{"id":258495,"date":"2011-01-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-01-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-gangadharan-nair-vs-vigilance-and-anti-corruption-on-4-january-2011"},"modified":"2017-03-29T14:44:07","modified_gmt":"2017-03-29T09:14:07","slug":"k-gangadharan-nair-vs-vigilance-and-anti-corruption-on-4-january-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-gangadharan-nair-vs-vigilance-and-anti-corruption-on-4-january-2011","title":{"rendered":"K.Gangadharan Nair vs Vigilance And Anti-Corruption … on 4 January, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
K.Gangadharan Nair vs Vigilance And Anti-Corruption … on 4 January, 2011<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRL.A.No. 1 of 2002()\n\n\n1. K.GANGADHARAN NAIR,FORMER SPECIAL GRADE\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. STATE OF KERALA, REP; BY PUBLIC\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :04\/01\/2011\n\n O R D E R\n             M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.\n            --------------------------\n                Crl.A.No.1 of 2002\n            --------------------------\n\n                     JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
    Appellant was Special Grade Executive Officer<\/p>\n
of Parathode Grama Panchayat during 1993-94. He was<\/p>\n
convicted and sentenced for the offences under<\/p>\n
Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13<\/p>\n
(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act<\/a> and Sections<\/p>\n
409<\/a> and 477A<\/a> of Indian Penal Code. Prosecution case<\/p>\n
is  that  appellant  dishonestly  and  fraudulently<\/p>\n
misappropriated Rs.52,576\/-, which was received by<\/p>\n
him from Service Co-operative Bank, Koovappally as<\/p>\n
interest for the fixed deposits made by the Bank<\/p>\n
under Exhibits P4 to P15 vouchers by not accounting<\/p>\n
the same and he omitted to show receipt of the<\/p>\n
money  and  thereby   falsified  the  account   and<\/p>\n
committed  the  offences.  Appellant  pleaded   not<\/p>\n
guilty when charge for the offences under Sections<\/p>\n
13(1)(c)<\/a> and 13(1)(d)<\/a> read with Section 13(2)<\/a> of<\/p>\n
Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 409<\/a> and<\/p>\n
CRA 1\/02                 2<\/span><\/p>\n
477A of Indian Penal Code<\/a> were framed, read over<\/p>\n
and explained to him.\n<\/p>\n
     2.  Prosecution examined  ten  witnesses   and<\/p>\n
marked Exhibits P1 to P22.      After closing the<\/p>\n
prosecution  evidence,  appellant  was   questioned<\/p>\n
under Section 313<\/a> of Code of Criminal Procedure and<\/p>\n
was called upon to enter on his evidence and adduce<\/p>\n
evidence, if any. On the side of the appellant<\/p>\n
Exhibits D1 and D2 were marked. No oral evidence<\/p>\n
was adduced.\n<\/p>\n
     3. Learned Special Judge, on the evidence,<\/p>\n
convicted and sentenced the appellant to rigorous<\/p>\n
imprisonment   for  four  year   and  a   fine   of<\/p>\n
Rs.75,000\/- and in default, simple imprisonment for<\/p>\n
1= years for the offence under Section 13(1)(c)<\/a><\/p>\n
read with Section 13(2)<\/a> of Prevention of Corruption<\/p>\n
Act. Though appellant was convicted for the offence<\/p>\n
under Section 13(1)(d)<\/a> read with Section 13(2)<\/a> of<\/p>\n
Prevention of Corruption Act also, in view of the<\/p>\n
sentence awarded for the offence under Section 13<\/p>\n
CRA 1\/02                 3<\/span><\/p>\n
(1)(c), no separate sentence was awarded. He was<\/p>\n
convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment<\/p>\n
for four years and two years respectively for the<\/p>\n
offences under Sections 409<\/a> and 477A<\/a> of Indian<\/p>\n
Penal Code. The substantive sentences were directed<\/p>\n
to run concurrently. He was also granted set off as<\/p>\n
provided under Section 428<\/a> of Code of Criminal<\/p>\n
Procedure. This appeal is filed challenging the<\/p>\n
conviction and sentence.\n<\/p>\n
     4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant<\/p>\n
and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.<\/p>\n
     5. Argument of the learned counsel appearing<\/p>\n
for the appellant is that there is no conclusive<\/p>\n
evidence    to    prove    that    appellant    has<\/p>\n
misappropriated Rs.52,576\/- as found by the learned<\/p>\n
Special Judge. Learned counsel vehemently argued<\/p>\n
that appellant has accounted receipt of the amounts<\/p>\n
