decisions reported in Jaikrishnadas Manohardas Desai and another v. State of Bombay (AIR 1960 SC 889), Krishan Kumar v. Union of India (AIR 1959 SC 1390), State of Kerala v. Vasudevan Namboodiri (1987 (2) KLT 541), Bagga Singh v. State of Punjab [1996 Crl.L.J. 2883 (SC)], Vishwa Nath v. State of J. & K (AIR 1983 SC 174), Om Nath Puri v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1972 SC 1490), T. Ratnadas v. State of Kerala (1999 Crl.L.J. 1488), State of Rajasthan v. Kesar Singh (1969 Crl.L.J 1595), Roshan Lal Raina v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (1983 (2) SCC 429) and Raghavan K v. State of Kerala (2012 KHC 420).
15. Further in order to prove the offence under section 471 of the Indian Penal Code, it must be proved by the prosecution that the accused had used the fabricated documents knowing that they were genuine and used the same as genuine with dishonest intention of misappropriating the amounts or cheating somebody. Even if the prosecution was not able to establish that he had forged the documents, he can be convicted for the offence under section 471 of the Indian Penal Code if the prosecution is able to establish that the accused had used the same as genuine documents knowing that they are fabricated documents or reason to believe that they are forged documents. This was so held in the decisions reported in A.S. Krishnan and others v. State of Kerala (2004 (11) SCC 576) and Bank of India v. Yeturi Maredi Shanker Rao and another (1987 Crl.L.J722 (SC).
16. In the decision reported in T. Retnadas v. State of Kerala (1999 Crl.L.J1488), this Court in a similar case held that once the entrustment of amount with the accused is proved, then failure on the part of the accused to establish by preponderance of probability that he has discharged his duty to disburse the said amount to beneficiary, then he will liable for misappropriation of that amount and he can be convicted for the offence under section 409 and 5(1)(c) of the P.C. Act, 1947. In the same decision it has been held that if there is sufficient evidence to show that disputed signature and handwriting were forged by the accused, then failure to send the disputed signature and writing to handwriting expert for expert opinion is not fatal.
17. The court has got the power to compare the disputed handwriting or signature of the accused with that of his admitted signature/handwriting available under section 73 of the Evidence Act and rely on the same has been approved by the Apex Court in the decisions reported in Ajay Kumar Parmar v. State of Rajasthan (2012 KHC 4540)=2012 (12) SCC 406), Ajith Savant Majagvai v. State of Karnataka (1997 (7) SCC 110), Neelalohithadasan Nadar v. George Mascrene (1994 (1) KLT 887(SC) (Three Judges Bench), State (Delhi Administration) v. Pali Ram (1979 (Crl.LJ 17 (SC) and followed by this Court in Mohammed Rafi S. v. Fathahudeen and Others (2008 (3) KHC 644)= ILR 2008(3) Ker. 641) and Sauda Beevi K.S v. Subaida Pareeth and Others (2012 (4) KHC 802) = 2012 (4) KLT 832). With the above principles in mind, the case in hand has to be considered on the basis of the evidence available.
18. The fact that the accused in all these cases was working as the Employment Officer in Cherthala Town Employment Exchange during the relevant time and he was the disbursing officer of the amounts entrusted to him for the purpose of distributing the same to the beneficiaries under the Unemployment Assistance Scheme and he was disbursing the same on the days on which it has to be disbursed etc are not in dispute. It is also proved by the prosecution that as per Ext.P37 series counter foils of the cheque, the accused had withdrawn the amounts mentioned in the cheques from the treasury and this was entered in the subsidiary cash book and main cash book namely Exts.P35 and P36 on the relevant dates was also not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the accused as the disbursing officer had certified the entries in Exts.P34 and P35 subsidiary cash book and Ext.P36 main cash book on each day after the disbursements were entered in the subsidiary cash book and after entering the disbursed amount verifying the balance amount due on each day shown in these books. It is also not in dispute and in a way admitted by the accused himself in his statement filed under section 315 read with section 313 of the Code as part of his examination under section 313 of the Code that in most of the 74 disputed vouchers where the entry paid Rs. 800/- and thereafter the signature put by the accused and the fact that the amounts covered by these vouchers were entered in the subsidiary cash book and main cash book was admitted by him. It is also seen from the evidence of Pws 4, 5, 8, 30 and 31, the respective clerks, who were in charge of the verification counters and making entry in the subsidiary cash book and main cash book have categorically stated that the accused was the person who was disbursing the amount payable to the beneficiaries under the Unemployment Assistance Scheme. So it is clear from the evidence that the amounts intended for disbursement to the beneficiaries under the Unemployment Assistance Scheme was entrusted to the accused as an Employment officer of the Cherthala Town Employment Exchange for the purpose of disbursement is proved by the prosecution.
19. Let me consider as to whether there is any fabrication committed in the vouchers now relied on by the prosecution for the purpose of proving that the accused had using the fabricated document as genuine misappropriated the amount mentioned in the vouchers in respect of each case.
Exts.P2 to P4 are the vouchers relating to C.C. No. 6/2000. Ext.P2 voucher was dated 20.3.1992 and the name shown in the voucher is Ramabhadran T.K of Kanjikuzhi village. Registration number shown was 3315/79, but at the place of roll number, it was written as ..../82. Ext.P6(a) in Ext.P6 record register shows that the said registration number relates to one P.N.Mohanan. The payment relating to this entry was entered at page 38 of Ext.P4 marked as Ext.P34(a) and the amount shown is Rs. 800/-.
20. Ext.P3 is the voucher dated 20.3.1992 drawn in the name of Ambika K.L, Mararikulam North village with Reg.No.W1722/86. There is no roll number mentioned. Since there was no roll number mentioned in Ext.P3 that also could not be verified. The amount of Rs. 800/- was seen paid on 20.3.1992 evidenced by Ext.P34(a) entry at page 42 in Ext.P34 subsidiary cash book.
21. Ext.P4 voucher is dated 20.3.1992 drawn in the name of Ramachandran K.V of Mararikulam north village. The registration number shown is 2317/79 and roll number was shown as 812/82 which can be read as 312/82 as well. Ext.P5(a) in Ext.P5 record of registration shows that it relates to one Narayana Kammath and it lapsed in the year 1985 as it was not renewed. Ext.P21 is the relevant ledger folio and it relates to one Venugopalan Nair if the roll number was shown as 312/82. If it can be read as 812/82, then there is no such roll number in the year 1982. The amount covered by this voucher was said to have been paid as per Ext.P34(c) in Ext.P34 subsidiary cash book and all these payments were seen entered as amounts disbursed in Ext.P36 main cash book which is marked as Ext.P36 (a). The total amount disbursed as per Ext.P34 on that day is shown as Rs. 1,15,240/- marked as Ext.P34(d) and this was entered as such in Ext.P36 cash book marked as Ext.P36 (b). The letters sent in the address mentioned in the disputed 74 vouchers which were returned with the endorsement either as not known or no such addressee were proved through the Postmasters, Pws 10,12,15,16,18,22,24,26 and 29. PW2 is the village officer of Mararikulam village, who had given Ext.P92 (a) list and serial numbers 4 and 5 in that list relate to the voucher Exts.P3 and P4 belonging to Ambika and Ramachandran and the village officer deposed that in his enquiry it was revealed that there was no such person available in the address. PW4 is the village officer attached to Kanjikuzhi village, who gave Ext.P93 report relating to the persons mentioned in Ext.P2 voucher and his evidence will go to show that there was no such person available in that village. Exts.P113, P116, P117 are the postal covers issued in the address mentioned in these vouchers and the same were returned with he endorsement either not known or no such addressee. So this will go to show that there was no such person with the particulars mentioned in each voucher and this could only be a fabricated voucher used as genuine vouchers and the amounts have been encashed on that particular day. Exts.P38 to P40 are the disputed vouchers in C.C.No.7/2000.
22. Ext.38 voucher dated 20.3.1992 is seen in the name of Pushpavalli P.D of Mararikulam north village with registration No. W6218/80 and Roll No. 142/88 for an amount of Rs. 800/-. Ext.P12(a) in Ext.P12 register shows that the said registration number relates to one Vijayalekshmi P.V and not in the name of Pushpavalli. Further, Ext.P21(b) entry in Ext.P21 ledger folio shows that this roll number relates to one Sarasamma R.V. Ext.P195 is the postal cover issued in that address which was returned with the endorsement ''no such addressee''. So this will go to show that the particulars mentioned in the voucher are fake and it is a fabricated document and there was no such person in existence and there was no possibility of this amount being paid to the person mentioned and she could not be the real beneficiary entitled to receive the amount as well.
23. Ext.P39 is the voucher dated 20.3.1992 seen prepared in the name of one P.V. Raveendran of Mararikulam north village with Reg.No.3218/79 and Roll No. 237/82 for an amount of Rs. 800/-. Ext.P6(b) entry in Ext.P6 register shows that it relates to one Ajayan V and Ext.P27(c) entry in Ext.P27 register shows that the said roll number mentioned in the voucher relates to one Francis A.P., and not relating to Raveendran P.V mentioned in the voucher. Ext.P194 is the postal cover issued in the address shown in Ext.P39 and it was returned with the endorsement ''not known''. So this will go to show that it is a fabricated document in the name of a fake person and not a beneficiary entitled to get the amount and there is no possibility of this amount being paid to the said person.
24. Ext.P40 is the voucher dated 20.3.1992 with name Badhran K.V of Mararikulam north village with Reg.No.4211/79 and Roll No. 42/82 for an amount of Rs. 800/-. Ext.P6(c) entry in Ext.P6 register shows that it relates to one K.K. Ramachandran Unni and the roll number in Ext.P21(d) entry in Ext.P21 register shows that it relates to one Valsamma J. Ext.P91(d) is the postal cover sent in the address shown in Ext.P40 which was returned with the endorsement ''not known''. All these things will go to show that it was also a fabricated document in the name of a fake person, who is not registered for the purpose of getting the wages under the Scheme. Exts.P34(e) to (g) in Ext.P4 subsidiary cash book relates to payment of these vouchers and the entries in those vouchers were not disputed as well.
