N.K. ILLIYAS Vs STATE OF KERALA
Bench: HARJIT SINGH BEDI,GYAN SUDHA MISRA, , ,
Case number: Crl.A. No.-000725-000725 / 2006
Diary number: 5630 / 2006
Advocates: T. G. NARAYANAN NAIR Vs
K. R. SASIPRABHU
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.