covered  by   Exhibits  P4  to  P15   vouchers  and<\/p>\n
prosecution did not produce the material documents<\/p>\n
establishing  the  payment  and  on  the  available<\/p>\n
CRA 1\/02                  4<\/span><\/p>\n
evidence,    the  conviction  is  not  sustainable.<\/p>\n
Learned counsel pointed out that Exhibit P17, the<\/p>\n
statement obtained from Koovappally Service Co-<\/p>\n
operative Bank, which shows receipt of the amounts<\/p>\n
covered by Exhibits P4 to P15 vouchers, establish<\/p>\n
that    Rs.52,576\/- was  adjusted  and  prosecution<\/p>\n
failed to produce material records, namely, the day<\/p>\n
book maintained by the Panchayat for 31.1.1994 and<\/p>\n
1.2.1994 and also the Fixed Deposit Certificates<\/p>\n
and argued that the conviction is not sustainable.<\/p>\n
It is also argued that when Exhibit P1 order<\/p>\n
granting sanction to prosecute does not provide for<\/p>\n
prosecuting appellant for the offence under Section<\/p>\n
477A<\/a>    of Indian  Penal  Code, conviction  of  the<\/p>\n
appellant for the said offence is bad for want of<\/p>\n
sanction.   Learned  counsel  also  submitted  that<\/p>\n
learned Special Judge did not afford sufficient<\/p>\n
opportunity to the appellant to adduce evidence and<\/p>\n
even though a petition was filed to produce the<\/p>\n
cash book for January 1994, it was not produced and<\/p>\n
CRA 1\/02                 5<\/span><\/p>\n
in such circumstances, it was submitted that an<\/p>\n
opportunity is to be granted to the appellant to<\/p>\n
call for the necessary records and examine the<\/p>\n
relevant witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
     6. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that<\/p>\n
learned Special Judge appreciated the evidence in<\/p>\n
the proper perspective and there is no reason to<\/p>\n
interfere with the conviction and sentence. It was<\/p>\n
pointed  out  that Exhibits  P4  to  P15  vouchers<\/p>\n
establish that Rs.52,576\/- was received by the<\/p>\n
appellant  from  Koovappally Service  Co-operative<\/p>\n
Bank, being the interest payable for the fixed<\/p>\n
deposits and appellant did not account for receipt<\/p>\n
of the interest and thereby, misappropriated the<\/p>\n
amount. It was argued that by omitting to show<\/p>\n
receipt of the amounts, covered by Exhibits P4 to<\/p>\n
P15 vouchers, appellant falsified the account and<\/p>\n
in such circumstances, the conviction is perfectly<\/p>\n
legal.\n<\/p>\n
CRA 1\/02                  6<\/span><\/p>\n
     7. Following points arise for consideration:<\/p>\n
     i. Whether appellant received Rs.52,576\/- on<\/p>\n
31.1.1994   from  Koovappally  Service  Co-operative<\/p>\n
Bank under Exhibits P4 to P15 vouchers?<\/p>\n
     ii. Whether appellant accounted receipt of the<\/p>\n
said amount in the account of Parathode Grama<\/p>\n
Panchayat?\n<\/p>\n
     iii.    Whether    appellant    misappropriated<\/p>\n
Rs.52,576\/-   received under   Exhibits  P4  to  P15<\/p>\n
vouchers?\n<\/p>\n
     iv. Whether conviction of the appellant for the<\/p>\n
offences under Sections 13(1)(c)<\/a> and 13(1)(d)<\/a> read<\/p>\n
with Section 13(2)<\/a> of Prevention of Corruption Act<\/p>\n
and Sections 409<\/a> and 477A<\/a> of Indian Penal Code is<\/p>\n
sustainable?\n<\/p>\n
Points:\n<\/p>\n
     8. The fact that appellant was the Special<\/p>\n
Grade    Executive  Officer   of   Parathode   Grama<\/p>\n
Panchayat during December 1993 and January 1994 is<\/p>\n
not   disputed.  The  fact  that  Rs.6,75,000\/-  was<\/p>\n
CRA 1\/02                  7<\/span><\/p>\n
deposited by the Grama Panchayat in Koovappally<\/p>\n
Service Co-operative Bank under Certificate Nos.<\/p>\n
1836, 1853, 1908, 1919, 1925, 2096, 2097, 4193,<\/p>\n
4194,   4207,  4210,  4232,  2381,  2407  and  3644<\/p>\n
respectively   on  2.5.1988,  12.5.1988,  15.7.1988,<\/p>\n
1.8.1988,     19.8.1988,    12.7.1989,    12.7.1989,<\/p>\n
16.4.1990,     16.4.1990,   18.4.1990,    19.4.1990,<\/p>\n
30.4.1990, 11.10.1991, 14.10.1991 and 30.12.1992 is<\/p>\n
also not disputed. Grama Panchayat is entitled to<\/p>\n
get    interest  for   the  amount   so   deposited.<\/p>\n
Prosecution    case  is   that   towards   interest,<\/p>\n
appellant    received  Rs.52,576\/-,   evidenced   by<\/p>\n
Exhibits P4 to P15 vouchers. Exhibits P4 to P15 are<\/p>\n
respectively      for    Rs.2,125\/-,     Rs.5,500\/-,<\/p>\n
Rs.4,250\/-,   Rs.3,300\/-,  Rs.4,400\/-,   Rs.1,651\/-,<\/p>\n
Rs.5,500\/-,   Rs.4,950\/-,  Rs.4,400\/-,   Rs.5,500\/-,<\/p>\n