25. Exts.P41 to P43 are the vouchers relating to C.C.No.8/2000. Ext.P41 is the voucher dated 20.3.1992 issued in the name of one Ratnakaran P.V. of Mararikulam north village with Roll No. 17/82 and Reg.No.3017/79 for an amount of Rs. 800/-. Ext.P6(d) entry in Ext.P6 register shows that it relates to one Ashok Kumar P. and Ext.P21(e) in Ext.P21 register shows that it relates to one Rajeev Kumar and not Ratnakaran. Ext.P34(h) entry in Ext.P34 relates to payment of this voucher.
26. Ext.P42 is the voucher drawn in the name of Balakrishnan V of Mararikulam north village with Reg.No.6219/79 and Roll.No.217/82 for an amount of Rs. 800/-. Ext.P7(a) entry in Ext.P7 register shows that it relates to one Muralidhara Panicker and Ext.P21(f) entry in Ext.P21 register shows that it relates to one Saraswathiamma and not relating to Balakrishnan V. mentioned in the voucher.
27. Ext.P43 is the voucher seen issued in the name of Babu P.D of Mararikulam north village dated 20.3.1992 with Reg.No.3219/80 and Roll No. 212/82. Ext.P11(a) entry in Ext.P11 register shows that it relates to one Sajeev N.S and Ext.P21(g) entry in Ext.P21 register shows that it relates to one Dayaputhri R and not in the name of Babu P.D.
28. Exts.P87, P191(e) and P196 are returned postal covers issued in the addresses shown in these vouchers which were returned with the endorsement ''not known''. Ext.P92(a) report of the village officer shows that there was no such person in that village. The postal covers and report of the village officer were marked through Pws3 and 2 respectively. This also will go to show that there were no such person as mentioned in the vouchers and they were fabricated in the name of fake persons not entitled to get the benefit for the purpose of misappropriating the amount.
29. Exts.P44 to P46 are the vouchers relating to C.C. No. 9/2000. Ext.P44 is the voucher issued in the name of one Bhaskaradas K of Mararikulam north village dated 20.3.1992 with Reg.No.4213/79 with Roll No. 130/82 for an amount of Rs. 800/-. Ext.P6(e) entry in Ext.P6 register shows that it relates to one Prabhakaran C.R and Ext.P21(h) entry in Ext.P21 register shows that it relates to one Kunjamma P. Distribution of this amount is shown as Ext.P34(k) in Ext.P34 register.
30. Ext.P45 is the voucher in the name of one Purushothaman P dated 24.3.1992 with Reg.No.2714/80 and Roll No. 5/84. Ext.P11(b) entry in Ext.P11 register shows that the above registration relates to one Santhosh Kumar M and not relating to Purushothaman P. The ledger folio register relating to this has not been produced. So, it is not possible to ascertain as to whether the roll number mentioned therein relates to the candidate mentioned therein or not. Ext.P34(l) in Ext.P4 subsidiary cash book relates to the entry relating to the payment of this voucher.
31. Ext.P46 is the voucher relating to one Gopalakrishnan dated 24.3.1992 with Reg. No. 3112/80 and Roll No. 33/84. Ext.P11(c) entry in Ext.P11 register will go to show that registration number mentioned above relates to one Mujeeb M and not Gopalakrishnan. Ext.P32(a) entry in Ext.P32 register will go to show that roll number mentioned belongs to one Bava K and not in respect of Gopalakrishnan. Ext.P34 (m) is the relevant entry showing payment of the amount covered by the voucher entered in Ext.P34 voucher.
32. Exts.P188, 120 and 143 are the returned postal covers which show that it was returned with the endorsement ''not known''. Ext.P159 is the report of the village officer of the concerned village mentioned in the vouchers namely PW20 and he had given evidence that on his enquiry, it was revealed that no such persons are available in that village. So it is clear from the evidence that Exts.P44 to 46 are fake vouchers created in the names of fake persons with false particulars with an intention to misappropriate the amount mentioned therein.
33. Exts.P47 to P49 are the vouchers relating to C.C.No.10/2000. Ext.P47 is in the name of one Rajendran K of Thanneermukkam village with date 24.3.1992 with Reg.No. 4207/79. There the village name was not mentioned. Roll number was shown as 2/84. The voucher was for the amount of Rs. 800/- but the said voucher was not seen signed by any one. There is no recommendation to pay the amount. Ext.P6(f) entry in Ext.P6 will go to show that the registration relates to one Babu C.T. Since ledger folio register was not produced, it is not possible to ascertain as to whether the roll number mentioned therein relates to the candidate mentioned in the voucher. But Ext.P34(n) entry in Ext.P34 subsidiary cash book shows that the amount was paid as per this voucher though it was incomplete and there is no recommendation to pay or any seal that it was paid and none of the officials had signed that voucher as well.
34. Ext.P48 voucher is seen issued in the name of one Sreekumar of Kokkothamangalam village dated 26.3.1992 for an amount of Rs. 800/- with Reg.No. 354/80 and Roll No. 37/84. Ext.P9(a) entry in Ext.P9 register will go to show that the said registration number relates to one Mohanan C.N and not relating to the candidate mentioned in the voucher. Further Ext.P33(a) entry in Ext.P33 ledger folio shows that it relates to one Vijayamma K.R and not the candidate mentioned therein. Ext.P34(d) in Ext.P34 subsidiary cash book shows that the amount mentioned in the voucher had been disbursed.
35. Ext.P49 voucher is seen issued in the name of one Udayappan S dated 26.3.1992 with Reg.No.3819/80 and Roll No. 2184 with village name Kokkothamangalam. In this also there is no endorsement made showing that the amount was paid with the signature of anyone. Ext.P11(d) entry in Ext.P11 register will go to show that the registration number relates to one Sukumaran R and not to the candidate mentioned therein. Ext.P33(b) entry in Ext.P33 ledger folio shows that the roll number relates to one Sulekha S and not in respect of the candidate mentioned therein. Ext.P34 (p) relating to the entry showing the payment of the amount relating to this voucher. Exts.P121, P156, P157 are the returned postal covers issued in the addresses mentioned in the vouchers which were returned with the endorsement ''not known''. The village officer''s report will also go to show that there were no such persons in that address mentioned in the voucher. So this also will go to show that these vouchers were also fabricated in the names of fake persons not entitled to claim wages under the Scheme and they were created for the purpose of misappropriation and they were used as genuine documents and the amount had been withdrawn and misappropriated.
36. Exts. P50 to P52 are the vouchers relating to the case C.C. No. 11/2000. Ext.P50 is the voucher seen issued in the name of one Rajesh C of Pallipuram village with Reg.No.3817/81 and Roll No. 63/85. Ext.P14(a) entry in Ext.P14 relating to the above registration shows that it is in the name of Dileepan K.V and not in the name of Rajesh C. There is no such roll number in the ledger folio relating to Pallipuram village. Ext.P22(a) entry in Ext.P22 ledger folio shows that it relates to one Radhakrishnan C.K. Ext.P34(q) is the entry relating to the payment in Ext.P4 subsidiary cash book.
37. Ext.P51 is the voucher in the name of one Soman P, dated 28.3.1992 of Pallipuram village with Reg.No.1712/81 and Roll No. 37/85. Ext.P13(a) in Ext.P13 register relates to the above registration shows that it is in the name of one Sivadasam A.P and Ext.P22(b) entry in Ext.P22 ledger folio register shows that it relates to one Sebastian O.C and not Soman P. Ext.P34(r) in Ext.P34 subsidiary cash book shows payment of the amount as per this voucher.
38. Ext.P52 is the voucher in the name of one Sasidharan V, with Reg. No. 7112/81 with Roll No. 22/81 and in the manner in which it was written, it can be read as 82/85 as well. The record of registration during that period shows that there was no such registration number and the last registration number in that year is 4150. If the roll number is taken as 22/85, Ext.P22 (c) entry in Ext.P22 ledger folio shows that it relates to one Amala K, and if it is taken as 82/85, there was no such roll number as the last roll number is 79. Ext.P34(s) in Ext.P34 subsidiary cash book relates to the payment of this voucher.
39. Exts.P176, 145 and 144 are the returned postal articles issued in the address mentioned therein which were in the addresses shown in these vouchers and that shows that there was no such addressee. Ext.P55 is the report of the village officer relating to voucher number Ext.P49 which shows that there was no such person in that village. Ext.P58 is the report of the village officer relating to the vouchers in this case which also will go to show that there was no such person. All these things will go to show that these vouchers were fabricated vouchers in the name of fake persons and using the same, amounts mentioned in the vouchers namely Rs. 800/- each had been withdrawn. Further, in the above vouchers, no person signed at the place paid rupees though the amount was seen recommended for payment. So it is clear from this that, there is no possibility of this amount being paid to the real beneficiaries and it could only be presumed to have been misappropriated.
40. Exts.P53 to P55 vouchers relate to the case C.C.No.18/2000. Ext.P53 is the voucher seen issued in the name of one Venugopal V of Pallippuram village with Reg.No.4112/81 and Roll No. 32/85 dated 28.3.1992. In this voucher also there is none signed at the place paid rupees, but it was seen recommended for payment of Rs. 800/- on that day. Ext.P15(a) in Ext.P15 register shows that it relates to one Bhaskaran Nair and not Venugopal. There is no such roll number seen in Ext.P22 ledger folio relating to Pallipuram village. Ext.P34(t) in Ext.P34 is the relevant entry showing payment of the amount on the basis of this voucher.
41. Ext.P54 is the voucher standing in the name of one Vasudevan P of Pallipuram village dated 28.3.1992 with Reg.No.6211/81 and Roll No. 38/85 for an amount of Rs. 800/-. Here also though it was recommended for payment of Rs. 800/-, none signed at the place paid rupees. It was not seen signed by the candidate as well. There was no such Reg.No.6211/81. Ext.P22(d) entry in Ext.P22 ledger folio register shows that all numbers mentioned in the voucher relates to one Thankaraj K.P. Ext.P34 (u) in Ext.P34 shows payment of the amount mentioned in the voucher to the person shown therein.
