Crl.A. 725/2006 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  725 of 2006

N.K. ILLIYAS ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF KERALA ..... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. The  appellant  stands  convicted  for  offfences  

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

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

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

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

Lower  Division  Clerk  in  the  Office  of  the  Deputy  

Superintendent of Police in the Vigilance Department, on  

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

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

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

interpolated  the  records  to  show  that  the  aforesaid  

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

February,  1992,  whereas  the  payment  had  actually  been  

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

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

Crl.A. 725/2006 2

Court  have,  accordingly,  convicted  the  appellant  under  

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

undergo  two  years  imprisonment  and  to  pay  a  fine  of  

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

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

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

Act, six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 471  

IPC and one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section  

409 IPC;  all the sentences to run concurrently.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties  

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

that  the  evidence  against  the  appellant  points  to  an  

offence of temporary embezzlement only  for a few days  

and no case whatsoever under the Prevention of Corruption  

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

of the appellants under the provisions of the Corruption  

Act is thus wholly unwarranted.

3. We are further of the opinion that the offences  

under  the  IPC  alleged  against  the  appellant  are  so  

trivial  and  have  caused  no  harm  and  are  in  fact  no  

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

95 of the Indian Penal Code is thus available to the  

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

Crl.A. 725/2006 3

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

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

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

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

February, 1992.

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

orders  of  the  courts  below  and  order  the  appellant's  

acquittal.  

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

........................J [GYAN SUDHA MISRA]

NEW DELHI JULY 12, 2011.