Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Kerala, Single Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen on Monday upheld the conviction of a former Sub Postmaster for misappropriating over ₹2.7 lakh from the Pulpally Sub Post Office between 2002 and 2003, holding her guilty of criminal breach of trust, falsification of accounts, and corruption under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court observed that the sanction for prosecution was properly granted and that the accused had voluntarily issued handwritten confessions, never alleging coercion. While confirming her guilt, the Bench modified the sentence by reducing imprisonment and enhancing fines, directing compensation to the Postal Department.

The criminal appeal arose from a prosecution initiated against a Sub Postmaster of the Pulpally Sub Post Office, accused of misappropriating postal funds between June 2002 and March 2003. The Inspector of Police, CBI/SPE, Cochin filed the charge sheet, alleging commission of offences under Sections 409 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The allegation was that the accused, while serving as Sub Postmaster, misappropriated ₹2,73,318.65 entrusted in her official capacity by abusing her position.

Also Read: Supreme Court Orders Uniform Registration of Sikh Marriages | States and UTs Directed to Frame Rules Under Section 6 of the Anand Marriage Act Within Four Months

At the trial, the prosecution examined 20 witnesses (PW1–PW20) and produced 73 exhibits. Key witnesses included the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, who conducted a surprise inspection on 26 March 2003 and discovered the cash shortage, and the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, who confirmed the accused’s written confession. The prosecution also produced the bank account records of the Pulpally Sub Post Office maintained with Canara Bank, showing deposits and withdrawals operated by the accused. Two handwritten confessional statements by the accused, dated 26 March 2003 and 27 March 2003, were produced as exhibits.

The defence did not adduce evidence. The accused argued that the shortage arose while the funds were in joint custody with another postal staff member, a Money Order Clerk, who had equal responsibility. It was contended that liability could not be exclusively fastened on her. The defence further submitted that the confessional statements had been obtained through inducement, threat, or promise and thus were inadmissible under Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act.

The Special Court, after trial, found the accused guilty of the offences charged and sentenced her to three years’ simple imprisonment under Section 409 IPC and two years under Section 477A IPC, with fines imposed. No separate sentence was awarded under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused appealed, challenging both the conviction and the sentence.

The Court recorded that the prosecution alleged misappropriation by the Sub Postmaster and relied on records and confession statements. It observed: “the shortage as noted by PW1 and verified by PW2 to the tune of Rs.2,73,318/- was not deposited before the bank as deposed by the General Manager with reference to their account.”

On the role of the joint custodian, the Court stated: “the role of PW13, being the joint custodian, found in the negative by the investigating officer. While addressing the role of PW13 on the premise of his joint custodianship, the evidence would suggest that he used to put the key in the drawer of his table and leave the office at 6 p.m even though calculation and placement of the stamp and money in the iron safe would be done in between 9-9.30 and 10 p.m. He, in fact, did not carefully done his duty as joint custodian, for which disciplinary action was taken. Thus, in fact, as evident from the records, it was the 1st accused, who dealt with the money and, therefore, the responsibility can be found independently without support of Exts.P2 and P16 confession statements against her.”

The Court also addressed the admissibility of the confessional statements. It recorded: “the evidence would not support the said contention as the first confession was made on the date of inspection in her handwriting soon after the shortage was found without any compulsion and as volunteered by the 1st accused and on the next day she had given Ext.P16 confession in her handwriting acknowledging the liability on stating that the amount in shortage was taken by her for her personal purpose.”

On the absence of any complaint against alleged coercion, the Court noted: “It is relevant to note that if any inducement, compulsion, threat, behind Exts.P2 and P16, definitely the accused would have made complaint to the superior officials regarding obtainment of Exts.P2 and P16 in that way. No such course of action opted by the accused till the date of trial.”

Summing up, the Court held: “on re-appreciation of evidence, this Court could not found that the Special Court went wrong in finding that the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 409 and 477 of IPC as well as under Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the PC Act, since the ingredients to find commission of the above offences by the accused beyond reasonable doubts. Therefore, the conviction is only to be confirmed.”

It stated: “for the offence punishable under Section 409 of IPC, the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 18 months and to pay fine of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty thousand only). In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo default imprisonment for a period of four weeks.”

“For the offence punishable under Section 477(A) of IPC, the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 18 months and to pay fine of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty thousand only). In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo default imprisonment for a period of 4 weeks.”

“No separate sentence is awarded for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(c) or Section 13(1)(d) P.C.Act. The substantive sentences shall run concurrently; whereas the default sentence shall run separately.”

Also Read: Kerala High Court | Strangers Not Entitled to Certified Copies of Complaint Records | Access Restricted to Investigation Report Under Section 212(13) Companies Act, Courts May Seek Objections Under Rule 226

“if the fine amount is paid or released, Rs.2,75,000/- (Rupees Two lakh seventy five thousand only) shall be paid to the additional 2nd respondent as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C.”

“The order suspending sentence and granting bail to the accused stands cancelled and the bail bond also stands cancelled. The accused is directed to surrender before the Special Court to undergo the sentence forthwith, failing which the Special Court shall execute the sentence forthwith.”

Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Shri. Martin G. Thottan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Sri. Sasthamangalam S. Ajithkumar, Special Public Prosecutor for C.B.I.; Shri. Suvin R. Menon, Senior Panel Counsel; Sreelal N. Warrier, Standing Counsel, Central Board of Excise; Senior Public Prosecutor Smt. Rekha S; Special Public Prosecutor Sri Rajesh A

Case Title: Jayasree Rajkumar v. Inspector of Police, CBI/SPE, Cochin & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:66599
Case Number: Crl.A. No.1562 of 2011
Bench: Justice A. Badharudeen