42. Ext.P55 is the voucher seen issued in the name of one Radhakrishnan Nair of Pallipuram village dated 28.3.1992 with Reg.No.3781/81 and Roll No. 144/85. Here also it was recommended for payment of Rs. 800/-, but none signed at the place mentioned for paid rupees. Ext.P14(b) entry in Ext.P14 shows that it relates to one Chandrasekharan K and Ext.P22 ledger folio shows that there was no such roll number. Ext.P34 (v) in Ext.P34 subsidiary cash book shows that the amount covered by this voucher was disbursed.
43. Exts.P147, P191(c) and P114 are the returned postal covers and Ext.P58 is the village officer''s report relating to these persons and those documents show that there was no such person. The postal articles sent in that address were returned with the endorsement ''no such person''. So all these things will go to show that these vouchers were fabricated in the name of fake persons for the purpose of misappropriation and using the fabricated documents as genuine documents, the amounts were withdrawn and there is no possibility of these amounts being paid to the real beneficiaries.
44. Exts.P56 to P58 are the vouchers relating to case C.C.No.19/2000. Ext.P56 is the voucher seen in the name of one Raveendran S, of Pallipuram village dated 28.3.1992 with Reg.No.3117/81 and Roll No. 25/81. Ext.P14(c) in Ext.P14 record of registration shows that the above registration number relates to one Ramesh S. There was no such roll number as Unemployment Assistance Scheme started from 1982 onwards. Ext.P34(w) in Ext.P34 subsidiary cash book shows that the amount covered by this voucher was disbursed on that day. In this voucher also though it was recommended for payment of Rs. 800/-, none had seen signed at the place paid rupees.
45. Ext.P57 is the voucher seen in the name of one Gopalakrishnan P, of Pallipuram village dated 28.3.1992 with Reg.No.2714/81 with Roll No. 27/85 for an amount of Rs. 800/-. There also though it was signed recommending Rs. 800/-, but none signed at the place paid rupees. Ext.P14(d) entry in Ext.P14 record of registration shows that it relates to one Sasi K.V . There is no village name shown in that voucher. If it is taken as Pallipuram village, then Ext.P22(e) entry in Ext.P22 ledger folio register shows that it relates to one Sudhamani and if it is read as Roll No. 25/85, then as per Ext.P22(f) entry in Ext.P22 it relates to one Molikutty. Ext.P34(f) in Ext.P34 subsidiary cash book shows that the amount was seen paid.
46. Ext.P58 is the voucher issued in the name of one Jayakumar P, of Pallipuram village dated 28.3.1992 with Reg.No.281/81 and Roll No. 2/85. Here also though it was recommended for payment of Rs. 800/-, none signed at the place paid rupees. Ext.P13(b) entry in Ext.P13 record of registration shows that the above registration number relates to one Benny T.J and there was no such roll number in Pallipuram village in Ext.P22 ledger folio.
47. Exts.P150, 151 and 149 are the returned postal covers with endorsement ''not known''. Ext.P158 report of the village officer shows that there were no such persons. Exts.P34(w), P34(x) and P34(y) entries in Ext.P34 shows that the amounts covered by the above vouchers were disbursed. From the above documents, it can be seen that all these vouchers are fabricated vouchers created in the name of fake persons for the purpose of misappropriation and the amounts were withdrawn using the same as genuine vouchers.
48. Exts.P59 to P61 are vouchers relating to case No. C.C.20/2000. Ext.P59 voucher is seen issued in the name of one Antony K, of Pallipuram village with Reg.No.9211/81 and Roll No. 63/85. This can be read as 83/85 as well. There was no such registration in the year 1981. If the roll number is read as 53/85, then it was covered by Ext.P22(a) entry which is not in the name of said Antony. If it is read as 83/85, then there was no such roll number. The amount was seen disbursed as per Ext.P34(z) entry in Ext.P34 subsidiary cash book. Ext.P60 is the voucher seen issued in the name of one Jayadas V, of Pallipuram village dated 28.3.1992 with Reg.No.7282/81 and Roll No. 52/85. Here also though it was seen recommended to pay Rs. 800/-, none signed at the place paid rupees. Page 11 of Ext.P1 shows that it relates to one Naliniamma. On verification of the record of registration, there was no such registration number or roll number during that period. Ext.P34(a-a) in Ext.P34 is the entry relating to the payment of this amount. Ext.P61 is the voucher seen issued in the name of one Harikumar K, with Reg.No.4212/81 of Pallipuram village dated 28.3.1992 and Roll No. 32/85. There was no such registration number in the year 1981 and as per the ledger folio register, it relates to one Omanakutty. Ext.P34(a-b) entry in Ext.P34 shows that the amount covered by the voucher has been disbursed.
49. Exts.P152 to 154 are the returned postal covers with endorsement ''no such addressee''. Sl.Nos.10,11 and 13 in Ext.P158 village officer''s report shows that there were no such person in that village. All these things will go to show that these documents were also fabricated for the purpose of misappropriation in the name of fake persons and using the same as genuine, amounts were withdrawn and there is no possibility for these amounts being paid to the persons mentioned in the voucher as they are non existence persons.
50. Exts.P62 to P64 are the vouchers relating to C.C.No.24/2000. Ext.P62 voucher shows that it was seen in the name of one Gopalakrishnan K, of Thannirmukkam village dated 6.4.1992 with Reg.No.3519/82 and Roll No. 43/86. Here also though it was recommended to pay Rs. 800/-, it was not seen signed by anyone at the place paid rupees. Ext.P16(a) in Ext.P16 register shows that it relates to one Bhaskaran K.G. None of the witnesses has spoken about the roll number and no documents have been produced to prove as to whether this roll number relates to the person mentioned in the voucher. Ext.P35 (a) in Ext.P35 subsidiary cashbook relates to payment of the amount covered by the voucher.
51. Ext.P63 is the voucher issued in the name of one Anandhan K, of Thannirmukkam south village dated 6.4.1992 with Reg.No.8112/80 and Roll No. 72/86. The evidence shows that there was no such registration in that year and no document has been produced to show as to whether Roll No. 72/86 relates to the person mentioned therein. Ext.P35(b) entry in Ext.P35 subsidiary cash books shows that the amount was disbursed.
52. Ext.P64 is the voucher seen issued in the name of one Prasad P, of Thannirmukkam south village dated 6.4.1992 with Reg.No.4112/82 and Roll No. 67/86. Here also though it was recommended to pay Rs. 800/-, no person had entered at the place paid rupees showing payment. There was no such registration number as last reregistration number was only 4036. No evidence adduced as to whether Roll No. 57/86 relates to the person mentioned in the voucher. Ext.P35(c) in Ext.P35 subsidiary cash book shows payment of the amount.
53. Exts.P161, 129 and 127 are the postal covers which were returned with the endorsement ''addressee not known'' and Sl.Nos.9, 10 and 11 in Ext.P151 village officer''s report shows that there was no such person. So this will go to show that there was no such person mentioned in the vouchers and they were all fabricated for the purpose of misappropriating the amount and using the same as genuine, amounts were withdrawn. It could not have been paid to the persons mentioned or they are the real beneficiaries and it could only be presumed that the amounts mentioned in the voucher were misappropriated. 12.2.2016
54. Exts.P65 to 67 are the disputed vouchers relating to the case C.C.No.25/2000. Ext.P65 voucher shows that it was prepared in the name of one Raveendran K of Thanneermukkam south village dated 6.4.1992 with Reg.No.3712/80 and Roll.No.32/86. Ext.P11(e) entry in Ext.P11 record of registration shows that it relates to one Joy Joseph V and Ext.P23(a) entry in Ext.P23 ledger folio register shows that it relates to one Shareef A and none of these relates to Raveendran K mentioned in the voucher. Ext.P34(d)is the relevant entry in Ext.P35 subsidiary cash book showing payment of Rs. 800/- mentioned in the voucher.
55. Ext.P66 is the voucher seen issued in the name of one Babu P of Thaneermukkam south village with Reg.No.271/80 and Roll No. 14/86 dated 6.4.1992 for an amount of Rs. 800/-. Ext.P9(a) entry in Ext.P9 record of registration shows that the registration number relates to one Jayakumar V.V and Ext.P23 (b) entry in Ext.P23 ledger folio register shows that the roll number relates to one Jalaja M.V and it does not relate to Babu P mentioned in the voucher. Ext.P34(e) entry in Ext.P35 subsidiary register shows that the amount covered by this voucher has been disbursed.
56. Ext.P67 is the voucher seen issued in the name of one Dasprakash P of Thanneermukkam north village dated 6.4.1992 with Reg.No.3118/81 and Roll No. 32/86. Ext.P14(e) entry in Ext.P14 register shows that the above registration number relates to one C.K. Thankappan and Ext.P24(a) entry in Ext.P24 ledger folio register shows that it relates to one Shylaja and not relating to Dasprakash mentioned therein. Ext.P35(f) entry in Ext.P35 subsidiary register shows that the amount of Rs. 800/- was disbursed to the person mentioned therein.
57. Exts.P128, P124 and P125 are the returned postal covers issued in the addresses mentioned in the vouchers with the endorsement ''not known''. Serial Nos. 6, 7 and 8 in Ext.P159 report of the village officer shows that there was no such person in that village. Further, it is seen that though in the place where the amount was recommended to be paid, some person has written the amount and put his signature but no entry was made in the place paid rupees and none singed the voucher. The above facts will go to show that these vouchers were fabricated vouchers in the name of fake persons created for the purpose of misappropriating the amount and there is no possibility of this amount being paid to the real persons and it could be presumed that the amounts were misappropriated.
58. Exts.P68 to P70 vouchers relate to case No. C.C.No.26/2000. Ext.P68 is seen issued in the name of one Harikumar K of Thanneermukkam village with Reg.No.2112/80 and Roll No. 37/86 dated 6.4.1992. It is seen from Ext.P10 (a) entry in Ext.P10 record of registration that it relates to one Mohanraj V.T and as per Ext.P24 (b) entry in Ext.P24 ledger folio register, the roll number relates to one Vijayamma G. Ext.P35(g) is the relevant entry in Ext.P35 subsidiary cash book showing payment of the amount as per this voucher.