Rs.5,500\/-   and  Rs.5,500\/-. Those   vouchers were<\/p>\n
issued by the appellant for receipt of the interest<\/p>\n
due under Certificate Nos. 2096, 1925, 2097, 4210,<\/p>\n
4232, 3644, 1919, 4194, 4207, 1908, 1836 and 1853<\/p>\n
CRA 1\/02                 8<\/span><\/p>\n
respectively. The fact that Exhibits P4 to P15<\/p>\n
vouchers contain the endorsement of the appellant<\/p>\n
for receipt of the amounts from the Bank is also<\/p>\n
not disputed at the time of evidence. Prosecution<\/p>\n
case is that appellant did not account for the<\/p>\n
receipt of Rs.52,576\/-, evidenced by Exhibits P4 to<\/p>\n
P15.\n<\/p>\n
     9.    Evidence  of  PW2,  the  then  Panchayat<\/p>\n
Inspector   attached  to  Deputy  Director  Office,<\/p>\n
Kottayam   Panchayat,  establishes  that   he   had<\/p>\n
verified the records of Parathode Grama Panchayat<\/p>\n
and submitted Exhibit P2 report. He had examined<\/p>\n
the entire records maintained by the Panchayat and<\/p>\n
found   that receipt  of  the  amounts  covered  by<\/p>\n
Exhibits P4 to P15 vouchers were not entered in any<\/p>\n
of the records of the Panchayat. That evidence of<\/p>\n
PW2    was not   challenged  in  cross-examination.<\/p>\n
Exhibit P3 is the Receipt Register of Prathode<\/p>\n
Grama   Panchayat  for  the  period  15.4.1993   to<\/p>\n
26.7.1994. The relevant entries in Exhibit P3 on<\/p>\n
CRA 1\/02                  9<\/span><\/p>\n
31.1.1994 or 1.2.1994 do not show receipt of the<\/p>\n
amounts covered by Exhibits P4 to P15 vouchers.<\/p>\n
     10. Evidence of PW3, Secretary of Koovappally<\/p>\n
Service Co-operative Bank, who proved Exhibit P17,<\/p>\n
the   Cash  Scroll  Extract and  Exhibit  P16,  the<\/p>\n
details of the fixed deposits, with Exhibits P4 to<\/p>\n
P15, establish that amounts covered by Exhibits P4<\/p>\n
to P15 were received by the appellant from the<\/p>\n
Bank.\n<\/p>\n
     11. Evidence of PW4, the then Secretary of<\/p>\n
Koovappally Service Co-operative Bank, also prove<\/p>\n
that amounts covered by Exhibits P4 to P15 vouchers<\/p>\n
were received by the appellant himself. Evidence of<\/p>\n
PW6, the Cashier of the Bank, also establishes that<\/p>\n
fact.   Evidence  of  PW8, the  then  Secretary  of<\/p>\n
Parathode Grama Panchayat, also prove that amounts<\/p>\n
were    received by   the  appellant.  Even  though<\/p>\n
appellant had raised a contention that he has<\/p>\n
accounted the amounts received and stated so when<\/p>\n
questioned under Section 313 of Code of Criminal<\/p>\n
CRA 1\/02                 10<\/span><\/p>\n
Procedure, he has no specific case as to how the<\/p>\n
amounts received under Exhibits P4 to P15 vouchers<\/p>\n
were accounted.\n<\/p>\n
     12.   Learned  counsel   appearing   for   the<\/p>\n
appellant, relying on Exhibits D1 and D2 and Rule<\/p>\n
29 of Kerala Panchayats (Accounts) Rules, 1965,<\/p>\n
argued that as provided under Rule 29, receipt of<\/p>\n
money should be entered in the register of receipts<\/p>\n
and thereafter in the cash book and in spite of the<\/p>\n
contention of the appellant that he has accounted<\/p>\n
for    the amounts, the   relevant cash  book   for<\/p>\n
31.1.1994 was not produced. Argument is that if it<\/p>\n
was produced, it would have shown that amounts<\/p>\n
covered by Exhibits P4 to P15 were accounted.<\/p>\n
Learned   counsel  argued  that  as  the   relevant<\/p>\n
document was suppressed, an adverse inference has<\/p>\n
to be drawn and it is to be found that appellant<\/p>\n
has not misappropriated the amount and had properly<\/p>\n
accounted for the same.\n<\/p>\n
CRA 1\/02                          11<\/span><\/p>\n
     13. Rule 29 of Kerala Panchayats (Accounts)<\/p>\n
Rules, 1965, which was the Rule governing the field<\/p>\n
during the relevant period, provides how moneys<\/p>\n
received is to be dealt with. Rule 29 reads:<\/p>\n
         “29. All moneys received to be entered in Register
\n         of Receipts:- (1) All money received by the
\n         Executive Authority or under his authority by an
\n         officer or servant of the Panchayat (including a
\n         Government servant whose services have been
\n         placed at the disposal of the Panchayat) in his
\n         capacity as such, shall be brought into account as
\n         soon as they are received by entering in the
\n         Register of Receipts in Form No.XXVII.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         (2) Money received through postal money orders
