JUDGMENT : A. BADHARUDEEN, J. 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (` Cr.P.C ’ for short) by the sole accused in C.C.No.6 of 2009 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed against him dated 07.04.2014. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused as well as the learned Public Prosecutor for VACB. Perused the records of the Special Court and also gone through the decisions placed by the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. The prosecution case emanated by registering V.C.No.6/2004 of VACB, Thiruvananthapuram, on completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed final report before the Special Court alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 409 , 471 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC’ for short) as well as under Section 13 (1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (`PC Act, 1988’ for short hereinafter), by the accused. 4. The epitomized form of allegation is that the accused being a public servant, employed as Section Assistant in the Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation (KSBC) Ltd., Head Office, Thiruvananthapuram, and holding the charge of AS4 section of the said office, during the period between 1.11.2002 and 8.1.2003 had received three chalans bearing Nos.20 to 22 dated 11.12.2002 for a total amount of Rs.94,206/- being the wages, pension contribution, and uniform allowance for the month of January 2003 due to the staff of the Excise establishment attached to the Head Office of KSBC, and on the basis of the said chalans, the accused prepared a Note and Note for Settlement of Claim (`NSC’ for short) of Rs.94,206/- on 16.12.2002 and obtained approval from the Managing Director, KSBC, and in pursuance of the approval, cash cheque No.16461 for Rs.94,206/- (Rupees Ninety Four Thousand two hundred and six only) was received by Charge Witness No.1 Sushama Devi, Assistant Manager of the said office on 18.12.2002 from the Account Section of the said office along with two other cheques bearing Nos. 16457 and 16458 issued in favour of BSNL and M/s. Escotel Mobile Ltd. respectively and all the said three cheques were entrusted with the accused on 18.12.2002. Subsequently the accused handed over cheque Nos.16457 and 16458 to the concerned offices. 16457 and 16458 issued in favour of BSNL and M/s. Escotel Mobile Ltd. respectively and all the said three cheques were entrusted with the accused on 18.12.2002. Subsequently the accused handed over cheque Nos.16457 and 16458 to the concerned offices. But cheque No.16461 for Rs.94,206/- was kept in her custody with dishonest intention till 27.12.2002 and encashed the said cheque from State Bank of Travancore, Sasthamangalam Branch on 28.12.2002 after affixing a forged signature on the overleaf of the cheque and thus the accused misappropriated an amount of Rs.94,206/- (Rupees Ninety Four Thousand two hundred and six only) from the Account of KSBC. It is further alleged that the accused again used the same chalans, ie. chalan Nos.20 to 22 dated 11.12.2002, with dishonest intention and prepared a forged Note and NSC dated 24.12.2002 for the same purpose, deliberately suppressed the Note and the NSC already approved by the Managing Director, KSBC for the very same purpose on 17.12.2002 and also about the receipt of cheque No. 16461 for the same purpose, and produced before the Managing Director, KSBC on 24.12.2002 as original and genuine in the absence of CW1 Sushama Devi, the Assistant Manager, and the accused dishonestly obtained another cash cheque for Rs.94,206/- vide No.16532 on 27.12.2002 from the Account Section of KSBC and encashed the cheque from SBT, Sasthamangalam on 27.12.2002 itself. Accused after encashing Rs.94,206/- each on 27.12.2002 and 28.12.2002 remitted only an amount of Rs.94,206/- on 28.12.2002 in the Treasury, Vellayambalam, towards the establishment expenses of the Excise Staff attached to the Head Office of KSBC and thereby dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriated the sum of Rs.94,206/- and also the accused, by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise, abusing her position as such a public servant, obtained for herself pecuniary advantage to the extent of Rs.94,206/- and thereby committed criminal misconduct, criminal breach of trust and falsification of accounts. 5. The Special Court proceeded with the trial. PW1 to PW14 were examined and Exts.P1 to P43 were marked on the side of the prosecution. On the side of the defense, DW1 was examined and Exts.D1 to D5 were marked. 5. The Special Court proceeded with the trial. PW1 to PW14 were examined and Exts.P1 to P43 were marked on the side of the prosecution. On the side of the defense, DW1 was examined and Exts.D1 to D5 were marked. On evaluation of the evidence, the Special Court found that the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 409 and 477A of the IPC as well as under Section 13 (1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 and accordingly he was sentenced as under: “the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each. Fine, if not paid, accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months each. For the offence under S. 409 I.P.C. also the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only). Fine, if not paid, accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months. For the offence under S.477-A I.P.C. the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.” 