59. Ext.P69 is the voucher issued in the name of one Raveendraraj K. of Thanneermukkam south village with Reg.No.172/80 and Roll No. 31/86 dated 6.4.1992 for an amount of Rs. 800/-. Ext.P9(b) entry in Ext.P9 register shows that it relates to one Xavier K.T. and Ext.P23(c) entry in Ext.P23 ledger folio resister shows that it relates to one James KA. Ext.P35(h) entry in Ext.P35 subsidiary cash book shows that the amount covered by this voucher has been disbursed in the name of that person.
60. Ext.P70 voucher is seen issued in the name of one Sathyadas K of Thanneermukkam village with Reg.No.1712/80 and Roll No. 22/86 dated 6.4.92 for an amount of Rs. 800/-. Ext.P10(b) entry in ext.P10 register shows that it relates to one Kochuvava N.M and Ext.P22(d) entry in Ext.P22 ledger folio shows that it relates to one Sujatha K.P and not in respect of the person Sathyadas mentioned in the voucher. Ext.P35 (i) entry in Ext.P35 subsidiary cash book shows that the amount covered by the voucher has been seen disbursed in the name of the person mentioned in the voucher.
61. Exts.P132, 130 and P131 are the returned postal covers sent in the addresses mentioned in the vouchers and they were seen returned with the endorsement ''addressee not known''. Serial Nos. 4, 5 and 29 in Ext.P159 village officers report will go to show that there were no such person available in that address in that village. It is also seen that in the place recommending payment of Rs. 800/-, the amount was filled and signed by some person but there was no such endorsement and signature seen in the place provided for paid rupees. These things will go to show that these vouchers were fabricated vouchers prepared in the name of fake persons with the intention to use the same as genuine vouchers and using the same, the amounts mentioned in the vouchers, Rs. 800/- each were withdrawn after making entries in the subsidiary cash book and from the evidence, it can be seen that there is no possibility of these amounts being paid to the real persons and it can only be presumed that it was misappropriated by the person, who prepared the same and used the same.
62. Exts.P71 to P73 are the vouchers involved in C.C.No.27/2000. Ext.P71 shows that it was prepared in the name of one Unnikrishnan P of Thanneermukkam north village dated 6.4.1992 with Reg.No.1312/80 and Roll No. 48/86 for an amount of Rs. 800/-. Ext.P10(c) entry in Ext.P10 record of registration shows that the above registration relates to one Vinodkumar K. Ext.P24(c) entry in Ext.P24 ledger folio shows that the roll number mentioned therein relates to one Jayan T.P and none of these relate to the person mentioned in the disputed voucher.
63. Ext.P72 is the voucher dated 6.4.1992 prepared in the name of one Gopi P with Reg.No.2186/80 and Roll No. 31/86. The village name is shown as Thanneermukkam north. Ext.P10 (d) entry in Ext.P10 record of registration shows that the above registration relates to one Appukuttan K.K and Ext.P24(b) entry in Ext.P24 ledger folio register shows that the roll number relates to one Annamma V and not Gopi P mentioned in the voucher.
64. Ext.P73 voucher is seen issued in the name of one Dasan N of Thanneermukkam village dated 6.4.1992 for an amount of Rs. 800/- with Reg.No.2117/80 and Roll No.32/86.Ext.P10(c) entry in Ext.P10 record of registration shows that this registration number relates to one Mohan R.K and Ext.P24(b) entry in Ext.P24 ledger folio register shows that it relates to one Shylaja A and the same roll number was shown in Ext.P67 voucher as well. They do not relate to Dasan N mentioned in the disputed voucher.
65. Exts.P35(j), (k) and (i) are the entries in Ext.P35 subsidiary cash register showing payment of these amounts to the persons mentioned in the voucher. Exts.P123, P133, P122 are the returned postal covers seen issued in the address mentioned in the vouchers and they were returned with the endorsement ''addressee not known''. Sl.Nos. 21 to 23 in Ext.P159 report of the village officer of Thanneermukkam shows that there were no such persons in that village. In these vouchers also there is endorsement made recommending payment of Rs. 800/- with signature and date but no such endorsement or signature seen at the place intended to be shown as paid rupees. The above evidence will go to show that these vouchers were fabricated in the name of fake persons with an intention to misappropriate the amount and using the same, the amounts were withdrawn. It could not have been paid to the real persons and it can only be presumed that these amounts were misappropriated.
66. Exts.P74 to P76 are the vouchers involved in C.C.No28/2000. Ext.P74 voucher is seen prepared in the name of one Ramachandran S of Thaneermukkam village dated 7.4.1992 for an amount of Rs. 800/- with Reg.No.3111/81 and Roll No. 92/86. Ext.P14 (f) entry in Ext.P14 record of registration shows that the registration number mentioned above relates to one Kumaran A. Ext.P23(e) entry in Ext.P23 ledger folio register shows that roll number mentioned therein relates to one Jararaj K and both do not relate to Ramahandran S mentioned in the voucher.
67. Ext.P75 is seen prepared in the name of Jayadevan K. of Thannermukkam south village dated 7.4.1992 for an amount of Rs. 800/- with Reg.No.4112/81 and Roll No. 62/86. Ext.P15(a) entry in Ext.P15 record of registration shows that the registration number relates to one Bhaskaran Nair. Ext.P23(f) entry in Ext.P23 ledger folio register shows that it relates to one Valsamma and not Jayadevan K mentioned in the voucher.
68. Ext.P76 voucher is drawn in the name of Raj P of Thannermukkam south village with dated 7.4.1992 for an amount of Rs. 800/- with Reg.No.1215/81 and Roll No. 82/86. Ext.P13(c) entry in Ext.P13 record of registration shows that the above registration relates to one Praveen K and Ext.P23(g) entry in Ext.P23 ledger folio register shows that the said roll number relates to one Thankamani. Both do not relate to Raj mentioned in the voucher.
69. Exts.P35 (m) to (o) are the entries in Ext.P35 subsidiary cash book showing payment of the amount covered by these vouchers. Exts.P134, 135, 136 are the returned postal covers sent in the addresses mentioned in the above vouchers and returned with endorsement ''no such addressee''. Sl.Nos. 18, 19 and 20 in Ext.P159 village officers report shows that there were no such persons mentioned in the voucher in that village. All these things will go to show that these vouchers were fabricated in the name of fake persons and using the same, the amounts were withdrawn and it could not have been paid to the real persons and it could only be presumed that they were misappropriated.
70. Exts.P77 to P79 are the vouchers involved in C.C.No.29/2000. Ext.P77 is the voucher seen prepared in the name of one Sekharan P of Thanneermukkam south village dated 7.4.1992 for an amount of Rs. 800/- with Reg.No.2719/81 and Roll No. 87/86. Ext.P14(g) entry in Ext.P14 register shows that the said registrartion number relates to one Kumaran K. Ext.P23(h) entry in Ext.P23 shows that it relates to one Neetha S.S and none of these relate to the person mentioned in the voucher.
71. Ext.P78 is seen issued in the name of one Gopakumaran S dated 7.4.1992 of Thaneermukkam south village with Reg.No.5117/81 and Roll No. 52/86. There was no such registration number in that year. Ext.P23(i) entry in Ext.P23 ledger folio shows that the roll number mentioned therein relates to one Lailamma T.N and not Gopakumaran S. None of these relate to the person mentioned in the vouchers.
72. Ext.P79 is the voucher issued in the name of one Ravikumar V of Thannermukkam south village dated 7.4.1992 for an amount of Rs. 800/- with Reg.No.7167/81 and Roll No. 27/86. There was no such registration number in the year 1981. Ext.P23 (j) entry in Ext.P23 ledger folio register shows that the roll number mentioned therein relates to one Subair T.S and not Ravikumar V mentioned in the voucher. Both these sbow that it did not relate to the person mentioned in the voucher.
73. Exts.P35 (p) to (r) in Ext.P35 subsidiary cash book are the relevant entry relating to the payment of the amounts mentioned in the voucher. Ext.P191(i),(h) and (g) are the returned postal covers sent in the addresses mentioned in the vouchers which were returned with the endorsement ''addressee not known'' and Sl.Nos.15 to 17 in Ext.P159 village officers report show that there were no such person in that village. So all these things will go to show that these vouchers were also fabricated vouchers created in the name of fake persons and using the same as genuine, the amounts were withdrawn and thereby it could not have been paid to the real persons and it can only be presumed to have been misappropriated.
74. Exts.P80 to P82 are the vouchers involved in C.C.No.41/2000. Ext.P80 voucher is seen prepared in the name of Venugopal P of Thanneermukkam south village with date 7.4.1992 for an amount of Rs. 800/- with registration number 624/81 and Roll No. 17/86. Ext.P13(d) entry in Ext.P13 record of registration shows that the above register number relate to one Soman C.A and Ext.P23 (k) entry in Ext.P23 ledger folio register shows that it relates to one K.V. Soman and not in the name of Venugopalan P mentioned in the voucher.
75. Ext.P81 is the voucher seen issued in the name of Chandrasekharan B of Thanneermukkam south village dated 7.4.1992 for an amount of Rs. 800/- with Reg.No.3827/81 and Roll No. 63/86. Ext.P14(g) entry in Ext.P14 register shows that the above registration number relates to one Santhosh Kumar K.S and Ext.P23(l) entry in Ext.P23 register shows that the roll number mentioned above relates to one Jayanthi N.C and not Chandrasekharan B.
76. Ext.P82 is the voucher issued in the name of Ganeshan S of Thanneermukkam south village dated 7.4.1992 for an amount of Rs. 800/- and Roll No. 39/86. Ext.P10(f) entry in Ext.P10 register shows that the above registration relates to one Raveendra Kurup K.C and Ext.P23(m) entry in Ext.P23 register shows that the above roll number relates to one Beena Sreedhar and not relates to Ganeshan S mentioned in the voucher.