\n         shall be first entered in the Register of Money
\n         Orders in Form No.XXVIII. All money so received
\n         shall be paid into the Panchayat office daily.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Under the said Rule, all moneys received by the<\/p>\n
Executive Authority or under his authority by any<\/p>\n
officer   shall      be    brought     into      the    account by<\/p>\n
entering in the Register of Receipts in Form No.<\/p>\n
XXVII. Rule 30 provides that no money received on<\/p>\n
behalf of the Panchayat shall be utilised for its<\/p>\n
expenditure, without it being brought into account<\/p>\n
CRA 1\/02                 12<\/span><\/p>\n
and paid or remitted into the Treasury or Post<\/p>\n
Office Savings Bank where the Panchayat fund is<\/p>\n
lodged.\n<\/p>\n
     14. If the case of the appellant is correct and<\/p>\n
he had accounted for the receipt of the amounts<\/p>\n
covered by Exhibits P4 to P15, immediately on<\/p>\n
receipt of the amounts, he should have entered<\/p>\n
receipt of the amounts covered by Exhibits P4 to<\/p>\n
P15    vouchers in  the  Register  of  Receipts  as<\/p>\n
provided    under Rule  29   of  Kerala   Panchayats<\/p>\n
(Accounts) Rules. As provided under Rule 30, he<\/p>\n
should have thereafter remitted the amount into the<\/p>\n
Treasury after showing it in the cash book. Exhibit<\/p>\n
P3 is the Register of Receipts in Form No.XXVII<\/p>\n
maintained by the Panchayat as provided under the<\/p>\n
Accounts Rules. Exhibit P3 receipt does not show<\/p>\n
that amounts covered by Exhibits P4 to P15 were<\/p>\n
accounted.    Argument  of   the   learned   counsel<\/p>\n
appearing for the appellant is that Exhibit P3<\/p>\n
register is not properly maintained and the entries<\/p>\n
CRA 1\/02                 13<\/span><\/p>\n
for the months ending on 31.12.1993 and 31.1.1994<\/p>\n
and   subsequent months   were  not signed  by  the<\/p>\n
Special Grade Executive Officer. It is seen from<\/p>\n
Exhibit P3 that even though seal of the appellant<\/p>\n
was affixed on the relevant page where receipts for<\/p>\n
the month of December 1993 is    entered, it is not<\/p>\n
seen signed by the appellant. So also, for the<\/p>\n
subsequent months, the details are entered into,<\/p>\n
but they are not seen signed. The person to sign<\/p>\n
the register is none other than the appellant.<\/p>\n
Being   the  executive  authority, it  is  for  the<\/p>\n
appellant to maintain the records and registers<\/p>\n
properly.   If  appellant  is  not maintaining  the<\/p>\n
register properly, he cannot rely on the non-<\/p>\n
maintenance of the records as a ground to canvass<\/p>\n
the contention that amounts received were accounted<\/p>\n
for. As provided under Rule 29 of Kerala Panchayats<\/p>\n
(Accounts) Rules, immediately on receipt of the<\/p>\n
amounts, appellant should have entered the receipts<\/p>\n
in Exhibit P3 register. When Exhibit P3 register<\/p>\n
CRA 1\/02                14<\/span><\/p>\n
shows   that receipt  of  Rs.52,576\/-,  covered  by<\/p>\n
Exhibits P4 to P15 vouchers, were not accounted,<\/p>\n
appellant cannot be heard to contend that he had<\/p>\n
accounted the amounts.\n<\/p>\n
     15. Though learned counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
appellant argued that because of the non-production<\/p>\n
of the cash book for 31.1.1994 and 1.2.1994, it<\/p>\n
cannot be said that amounts received were not<\/p>\n
entered in the cash book and therefore, prosecution<\/p>\n
case is to be disbelieved, on the evidence, I<\/p>\n
cannot accept the case. First of all, evidence of<\/p>\n
PW2 stands unchallenged. Evidence of PW2 is that he<\/p>\n
had verified the entire records maintained by the<\/p>\n
Panchayat and found that receipt of the amounts<\/p>\n
covered by Exhibits P4 to P15 was not entered in<\/p>\n
any    of  the registers.   Though  PW2   did   not<\/p>\n
specifically depose that it is not entered in the<\/p>\n
cash book, his evidence is that in none of the<\/p>\n
registers maintained by the Panchayat, receipt of<\/p>\n
the amounts covered by Exhibits P4 to P15 vouchers<\/p>\n
CRA 1\/02                 15<\/span><\/p>\n
were entered into. This evidence of PW2 was not<\/p>\n
challenged. Appellant has no case, when PW2 was<\/p>\n
cross-examined, either that PW2 did not verify the<\/p>\n
cash book or that the cash book contained the<\/p>\n
entries for receipt of the amounts covered by<\/p>\n
Exhibits   P4  to  P15.  Even  when  appellant  was<\/p>\n