77. Exts.P35(s) to (v) entry in Ext.P35 subsidiary cash register relate to the relevant entries relating the payment of the amount mentioned in those vouchers. Exts.P191, 191(b), 191(a) are the postal covers sent in the addresses mentioned in the vouchers and they were seen returned with the endorsement ''not known''. Sl.Nos. 12, 26 and 27 in Ext.P 159 report of the village officer of the concerned village shows that there were no such persons in those addresses. Al these things will go to show that these vouchers were also fabricated vouchers prepared in the name of fake persons and using the same as genuine, amounts were withdrawn and it could not have been given to the reason persons and it was misappropriated.
78. Exts.P83 to 85 are the vouchers involved in C.C. No. 42/2000. Ext.P83 is the voucher issued in the name of one Madhukumar S of Thanneermukkam south village dated 7.4.1992 for an amount of Rs. 800/- with Reg.No.2171/81 and Roll No. 39/86. Ext.P14(h) entry in Ext.P14 record of registration shows that the above registration relates to one Viswanathan S. Ext.P23(m) entry in Ext.P23 ledger folio shows that it relates to one Beena Sreedhar and not Madhukumar mentioned in the voucher.
79. Ext.P84 is the voucher seen issued in the name of one Chandran K dated 7.4.1992 for an amount of Rs. 800/- of Thanneermukkam south village with Reg.No.1279/81 and roll No. 47/86. Ext.P13(e) entry in Ext.P13 record of registration shows that the registration number relates to one Gopakumaran K.R. Ext.P23(m) entry in Ext.P23 ledger folio shows that the above roll number relates to one Laila and both do not relate to Chandran K mentioned in that voucher.
80. Ext.P85 entry is seen issued in the name of one Rajan P.K of Aroor village dated 8.4.1992 with Reg.No.6312/81 and Roll No. 38/86. There was no such registration number in the year 1981. Ext.P25(a) entry in Ext.P25 ledger folio register shows that the above roll number relates to one Manoharan K.V. and not relating to Raajan P.K mentioned in the voucher.
81. Exts.P35(v) to (x) are the relevant entries in Ext.P35 subsidiary cash register showing payment of the amount covered by these vouchers to the respective persons mentioned in the voucher. Exts.P138, P137 and P191 (p) are the postal covers sent in the above addresses and returned with the endorsement ''addressee not known''. Sl.Nos.25 and 26 in Ext.P159 and Sl.No.1 in Ext.P160 report of the village officers of the respective villages show that there was no such person in that village in that addresses. So all these things will go to show that these vouchers were also fabricated vouchers prepared in the name of fake persons with a dishonest intention to misappropriate the amount and using the same, the amounts were withdrawn and it could not have been paid to the persons mentioned therein. So it can only be presumed that these amounts were misappropriated.
82. Exts.P86 to P88 are the vouchers involved in C.C. No. 43/2000. Ext.P86 is the voucher seen issued in the name of one C.G. Maniyappan of Thaikattusery village dated 8.4.1992 for an amount of Rs. 800/- with Reg.No.1127/81 and Roll No. 43/84. Ext.P10(g) entry in Ext.P10 record of registration shows that the above registration number relates to one Mohandas T.R and Ext.P27(a) entry in Ext.P27 ledger folio register shows that the roll number relates to one K.A Ravi and not relating to Maniyappan mentioned in the voucher.
83. Ext.P87 is the voucher seen prepared in the name of Lal S dated 8.4.1992 of Thannermukkam north village with Reg.No.3162/81 and Roll No. 12/86 for an amount of Rs. 800/-. Ext.P14(l) entry in Ext.P14 record of registration shows that the above registration relates to one Unnikrishnan P and Ext.P24(e) entry in Ext.P24 ledger folio register shows that the above roll number relates to one Thankamma Joseph and both do not relate to the persons mentioned in the voucher.Ext.P88 voucher shows that it was issued in the name of Maniyan P.G of Aroor village dated 9.4.1992 with Reg.No.1281/81 and Roll No. 127/86 of Aroor village. Ext.P13(f) entry in Ext.P13 record of registration shows that the said registration number relates to one Jayaram D and not Maniyan P.G. Ext.P25 ledger folio relating to Aroor village shows that there was no roll number as the last number was 77/86. Exts.P166, P139 and P163 are the returned postal covers sent in that address with the endorsement ''not known''. Sl.No.1 in Ext.P159 and Sl.No.2 in Ext.P160 and Sl.No.3 in Ext.P164, the reports of the village officers'' of the respective villages, show that there were no such persons.
84. These things will go to show that these vouchers were also fabricated vouchers prepared in the name of fake persons with dishonest intention to misappropriate the amount using the same as genuine and the amounts were withdrawn.
85. Exts.P89 to P91 vouchers relate to C.C.No.44/2000. Ext.P89 is the voucher issued in the name of one Chandran K.P of Thanneermukkam south village with Reg.No.8119/81 and Roll No. 71/86 for an amount of Rs. 8000/-. The record of registration shows that there was no such registration number. Ext.P23(o) entry in Ext.P23 ledger folio register shows that it relates to one Ramanan R and not in respect of Chandran K.P.
86. Ext.P90 is the voucher seen issued in the name of Binu S of Thanneermukkam village with Reg.No.1277/81 and Roll No. 38/86 dated 8.4.1992 for an amount of Rs. 800/-. Ext.P13(g) entry in Ext.P13 record of registration shows that the above registration relates to P. Jayapalan. Ext.P23(p) entry in Ext.P23 ledger folio register shows that it relates to one Vikraman P.A and both these do not relate to Binu S mentioned in the voucher.
87. Ext.P91 is the voucher issued in the name of one Ramakrishnan P of Thanneermukkam village dated 8.4.1992 for an amount of Rs. 800/- with Reg.No.5119/81 and Roll No. 53/86. The record of registration shows that there was no such register number in that year. The ledger folio register of this roll number was not produced. So it cannot be said as to whether this roll number relates to the person mentioned therein.
88. In all these vouchers though amount was recommended, there was no endorsement regarding the payment of the amount and none signed these vouchers. But Ext.P35(a-a),(a-b),(a-c) and (a-d) entries in Ext.P35 subsidiary cash book show that the amounts mentioned in these vouches were paid. Exts.P141, 140 and 169 returned postal covers show that they were returned with the endorsement ''not known''. Sl. Nos. 13 and 24 in Ext.P159 and Ext.P119 village officer''s report will go to show that there was no such person in that address. These vouchers were fabricated vouchers in the name of fake persons created for the purpose of misappropriating the amount and using the same as genuine documents, the amounts were misappropriated.
89. Exts.P94 to P96 relate to C.C.No.45/2000. Ext.P94 shows that it was issued in the name of George K of Thaikattussery village dated 8.4.1992 for an amount of Rs. 800/- with Reg.No.3712/81 and Roll No. 32/86. Ext.P14(b) entry in Ext.P14 record of registration shows that this registration number relates to one V. Vijayan. Ext.P28(a) entry in Ext.P28 record of registration shows that it relates to one Syamalakumariamma and both these numbers do not relate to George K mentioned in the voucher.
90. Ext.P95 is the voucher issued in the name of one Manoharan K.P of Thaikattusery village dated 8.4.1992 for an amount of Rs. 800/- with Reg.No.7313/81 and Roll No. 92/86. The record or registration shows that there was no such registration number and Ext.P28(b) entry in Ext.P28 shows that the roll number relates to one Radhakrishnan T.K and not relates to Manoharan K.P.
91. Ext.P96 is the voucher seen issued in the name of one Vijayuan P of Thanneermukkam north village with Reg.No.4182/81 and Roll No. 33/86. The record of registration shows that there was no such roll number issued. Ext.P24(e) in Ext.P24 ledger folio shows that it relates to one Molly and not in respect of P. Vijayan.
92. Ext.P35(a-e) to (a-g) entries in Ext.P35 shows that the amount covered by these vouchers were disbursed. Exts.P165, 167 and 148 are the returned postal covers which were sent in the addresses mentioned in the voucher and returned with the endorsement ''not known''. Sl.No.1 in Ext.P64 proved through PW3, the village officer and Ext.P94 village officer''s report will go to show that the persons mentioned in the above vouchers are not residing in the addresses mentioned in that village. In these vouchers also though amounts were seen recommended for payment, none had signed at the place paid rupees and it was not shown as amount paid. But entries in Ext.P35 shows that these amounts were disbursed. So it is clear from the above that these vouchers were fabricated vouchers created in the name of fake persons with dishonest intention to misappropriate the amount and using the same as genuine documents, the amounts were withdrawn and misappropriated.
93. Exts.P97 to P99 vouchers relate to the case. C.C.No.46/2000. Ext.P97 is the voucher issued in the name of one Babu P of Cherthala north village dated 13.4.1992 for an amount of Rs. 800/- with Reg.No.4294/87 and Roll No. 39/87. The record of registration shows that there was no such registration number. Ext.P30(a) entry in Ext.P30 ledger folio register shows that the above said roll number relates to one Pushpakaran M and not relating to Babu P mentioned in the voucher.
94. Ext.P98 is the voucher issued in the name of one Rajesh B of Cherthala north village dated 13.4.1992 for an amount of Rs. 800/- with Reg.No.3291/87 and Roll No. 52/87. The record of registration shows that there was no such registration number. Ext.P30(b) entry in Ext.P30 ledger folio register shows that this roll number relates to one Girija Devi and not relating to one Rajesh B mentioned in the voucher.
95. Ext.P99 is the voucher issued in the name of one Sanal Kumar V of Cherthala south village dated 13.4.1992 with Reg.No.3229/83 and Roll No. 47/87 for an amount of Rs. 800/-. Ext.P18(a) entry in Ext.P18 record of registration shows that it relates to one Jayakuttan and Ext.P29(a) entry in Ext.P29 ledger folio register shows that it relates to one Rajendran M.P and both the records will go to show that it does not relate to Sanal Kumar V mentioned in the voucher.
96. All these vouchers also shows that though they were recommended for payment, non signed in the place paid rupees. But it will be seen from Exts.P35(a-h) to (a-j) entries in Ext.P35 subsidiary cash book that the amounts mentioned in these vouchers were seen withdrawn and disbursed. Exts.P180, P181 and P179 postal covers sent in the name of addresses mentioned in the vouchers were seen returned with the endorsement ''not known'' and these covers were proved through PW29, the concerned Postmaster. Sl.Nos 1, 3 and 2 of Ext.P170 village officer''s report proved through PW27 village officer will go to show that there were no such persons in the addresses mentioned. So it is clear from the above evidence that these documents were fabricated documents created in the name of fake persons with the dishonest intention to misappropriate the amount and using the same as genuine, amounts were withdrawn and misappropriated.
97. Exts.P100 to 102 vouchers relate to C.C.No.47/2000. Ext.P100 voucher shows that it was issued in the name of one Rajappan K with Reg.No.4311/83 and Roll No. 39/87 dated 13.4.1992 for an amount of Rs. 800/- and the village name is shown as Cherthala south. The record of registration shows that there was no such registration number and the last registration number in that year is 4079. Ext.P29(b) entry in Ext.P29 ledger folio register shows that it relates to one George and not relating to Rajappan K.
98. Ext.P101 is the voucher seen issued in the name of Rajesh C of Cherthala south village dated 13.4.1992 for an amount of Rs. 800/- with Reg. No. 1231/83 and Roll No. 77/87. Ext.P17(a) entry in Ext.P17 record of registration shows that it relates to one Sathyan V and Ext.P29(c ) entry in Ext.P29 ledger folio register shows that the roll number relates to one Kochuthressia P.J and not relating to Rajesh C.
99. Ext.P102 voucher is seen issued in the name of one Venugopal V of Cherthala south village dated 13.4.1992 for an amount of Rs. 800/- with Reg.No.2340/82 and Roll No. 112/87. Ext.P16(b) entry in Ext.P16 record of registration shows that it relates to one Nripajith Kumar and Ext.P29(d) entry in Ext.P29 ledger folio register shows that it relates to one Ushakumari K. So these records will go to show that the registration number and roll number mentioned in the voucher do not relate to Venugopal P mentioned in the voucher.
100. Further, in these vouchers also though payments were recommended, none signed in the place paid rupees. Ext.P35(ak) to (a-m) entries in Ext.P35 shows that the amount mentioned in the vouchers were withdrawn and shown as disbursed. Exts.P77, 76 and 78 returned postal covers sent in the addresses mentioned in the vouchers were seen returned with the endorsement ''not known'' and these postal covers were marked through PW29, the concerned Postmaster of that post office. Sl.Nos. 4, 5 and 6 in Ext.P171 village officer''s report proved through PW28, the village officer, will go to show that there were no such persons in that address in that village. So all these things will go to show that these vouchers were fabricated with fake names with a fraudulent intention of using the same as genuine documents with dishonest intention to misappropriate the amount and the amounts were withdrawn and misappropriated.
101. Exts.P103 to 105 vouchers are relating to C.C.No.48/2000. Ext.P103 is seen prepared in the name of one Janardhanan D of Cherthala south village with Reg.No.8721/82 and Roll No. 43/87. There was no such registration number in the year 1982 and the last registration number was 4036. Ext.P29(e) in Ext.P29 ledger folio register shows that the roll number relates to one K.G Joseph and not relating to Janardhanan T.
102. Ext.P104 is the voucher seen issued in the name of Jagadeeshan S of Cherthala south village dated 13.4.1992 for an amount of Rs. 800/- with Registration and Roll No. 63/87. Ext.P16 (c ) entry in Ext.P16 shows that the registration number relates to one Raji C. Ext.P29(f) in Ext.P29 ledger folio register shows that the roll number relates to one Ajitha Kumari. These documents will go to show that the register number and roll number do not relate to Jagadeshan S.
103. Ext.P105 is the voucher issued in the name of Sathyan K.N of Cherthala north village dated 13.4.1992 for an amount of Rs. 800/- with Reg.No.6311/84 and Roll No. 63/87. The record of registration shows that there was no such registration number in the year 1984 as the last registration number was 4116. Ext.P30(c) entry in Ext.P30 ledger folio register shows that the roll number relates to one Ramachandra Bhat and not relating to Sathyan K.N mentioned in the voucher. In all these vouchers, it is seen that though there was recommendation to pay the amount and signed by the concerned officer, there was no endorsement regarding payment made in respect of this voucher. But it will be seen from Exts.P35 (a-n) to (a-p) entries in Ext.P35 subsidiary cash book show that the amounts mentioned in these vouchers were seen disbursed. Exts.P173, 175 and 174 returned postal covers sent in the addresses mentioned in the vouchers show that all these postal covers were returned with the endorsement ''addressee not known''. Sl.Nos. 10 and 7 in Ext.P70 report proved through PW27 village officer will go to show that there were no such persons available in that address in that village. So all these things will go to show that these vouchers were also fabricated in the name of fake persons with dishonest intention to misappropriate the amount and using the same as genuine vouchers, the amounts were withdrawn and misappropriated.
104. Exts.P106 to 108 are the entries relating to the case No. C.C.No.49/2000. Ext.P106 is the voucher seen prepared in the name of one Radhakrishnan P of Cherthala south village dated 13.4.1992 for an amount of Rs. 800/- with Reg.No.6783/82 and Roll No. 43/87. The record of registration shows that there was no such registration in the year 1982 and Ext.P29(e) entry in Ext.P29 ledger folio register shows that the same relates to one K.G. Joseph and the same roll number was given for Ext.P103 voucher as well.
105. Ext.P107 voucher is seen drawn in the name of one James N with Reg.No.4181/82 and Roll No. 21/87. The record of registration shows that there was no such registration number as last registration number was 4036. Ext.P26(a) entry in Ext.P26 ledger folio register shows that the roll number relates to one Suresha Babu V.K and not in respect of James N mentioned in the voucher.
106. Ext.P108 is the voucher seen drawn in the name of Gopalakrishnan K of Aroor village dated 13.4.1992 with Reg.No.3771/83 and Roll No. 40/87. Ext.P19(a) entry in Ext.P19 record of registration shows that it relates to one Reghuvaran K.G and Ext.P26(b) entry in Ext.P26 shows that the roll number relates to one Antony R and none of these relate to Gopalakrishnan K mentioned in the voucher.
107. In these vouchers also though there was recommendation to pay Rs. 800/-, none signed at the place paid rupees. But Exts.P35(a-q) to (a-s) entries in Ext.P35 shows that these amounts were withdrawn. Exts.P172, 162 and Ext.161 returned postal covers show that these postal covers were returned with the endorsement ''not known''. Sl.Nos.3 and 4 in Ext.P160 and Sl.No.7 and 8 in Ext.P170 of village officers'' report proved through PW27 shows that there were no such persons in that village. The postal covers were proved through PW21, the concerned village officer. So all these things will go to show that these vouchers were also fabricated in the name of fake persons with dishonest intention to misappropriate the amount and using the same as genuine vouchers, amounts were withdrawn and misappropriated.
108. Ext.P109 voucher is seen prepared in the name of one Sivankutty S of Cherthala south village dated 13.4.1992 for an amount of Rs. 800/- with Reg.No.6312/82 and Roll No. 72/87. On verification of the record of registration shows that there was no such registration and the last registration in the year is 4036. Ext.P29(g) entry in Ext.P29 ledger folio register shows that the said roll number relates to one Mariyakutty C.I and not in favour of Sivankutty S.
109. Ext.P110 voucher is seen prepared in the name of Thambi N of Cherthala south village dated 13.4.1992 for an amount of Rs. 800/- with Reg.No.5127/82 and Roll No. 62/87. The record of registration shows that there was no registration and the last registration in the year 1982 was 4036. Ext.P29 (h) entry in Ext.P29 ledger folio register shows that the said roll number relates to one Thankappan S and not infavour of Thambi N. These two vouchers also show that though it was recommended for payment of Rs. 800/-, there is no endorsement showing the amount paid and none signed in that place. But Exts.P35(a-t) and (a-u) entries in Ext.P35 subsidiary cash book show that the amount covered by these vouchers were entered and amounts were disbursed. Exts.P192 and P193 are the postal covers sent in the addresses shown in the vouchers and returned with the endorsement ''addressee not known''. Sl.Nos 9 and 11 in Ext.P170 is the report of the village officer proved through PW27 village officer shows that there was no such person in that village in that address. So all these things will go to show that these vouchers were fabricated vouchers prepared in the name of fake persons with the dishonest intention to misappropriate the amount covered by vouchers and using the same as genuine documents, the amounts were withdrawn and thereby it was misappropriated.
110. So the documentary evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution proves that all these 74 disputed vouchers were prepared in the name of fake persons knowing that there is no such person and the particulars mentioned therein were not genuine and they are not real persons or beneficiaries entitled to get the wages under the Unemployment Assistance Scheme and misusing those vouchers, they were entered in the subsidiary cash book and amounts were shown as disbursed and ultimately this was included in the amounts actually disbursed and entered in the main cash book as well and thereby the amounts covered by these vouchers were misappropriated by the persons who used the same.
111. Then the question is whether the prosecution was able to establish that this was done by the accused. PW4 was the U.D. Clerk of Cherthala Town Employment Exchange. He was working from May, 1988 to June, 2000 in that office. Ext.P111 is the office order book. It is an admitted fact that the office orders mentioned therein were issued by the accused and they were used to be written and signed by the accused in the capacity as employment officer allocating the work relating to verification, posting and distribution of the amount under this Scheme. Ext.P111(a) and (b) are two such orders with No. 5/92 dated 17.3.1992 and 6/92 dated 23.3.1992 and these two orders were admittedly written and signed by the accused. It will be seen from these two orders that PW4 was put in charge of verification of counter No. 1 and this was admitted by the accused.