questioned under Section 313<\/a> of Code of Criminal<\/p>\n
Procedure, he has no case that receipt of the<\/p>\n
amounts covered by Exhibits P4 to P15 vouchers was<\/p>\n
entered in the cash book. Therefore, I cannot<\/p>\n
accept   the  submission  of  the  learned  counsel<\/p>\n
appearing for the appellant that for non-production<\/p>\n
of the cash book, it is to be found that amounts<\/p>\n
covered   by  Exhibits  P4  to  P15  vouchers  were<\/p>\n
accounted. If the amounts covered by Exhibits P4 to<\/p>\n
P15    vouchers were  accounted,  necessarily,   as<\/p>\n
provided   under  Rule  30  of   Kerala  Panchayats<\/p>\n
(Accounts)   Rules, the  amount  should  have  been<\/p>\n
remitted to the Treasury. Appellant has no case<\/p>\n
that the amount was remitted to the Treasury. If<\/p>\n
CRA 1\/02                 16<\/span><\/p>\n
there was remittance, he could have produced the<\/p>\n
relevant records or could have taken steps to<\/p>\n
produce the records from the Treasury.<\/p>\n
     16. Argument of the learned counsel appearing<\/p>\n
for the appellant is that appellant had filed a<\/p>\n
petition at the defence evidence stage for issuing<\/p>\n
summons to the Grama Panchayat to produce various<\/p>\n
documents, including the cash book and still the<\/p>\n
cash book was not produced. It is, therefore,<\/p>\n
argued that an opportunity should be granted to<\/p>\n
cause production of the cash book and establish<\/p>\n
that amounts were accounted for. I find from the<\/p>\n
records that after closing the prosecution evidence<\/p>\n
and questioning the appellant under Section 313<\/a> of<\/p>\n
Code of Criminal Procedure, appellant was called<\/p>\n
upon to adduce defence evidence. It is thereafter<\/p>\n
appellant  filed  Crl.M.P.No.588\/2001, praying   to<\/p>\n
issue summons to the Secretary, Parathode Grama<\/p>\n
Panchayat, to produce the Register of Receipts and<\/p>\n
payments, for the year 1994-95, the cash book of<\/p>\n
CRA 1\/02                 17<\/span><\/p>\n
the Panchayat for the year 1994-95, the Local fund<\/p>\n
Audit Report for the year 1994-95 and the Annual<\/p>\n
Finance Statement for the year 1994-95. Paragraph<\/p>\n
16 of the judgment of the learned Special Judge<\/p>\n
shows that Parathode Grama Panchayat had produced<\/p>\n
the records. It shows that Register of Receipts<\/p>\n
was for the period 27.7.1994 to 9.6.1995 and from<\/p>\n
1.2.1994 to 31.3.1995. Cash Book produced was for<\/p>\n
the period 1.3.1994 to 29.2.1996. It was submitted<\/p>\n
before   the  learned Special  Judge  that  Receipt<\/p>\n
Register for the period 15.4.1994 to 16.7.1994 was<\/p>\n
seized by the Vigilance during investigation and no<\/p>\n
audit was conducted during the year 1994-95 by the<\/p>\n
Local Fund Audit and as such, the finance statement<\/p>\n
was not available. Learned Special Judge recorded<\/p>\n
that the documents so recorded were returned as the<\/p>\n
accused did not want to rely on them. Argument of<\/p>\n
the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is<\/p>\n
that    relevant document  is the  cash  book   for<\/p>\n
31.1.1994 and 1.2.1994 and as it is not produced,<\/p>\n
CRA 1\/02                18<\/span><\/p>\n
opportunity was denied. Crl.M.P.No.588\/2001 does<\/p>\n
not show that appellant sought summons to be issued<\/p>\n
for production of the cash book for 31.1.1994 or<\/p>\n
1.2.1994. Instead, the prayer was to produce the<\/p>\n
cash book for the year 1994-95. 1994-95 would<\/p>\n
ordinarily mean the financial year 1.3.1994 to<\/p>\n
28.2.1995. It was produced by the Panchayat, as<\/p>\n
seen from the records. If appellant wanted the cash<\/p>\n
book of 31.1.1994, the prayer should have been for<\/p>\n
the    specific cash  book.  I   find  that   after<\/p>\n
production of the records as prayed for in Crl.M.P.<\/p>\n
No.588\/2001, appellant filed Crl.M.P.No.734\/2001 on<\/p>\n
3.12.2001. On a perusal of Crl.M.P.No.734\/2001, it<\/p>\n
is seen that it was filed after perusing the<\/p>\n
records produced by the Panchayat as directed in<\/p>\n
Crl.M.P.No.588\/2001  and  finding  that  additional<\/p>\n
document sought for in the petition was necessary.<\/p>\n
If appellant wanted the cash book of 31.1.1994 and<\/p>\n
it was not produced pursuant to the summons issued<\/p>\n
in Crl.M.P.No.588\/2001, he should have sought for<\/p>\n
CRA 1\/02                19<\/span><\/p>\n
its production in Crl.M.P.No.734\/2001. He did not<\/p>\n