112. PW4 had deposed the procedure regarding the preparation of vouchers till disbursement was made. According to him, blank vouchers will be given to the candidates and they will enter the particulars regarding their name, address, village name, registration number, roll number and employment number etc and it will be presented after putting their signature in the voucher in the verification counter and the clerk in charge of the verification will verify the same with the ledger folio register and if the particulars and the signature tallies with the records maintained there, then they will recommend for the amount payable and put the seal showing pay rupees and after writing the amount, it will be signed by the verification clerk. PW4 deposed that he was in charge of counter No. 1 and he had verified and signed some vouchers and this fact was not disputed by the accused as well. According to him, after verification of the vouchers, making recommendation to pay the amount and putting the signatures, the vouchers will be kept on the table and it will be taken either by the class-4 employees or sometimes by the accused himself and it will be produced before the clerk, who was writing the subsidiary cash book and after verification, he will put the voucher number and after entering the same in the subsidiary cash book, this will be entrusted to the accused who used to disburse the amount. PW4 denied the allegation that numbers provided for the vouchers will be within the knowledge of the clerk who used to assign the number alone. According to him, the accused also will be knowing about the number and it was admitted by the accused also in his 313 examination that the numbers were put on the vouchers serially and in order. So there is likelihood of the accused knowing the serial numbers to be put on the vouchers as well.
113. The evidence of PW4 will go to show that there was no possibility for the accused to verify vouchers and there is no necessity for him to fill the voucher or sign the same in the place pay rupees. It was also an admitted case that the verification counters are situated in the down stairs of the employment exchange office while section dealing with writing of subsidiary cash book and disbursal etc are done from the up stair room of the same office. He had verified Exts.P2 to P4 vouchers and stated that the handwriting and the signature put beneath the amount of Rs. 800/- though appears to be similar to his, but he had not made the entry at pay rupees or put the signature. He had also asserted that he had not verified those vouchers as well. He had deposed that the signature found in Exts.P2 to P4 at the place where seal pay rupees and employment officer affixed is that of the accused. There is another seal in these vouchers showing paid rupees and the amount is seen written in red ball point pen and it was signed by the employment officer namely the accused.
114. Though the accused denied having signed these vouchers, PW4 who is conversant with the handwriting and signature of the accused stated that these vouchers were signed by the accused himself. He had acquaintance with the handwriting and signature of the accused as he was working with him and person who are acquainted with the handwriting are competent to speak about the same as provided under section 47 of the Evidence Act. Further, the admitted signatures of the accused in his 313 examination, vakalath and bail bond were verified by the court and compared the same with the signatures in the disputed vouchers and found that they are similar and there is no necessity for an expert opinion to come to the conclusion as to whether those signatures are that of the accused or not. Section 73 of the Evidence Act empowers the court to verify the same and come to the conclusion regarding the same but that alone cannot be used as a substantive evidence or conclusive proof of that fact but if it is corroborated with the other evidence, the same can be used to form an opinion regarding that aspect.
115. PW4 after verifying entire 74 vouchers deposed that the writings in those vouchers were that of the accused and this was corroborated by the evidence of PW5, the then Junior Employment Officer, who was also working along with the accused during the relevant period in that office and PWs7, 8 and 30, the other clerks working in that office along with the accused during the relevant time and the person who was writing the subsidiary cash book namely PW30. PW31 is the person who was writing the main cash book after verifying the entries in the subsidiary cash book and vouchers totalling the amount paid showing the balance amount every day. All those witnesses also deposed that the handwriting in all the 74 disputed vouchers were that of the accused. They have also stated that they have acquainted with the handwriting and signature of the accused and they can identify the same. Section 47 of the Evidence Act reads as follows:
47. Opinion as to handwriting, when relevant:- When the Court has to form an opinion as to the person by whom any document was written or signed, the opinion of any person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom it is supposed to be written or signed that it was or was not written or signed by that person, is a relevant fact.
Explanation:- a person is said to be acquainted with the handwriting of another person when he has seen that person write, or when he has received documents purporting to be written by that person in answer to documents written by himself or under his authority and addressed to that person, or when, in the ordinary course of business, documents purporting to be written by that person have been habitually submitted to him.
This section says that when the court has to form an opinion as to the person by whom any document was written or signed, the opinion of any person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom it is supposed to be written or signed that it was or was not written or signed by the person is a relevant fact.
116. In the decision reported in Pasupuletti Venkamma v. Shaik Hamid Minor by Next Friend Pier Sarn Bibee (14 Indian cases 741), it has been held that comparison of signature is one of the modes of proving handwriting and although when there is no such evidence such proof would be regarded as a hazardous and inconclusive, it cannot be regarded as an error in law to base the conclusion on such proof alone and a court of second appeal would have no power to set aside a finding based on such comparison.
117. The England Law on this point is then summarised by Tylor on Evidence (vol.2, Edn.12 para 1863 at page 1151) "the witness need not state in the first instance how he know the handwriting since it is the duty of the opposite party to explore in cross examination the source of knowledge if he is dissatisfied with the testimony as it stands".
118. This is what is reiterated in section 47 of the Evidence Act. This has been stated so in Pusaram and others v. Manmal and other (AIR 1955 Rajasthan 186) relying on the decision in Chintaman Raoji Naik v. Khanderao Pandurang Thakur and others (AIR 1928 Bombay 58) and Mahanth Jagdish Das and others v. Emperor (AIR 1938 Pat 497). The same view has been again reiterated in the decision reported in Shriniwas Pansari v. Dr. Hari Prasad Mehra and other (AIR 1983 Patna 321).
119. The mode of proving the signature and the handwriting is not only by sending it to the expert alone but that can be done by proving through the person, who had written the same or persons having acquaintance with the handwriting and signature of that person and by court invoking the power under section 73 of the Evidence Act. In this case, the court below had compared the same and come to an independent conclusion regarding this aspect and this was corroborated by the evidence of Pws 4, 7, 8, 30 and 31 the officials working in the same office along with the accused who had the opportunity to come across the handwriting and signature of the accused and acquaintance with the same and competent to speak about the same. So not sending the vouchers for expert opinion is not fatal in this case.
120. Further Ext.P38 and P44 vouchers coupled with the evidence of the above six witnesses also will go to show that they were also prepared in the handwriting of the accused and they were not prepared or verified by PW4, who was in charge of that counter at the relevant time. Admittedly the place were paid rupees, the amount was written in the hand writing of the accused and it was signed by the accused and there was no case for him that it was not signed by him. It is also seen from the examination of the accused under section 313 of the Code that the accused after perusal of Exts.P34 and 35 subsidiary cash books, he had admitted that he had certified the cash verification statements on 20.3.1992, 24.3.1992, 26.3.1992, 28.3.1992, 6.4.1992, 7.4.1992 8.4.1992 and 13.4.1992 and the certificate was written in his handwriting and thereafter it was signed by him. The signature found in those records tallies with the signature seen in the place of employment officer affixed in Exts.P2 to 4 and P38 to P44. It was also admitted by the accused in his 313 statement that the cash verification in Ext.P36 cash book on 31.3.1992 and 28.4.1992 were written and signed by him. Further, it is clear from the evidence of Pws4, 5 and 7 that the seal of the employment officer will be always with the accused and there was no possibility of any other person using the same as well. It will be seen from Exts.P47 to P91 and 94 to 110 none endorsed in the place paid rupees and none signed in the place where the employment officers designation seal is affixed. But it will be seen from these vouchers that there was recommendation to pay Rs. 800/- and it was signed by some person and PW4 had denied having signed the same. The accused had no definite case as to who had made those endorsements and put the signature. He had given only evasive reply that he did not know about the same.
121. PW5 is the then Junior Employment Officer, who helped the accused in writing the vouchers, particulars in the wage distribution card and he had initialled the vouchers only to help the accused. He had also stated that he was sitting in the chair placed in front of the accused. He had also identified the handwriting of the accused in all 74 vouchers and he had also identified the signature of the accused in Exts.P2 to 4 and P38 to 44. He had also stated that sometimes the accused used to write and make entries in the subsidiary cash book when the office was very busy. The accused himself has admitted that the entires in page 44 against Sl.No.17471 to last number 17457 in Ext.P34 and the verification statement found at page 45 were in the handwriting of the accused himself. Those serial numbers take in the disputed vouchers also. Serial No. 17471 relates to Ext.P4 voucher involved in C.C.No.6/2000. Serial Nos. 17472 to 17474 relate to Ext.P38 to 40 vouchers relating to C.C. No. 7/2000. Serial numbers 17475 to 17477 relate to Ext.P4 to P43 vouchers involved in C.C. No. 8/2000. Serial Number 17478 relates to Ext.P44 voucher involved in C.C. No. 9/2000. In all these vouchers pay rupees and paid rupees and with seal of the employment officer with the signature of the employment officer namely the accused were found. The particulars regarding these eight vouchers were seen written by the accused himself in Ext.P34 subsidiary cash book and this will indicate that all these vouchers were prepared by the accused himself and that was the reason why he had taken initiative to write those entries in the subsidiary cash book without giving the same to others.
122. PW7 is an L.D. Clerk working in that office from 1990 onwards. He had also deposed that he was in the office during 1992 when the accused was the employment officer there. He had also stated that as per Ext.P111(a) and P111(b) he was in charge of verification of the vouchers in counter No. 3 and this fact was not disputed by the accused as well. He had also deposed that he is also familiar with the handwriting and signature of the accused and he had also deposed the practise that was followed regarding verification of the vouchers, entering in the subsidiary cash register and payment of the amount in respect of the Scheme. He had also deposed in tune with the evidence of PW4 on this aspect. According to him, after verification of the vouchers, he used to recommend for payment and enter the amount at the place pay rupees and put his signature and it will be kept on the table and the verified vouchers will be taken either by the class-4 employees or by the accused. He had also deposed that, after verification of the same, this will be taken to clerk in charge of the subsidiary cash book and after entering the vouchers in the subsidiary cash book, the concerned clerk will put the voucher number and thereafter it will be taken to the accused and the candidates will be called and the amounts will be disbursed by the accused. He had also deposed that the writings and signatures in Exts.P2 to 4 and 38 to 44 were that of the accused. He had deposed that when confronted with Exts.P46 and P62 to 73 vouchers, though there is some similarity in the signatures at the place pay rupees with that of him, those signatures were not put by him and it was not written by him. He had also stated that he had not verified those vouchers as well. According to PW4, Exts.P38 to 40, 41 to 45 and 47 to 49 though signatures appear to be his, they were not signed by him.