do so. I find that appellant thereafter filed<\/p>\n
Crl.M.P.No.752\/2001   for   examination   of    two<\/p>\n
witnesses,  the  Director  of  Panchayats  and  one<\/p>\n
Sulaiman Haji, subsequently, when the case was<\/p>\n
posted for arguments after closing the evidence,<\/p>\n
filing Crl.M.P.No.751\/2001, seeking to exercise the<\/p>\n
power   under Section  311<\/a>  of  Code  of   Criminal<\/p>\n
Procedure.  The  prayer  was  to  examine  the  two<\/p>\n
witnesses  to  prove  the  two  documents  produced<\/p>\n
therein.   Learned  counsel   appearing   for   the<\/p>\n
appellant argued that learned Special Judge did not<\/p>\n
permit the appellant to examine those witnesses.<\/p>\n
Crl.M.P.No.751\/2001  shows  that  learned   Special<\/p>\n
Judge did not permit examination of those witnesses<\/p>\n
for the reason that prayer for their examination<\/p>\n
was to mark Exhibits D1 and D2, which were marked<\/p>\n
by     the  learned   Special   Judge.   In    such<\/p>\n
circumstances, I do not find that appellant was not<\/p>\n
granted opportunity to adduce evidence, including<\/p>\n
CRA 1\/02                 20<\/span><\/p>\n
production   of   the  records,   especially   when<\/p>\n
appellant has no specific case, even when he was<\/p>\n
questioned under Section 313<\/a> of Code of Criminal<\/p>\n
Procedure, that receipt of the amounts covered by<\/p>\n
Exhibits P4 to P15 was entered in the cash book. I<\/p>\n
find no reason to remand the case as sought for by<\/p>\n
the learned counsel appearing for the appellant to<\/p>\n
adduce evidence. As found by the learned Special<\/p>\n
Judge,   while  dismissing   the  application   for<\/p>\n
adjournment, more than 1= months was granted to the<\/p>\n
appellant to adduce evidence and he did not adduce<\/p>\n
any evidence. In such circumstances, I find no<\/p>\n
justification for a remand.\n<\/p>\n
     17. Evidence would conclusively establish that<\/p>\n
appellant  received  Rs.52,576\/-  from  Koovappally<\/p>\n
Service Co-operative Bank, evidenced by Exhibits P4<\/p>\n
to   P15 vouchers.  Evidence  also  establish  that<\/p>\n
appellant did not account the said amount in any of<\/p>\n
the registers or records of the Grama Panchayat. In<\/p>\n
such circumstances, finding of the learned Special<\/p>\n
CRA 1\/02                 21<\/span><\/p>\n
Judge that appellant misappropriated Rs.52,576\/-,<\/p>\n
received under Exhibits P4 to P15 vouchers, is<\/p>\n
perfectly legal and correct.\n<\/p>\n
     18. Evidence establish that appellant, in his<\/p>\n
capacity as Special Grade Executive Officer of<\/p>\n
Parathode Grama Panchayat, received Rs.52,576\/- and<\/p>\n
dishonestly omitted to show the amount in the<\/p>\n
Receipt Register of the Panchayat or in any other<\/p>\n
records  and  thereby  falsified  the  account.  He<\/p>\n
dishonestly misappropriated Rs.52,576\/- and thereby<\/p>\n
committed  criminal  breach   of  trust.   In  such<\/p>\n
circumstances, on the evidence, conviction of the<\/p>\n
appellant for the offences under Sections 13(1)(c)<\/a><\/p>\n
and 13(1)(d)<\/a> read with Section 13(2)<\/a> of Prevention<\/p>\n
of Corruption Act is perfectly legal and correct.<\/p>\n
     19. Though learned counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
appellant argued that under Exhibit P1 no sanction<\/p>\n
was granted to prosecute the appellant for the<\/p>\n
offence under Section 477A<\/a> of Indian Penal Code and<\/p>\n
therefore, conviction of the appellant for the said<\/p>\n
CRA 1\/02                22<\/span><\/p>\n
offence is illegal, Exhibit P1 order of sanction<\/p>\n
establishes that sanction was granted not only to<\/p>\n
prosecute the appellant for the offences under<\/p>\n
Sections 13(1)(c)<\/a> and 13(1)(d)<\/a> read with Section 13<\/a><\/p>\n
(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act<\/a> and Section 409<\/a><\/p>\n
of Indian Penal Code, but also under any other<\/p>\n
sections or provisions of law, which implies that<\/p>\n
there is sanction for prosecuting the appellant for<\/p>\n
the offence under Section 477A<\/a> of Indian Penal Code<\/p>\n
also. As the evidence conclusively establish that<\/p>\n
appellant   falsified   the   account   and    also<\/p>\n
misappropriated Rs.52,576\/-, which was under his<\/p>\n
domine as entrusted to him and he has committed<\/p>\n
criminal  breach  of   trust,  conviction  of   the<\/p>\n
appellant for the offences under Sections 409<\/a> and<\/p>\n
477A<\/a> of Indian Penal Code is also perfectly legal<\/p>\n