123. PW8 is also a clerk working in the same office during the relevant time and as per the office orders covered by Exts.P111(a) and P111(b), he was put in charge of verification counter No. 2. He had also stated that he could identified the handwriting of the accused as he has acquaintance with the same. He had further stated that the signature and the writings at the place pay rupees shown in Exts.P74 to 78 and P81 to 91 and Exts.P94 to P110 though appear to be similar to his signature, they were not signed by him. He had also stated that he had not verified those vouchers as well. He had also testified the manner in which Pws 4, 5 and 7 had deposed about the verification of vouchers till the amount is disbursed as per the voucher. He had categorically stated that the handwritings and signatures seen in these vouchers appear to be that of the accused.
124. PW30 - V.V. Goudhaman was working in Cherthala Town Employment Exchange from 1988 to 1998 as Clerk First and then U.D. Clerk. According to him, he was in charge of writings of the subsidiary cash register and it was as per Ext.P111(a) and P111(b) that this work was assigned to him and he was entering the particulars of the amount disbursed under the Unemployment Assistance Scheme as per the vouchers for the period from 19.3.1992 to 20.4.1992 in the subsidiary cash book. This fact was admitted by the accused as well. He had stated that his section namely A-3 section is in the upstairs and the vouchers will be verified and the recommendation to pay the amount made from the verification counter in the down stair and it will be taken to his table either by peon or sweeper and sometimes it will be taken by the accused as well. Thereafter he used to enter the same in the subsidiary cash book namely Exts.P34 and P35 and he will put voucher number on the top of the voucher and it will be put serially and in order. After this was entered in the subsidiary cash book, voucher number is put on the top of the voucher and it will be taken to the table of the accused, from where the disbursement will be made.
125. He had deposed that voucher numbers mentioned on the top of Exts.P86 to P88 were not put by him and the corresponding entries in Ext.P35 namely Ext.P35(y),(z) and (a-a) bearing voucher numbers 22756, 22760 and 22762 respectively were not in his handwriting. He had also deposed that the entries in page numbers 12,13 and 14 up to inclusive of serial numbers 21 to 80 were not in his handwriting. He had also deposed that entries in page number 54 from serial number 22206 and the last entry in that page and entries in pages 55 to 59 were not written by him. In page number 58 of Ext.P35 there was a certificate of the accused to the effect that an amount of Rs. 3,92,540/- was disbursed to the candidates mentioned in the vouchers. He had also deposed that in page number 62 of Ext.P35, entries from serial number 22398 till the last entry in that page and entries in pages 63 to 65 and also six entries upto inclusive of serial No. 22480 in that subsidiary cash book were not in his handwriting. He had also deposed that in page 74 of that book four entries from 22624 to 22627 and also entries in pages 75 to 84 and first entry in page 85 were not written by him but these entries have nothing to do with the payment covered by the disputed vouchers.
126. He had also deposed that the entries in page 38 of Ext.P34 and entries in pages 42 and 44 of Ext.P34 were not written by him, whereas the entries in page 78 of Ext.P34 were in his handwriting. This will go to show that the particulars regarding payment evidenced by Exts.P34(l), P34 (m) and P34(n) in Ext.P34 subsidiary cash book were written by him. Accordingly, the entries in pages 134 and 135 of Ext.P34 were not in his handwriting, but the entries in pages 173 to 175 and entries in page 176 up to voucher number 20560 were in his handwriting. He had also admitted that the entries in page 188 of Ext.P34 were also written by him. The entires in page 188 include entries in respect of Exts.P34 (u) to (z), (a-a) and (a-b) which relate to some of the disputed vouchers. He had also deposed that entries in page 38 of Ext.P34 were in the handwriting of the accused. This will take in payment of the voucher number 17388 covered by Ext.P2 voucher. According to him, similar entries were made by the accused in page 42 of Ext.P34 and except the last entry in page 42 of Ext.P34 were written in the handwriting of the accused himself. According to him, the last entry in page 42 of Ext.P34 was written by PW4. He had also deposed that the first six entries in Ext.P44 of Ext.P34 are in the handwriting of PW31 and the remaining entries were in the handwriting of the accused. The entry in page 42 covered by Ext.P34(b) relates to Ext.P3 voucher with number 17432. He had also deposed that excluding the first six entries, i.e., entries up to voucher number 17470, all remaining entries in that page were written by the accused himself. All these entries regarding the disputed vouchers were either written by the accused or PW30.
127. Further, the court below also came to the conclusion that it cannot be said that without the connivance of PW30 and PW31, these things could not have been done by the accused. The entries relating to Exts.P2 to P4 marked as Ext.P34(a) to (c) were in the handwriting of the accused himself and there is no involvement of any other person in preparing these vouchers and making entries in Ext.P34. The entries in page 44 of Ext.P34 includes the entries relating to Exts.P34 to P40 with voucher numbers 17472, 17473 and 17474 and they were entered as Exts.P34(e) to (g) in Ext.P34 and the evidence of PW30 will go to show that these entries were made by the accused himself and it was admitted by the accused in his 313 statement that entires in page 44 in Ext.P34 from voucher number 17471 up to the last in that page were written by the accused which will take in Exts.P38 to P40 vouchers as well.
128. Similarly, the accused had admitted in his 313 examination that Exts.P34 (h) to (j) in Ext.P34 relating to Exts.P41 to P43 with voucher numbers 17475 to 17477 were also written by him in Ext.P34. Similarly, the entry regarding the voucher number 17478 in page 44 of Ext.P34 as Ext.P34(k) and voucher number 17478 in Ext.P44 were in the handwriting of the accused. So the evidence of PW30 will go to show that entries relating to most of the disputed vouchers were entered by the accused himself in Exts.P34 and P35 subsidiary cash book registers showing that those amounts were paid.
129. Merely because handwriting was not sent for expert opinion alone is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that he had no role in this. It will be seen from the evidence that if Pws 30 and 31 had taken some care, then most of the disputed vouchers in which there was no endorsement at the place paid rupees and it was not signed by any one would not have been entered in the subsidiary cash book and voucher numbers would not have been allotted to those vouchers. Further, in one of the voucher it is seen that no candidate has signed the same as well. That was also entered in the subsidiary cash book and the amount was seen to have been disbursed and withdrawn. So all these things will go to show that without the connivance and assistance of PW30, those entries could not have been made by the accused and amounts could not have been withdrawn by him. The court below also found fault with the manner in which the investigation was conducted in this case regarding the lapse on the part of the officers who were responsible for making such entries in the subsidiary cash book. So it is clear from the evidence available on record that the disputed vouchers were prepared by the accused and he himself had entered the same in the subsidiary cash book and shown the same as disbursed to the persons mentioned therein. The village officers'' report and the returned postal covers sent in the addresses mentioned in the vouchers will go to show that there were no such persons in that address. It is true that the postman, who made such endorsement, was not examined and reports were obtained after nearly 5 years of the alleged transaction. But that alone is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that the prosecution could not prove the persons mentioned in the vouchers were fake persons. But on the other hand, the registration number and the roll number mentioned when compared with the concerned records will go to show that they did not relate to the persons mentioned in those vouchers. So under the circumstances, the prosecution could only prove by adducing attendant circumstances so as to prove that the persons mentioned in the vouchers were not the real persons and they are imaginary persons and the vouchers were fabricated for the purpose of misappropriating the amount by the accused and the amounts were withdrawn by him. Once it is proved by the prosecution that the accused was entrusted with the amounts for disbursal of the amount in a particular way and it is proved by the prosecution that the same was not properly done and certain vouchers relating to the persons were fake vouchers, then the burden is on the accused to prove that it was paid to the real persons by examining those persons. He had no explanation as to whether the persons mentioned in the vouchers were real persons or not. He had only stated that he countersigned the vouchers and the subsidiary cash book believing his subordinate officers. So under such circumstances, the court below was perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that the accused was responsible for the misappropriation of the amount covered by the vouchers and he was also responsible for creating fake vouchers for this purpose. Merely because the court had not convicted the accused for the offence under section 468 of the Indian Penal Code, that does not mean that he cannot be convicted for the offence under section 471 of the Indian Penal Code. If it is proved by the prosecution that he had used those fabricated documents with the knowledge or reason to believe that they are fake documents and made entries in the records showing disbursal of the amount, then he can be convicted for the offence under section 471 of the Indian Penal Code as has been held in the decisions reported in A.S. Krishnan, Bank of India and T. Retnadas cases (cited supra). So under the circumstances, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused as a public servant, who was entrusted with the amount for disbursement of wages payable to the beneficiaries under the Unemployment Assistance Scheme and he had misusing the official position with fraudulent intention used the fabricated vouchers as genuine vouchers, misappropriated the amount by making necessary entries in the registers and thereby he had committed the offences punishable under sections 13(1) (c) read with section 13(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and sections 471 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code and the court below was perfectly justified in convicting the appellant for the said offences in all these cases and I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of this Court on this aspect. The points are answered against the appellant and in favour of the prosecution.
130. Point No. vii:
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the sentence imposed is harsh. The court below sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in each case and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months each in all these cases for the offences under section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each for the offences under sections 471 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code and directed the substantive sentences in all these cases to run concurrently. Set off was also allowed for the period of detention already undergone.
131. It is settled law that person found to be guilty for committing the offence under the P.C. Act, has to be dealt with severely and showing undue leniency in sentencing such persons will only give a wrong signal to the society. In this case the amount payable to unemployed youths were misappropriated by the accused by making false or fabricated vouchers in the names of fake persons. So considering the circumstances, it cannot be said that the sentence imposed by the court below is excessive or harsh requiring interference at the hands of this court. So I do not find any reason to interfere with the sentence imposed by the court blow as well as the sentence considering the nature of offence committed appears to be just and proper. The point is answered accordingly.
132. In the result, all these appeals fail and the same are hereby dismissed. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the court below against the appellant in all these cases are hereby confirmed.
133. Office is directed to communicate a copy of this judgment to the concerned court at the earliest.