and correct.\n<\/p>\n
     20. Then the only question is regarding the<\/p>\n
sentence.   Learned   Special   Judge   awarded   a<\/p>\n
substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for<\/p>\n
CRA 1\/02                 23<\/span><\/p>\n
four years for the offences under Section 13(1)(c)<\/a><\/p>\n
read with Section 13(2)<\/a> of Prevention of Corruption<\/p>\n
Act and Section 409<\/a> of Indian Penal Code. In<\/p>\n
addition,   fine of  Rs.75,000\/-  and  in  default,<\/p>\n
simple imprisonment for 1= years was awarded for<\/p>\n
the    offence under  Section 13(1)(c)<\/a>  read   with<\/p>\n
Section 13(2)<\/a> of Prevention of Corruption Act. He<\/p>\n
was also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two<\/p>\n
years for the offence under Section 477A<\/a> of Indian<\/p>\n
Penal Code. Learned Special Judge directed that<\/p>\n
substantive   sentences  shall  run   concurrently.<\/p>\n
Appellant had retired from service subsequently.<\/p>\n
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of<\/p>\n
the case, interest of justice will be met if the<\/p>\n
substantive sentence for the offences under Section<\/p>\n
13(1)(c)<\/a> read with Section 13(2)<\/a> of Prevention of<\/p>\n
Corruption Act and Section 409<\/a> of Indian Penal Code<\/p>\n
is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for two years,<\/p>\n
maintaining the substantive sentence of two years<\/p>\n
for the offence under Section 477A of Indian Penal<\/p>\n
CRA 1\/02                 24<\/span><\/p>\n
Code. I find no reason to interfere with the fine<\/p>\n
of   Rs.75,000\/-  awarded  for  the  offence   under<\/p>\n
Section   13(1)(c)<\/a>  read  with   Section  13(2)<\/a>   of<\/p>\n
Prevention of Corruption Act in addition to the<\/p>\n
substantive sentence. But, the default sentence is<\/p>\n
modified to simple imprisonment for six months.<\/p>\n
     Appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of the<\/p>\n
appellant for the offences under Sections 13(1)(c)<\/a><\/p>\n
and 13(1)(d)<\/a> read with Section 13(2)<\/a> of Prevention<\/p>\n
of Corruption Act and Sections 409<\/a> and 477A<\/a> of<\/p>\n
Indian Penal Code is confirmed. The sentence is<\/p>\n
modified as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     Appellant is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment<\/p>\n
for two years and a fine of Rs.75,000\/- for the<\/p>\n
offence under Section 13(1)(c)<\/a> read with Section 13<\/a><\/p>\n
(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act<\/a> and rigorous<\/p>\n
imprisonment for two years each for the offences<\/p>\n
under Sections 409<\/a> and 477A<\/a> of Indian Penal Code.<\/p>\n
As learned Special Judge has not awarded separate<\/p>\n
sentence for the offence under Section 13(1)(d)<\/p>\n
CRA 1\/02                25<\/span><\/p>\n
read with Section 13(2)<\/a> of Prevention of Corruption<\/p>\n
Act, no separate sentence is awarded for the said<\/p>\n
offence.    Substantive   sentences    shall    run<\/p>\n
concurrently. Appellant is entitled to get set off<\/p>\n
under Section 428<\/a> of Code of Criminal Procedure as<\/p>\n
provided by the learned Special Judge Special Judge<\/p>\n
(Vigilance), Thrissur is directed to execute the<\/p>\n
sentence.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n4th January, 2011     (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge)\ntkv\n\nCRA 1\/02    26\n\n\n\n\n             M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.\n\n            --------------------------\n\n               Crl.A.No.1 of 2002\n\n            --------------------------\n\n                    JUDGMENT\n\n\n\n                  4th January, 2011\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court K.Gangadharan Nair vs Vigilance And Anti-Corruption … on 4 January, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRL.A.No. 1 of 2002() 1. K.GANGADHARAN NAIR,FORMER SPECIAL GRADE … Petitioner Vs 1. VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, … Respondent 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP; BY PUBLIC For Petitioner :SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN For Respondent : No […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-258495","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK.Gangadharan Nair vs Vigilance And Anti-Corruption ... on 4 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-gangadharan-nair-vs-vigilance-and-anti-corruption-on-4-january-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.Gangadharan Nair vs Vigilance And Anti-Corruption ... on 4 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-gangadharan-nair-vs-vigilance-and-anti-corruption-on-4-january-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-01-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-29T09:14:07+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-gangadharan-nair-vs-vigilance-and-anti-corruption-on-4-january-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-gangadharan-nair-vs-vigilance-and-anti-corruption-on-4-january-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.Gangadharan Nair vs Vigilance And Anti-Corruption … on 4 January, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-29T09:14:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-gangadharan-nair-vs-vigilance-and-anti-corruption-on-4-january-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3640,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-gangadharan-nair-vs-vigilance-and-anti-corruption-on-4-january-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-gangadharan-nair-vs-vigilance-and-anti-corruption-on-4-january-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-gangadharan-nair-vs-vigilance-and-anti-corruption-on-4-january-2011\",\"name\":\"K.Gangadharan Nair vs Vigilance And Anti-Corruption ... on 4 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-29T09:14:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-gangadharan-nair-vs-vigilance-and-anti-corruption-on-4-january-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-gangadharan-nair-vs-vigilance-and-anti-corruption-on-4-january-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-gangadharan-nair-vs-vigilance-and-anti-corruption-on-4-january-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.Gangadharan Nair vs Vigilance And Anti-Corruption … on 4 January, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"K.Gangadharan Nair vs Vigilance And Anti-Corruption ... on 4 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-gangadharan-nair-vs-vigilance-and-anti-corruption-on-4-january-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.Gangadharan Nair vs Vigilance And Anti-Corruption ... on 4 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-gangadharan-nair-vs-vigilance-and-anti-corruption-on-4-january-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-01-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-29T09:14:07+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-gangadharan-nair-vs-vigilance-and-anti-corruption-on-4-january-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-gangadharan-nair-vs-vigilance-and-anti-corruption-on-4-january-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.Gangadharan Nair vs Vigilance And Anti-Corruption … on 4 January, 2011","datePublished":"2011-01-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-29T09:14:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-gangadharan-nair-vs-vigilance-and-anti-corruption-on-4-january-2011"},"wordCount":3640,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-gangadharan-nair-vs-vigilance-and-anti-corruption-on-4-january-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-gangadharan-nair-vs-vigilance-and-anti-corruption-on-4-january-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-gangadharan-nair-vs-vigilance-and-anti-corruption-on-4-january-2011","name":"K.Gangadharan Nair vs Vigilance And Anti-Corruption ... on 4 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-01-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-29T09:14:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-gangadharan-nair-vs-vigilance-and-anti-corruption-on-4-january-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-gangadharan-nair-vs-vigilance-and-anti-corruption-on-4-january-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-gangadharan-nair-vs-vigilance-and-anti-corruption-on-4-january-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.Gangadharan Nair vs Vigilance And Anti-Corruption … on 4 January, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/258495","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=258495"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/258495\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=258495"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=258495"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=258495"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}