6. While attempting to upset the verdict under challenge, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused specifically argued that in so far as Ext.P4 cheque for Rs.94,206/- and misappropriation of the amount covered by the said cheque are concerned, no convincing evidence was adduced by the prosecution to show the entrustment of Ext.P4 cheque with the domain of the accused. It is pointed out that, the evidence of PW2, who earlier was arrayed as one among the accused, would show that she had accepted Ext.P4 cheque along with Exts.P5 and P6 cheques to process the same in the absence of the appellant/accused and it was not entrusted to the accused. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, no documentary evidence was produced to show that PW2 entrusted the domain of Exts.P4 to P6 cheques in the custody of the accused. Therefore, the offence under Section 409 of IPC could not be found out and thus the Special Court is wrong in finding so. It is also pointed out that the oral evidence of PW2 that she had entrusted Exts.P4 to P6 solely to the accused is insufficient, to find entrustment as alleged by the proseuction. Therefore, the offence under Section 409 of IPC could not be found out and thus the Special Court is wrong in finding so. It is also pointed out that the oral evidence of PW2 that she had entrusted Exts.P4 to P6 solely to the accused is insufficient, to find entrustment as alleged by the proseuction. Regarding falsification of the document also, the learned counsel for the accused argued that no convincing evidence was adduced. It is pointed out further that on reading the opinion of the handwriting expert, marked as Ext.P34 proved through PW12 also, as regards to Ext.P4, the handwriting of the accused was not specifically found though the handwriting in Exts.P5 and P6 are that of the accused was found, as opined by the expert. Therefore, the guilt of the accused in the matter of misappropriation of Rs.94,206/-, covered by Ext.P4 cheque, is not established beyond reasonable doubt and in such view of the matter, the verdict would require interference. The learned counsel read out the relevant evidence of PW2, PW3, PW5, PW6, PW11 and PW12, apart from the evidence of PW14, the Investigating Officer. 7. Zealously opposing the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the accused, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in this matter Exts.P4 to P6 were the cheques generated simultaneously. The learned counsel read out the relevant evidence of PW2, PW3, PW5, PW6, PW11 and PW12, apart from the evidence of PW14, the Investigating Officer. 7. Zealously opposing the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the accused, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in this matter Exts.P4 to P6 were the cheques generated simultaneously. The accused, who dealt with AS4 section of the KSBC, Head Office, Thiruvananthapuram held the charge of the section during the period between 01.11.2002 and 08.01.2003, had received three chalans bearing Nos.20 to 22 dated 11.12.2002, marked as Ext.P9 series for a total amount of Rs.94,206/-, being the wages, pension contribution and uniform allowance for the month of January, 2003 due to the staff of the Excise Department attached to the Head Office of KSBC the accused who is the custodian of the same prepared a note and NSC of Rs.94,206/- on 14.12.2002 and obtained approval from the Managing Director, KSBC and in pursuance of the approval, cash cheque No.16461 for an amount of Rs.94,206/- marked as Ext.P4 was received by PW2 Sushama Devi, Assistant Manager of the said office on 18.12.2002 along with Exts.P5 and P6 cheques from the Account Section and PW2 Sushama Devi, in the absence of the accused, collected the above Ext.P4 cheque as well as Exts.P5 and P6 cheques, bearing numbers 16457 and 16458 issued in favour of BSNL and M/s.Escotel Mobile Ltd. respectively and thereafter entrusted the same to the accused. Subsequently, the accused handed over Exts.P5 and P6 account payee cheques to the concerned offices. Thereafter she kept Ext.P4 cheque in her custody till 27.12.2002. Thus the entrustment of the cheque was proved by the prosecution not only with the aid of the evidence of PW2, but by the evidence of the expert and on the strength of subsequent note and NSC marked as Ext.P3(d) generated by the accused. Even though the accused had denied her dealings with Exts.P4 to P6 cheques, the evidence available, including Ext.P34 FSL report, would show that the accused herself dealt with Exts.P5 and P6 cheques and the handwriting therein was supported by the substantial evidence of PWs 2 and 3. Therefore, the entrustment for the purpose of Section 409 of IPC is proved and hence the contra contention raised by the learned counsel for the accused cannot be sustained. Therefore, the entrustment for the purpose of Section 409 of IPC is proved and hence the contra contention raised by the learned counsel for the accused cannot be sustained. It is pointed out further that it is the accused, who generated Ext.P3(a) NSC to generate Ext.P4 and soon prepared another NSC as per Ext.P3(d) and generated Ext.P8 cheque for the said amount and encashed the same on 27.12.2002 and on the next day by impersonation, Ext.P4 also was encashed by the accused and misappropriated the amount of Rs.94,206/- covered by the same. Thus the accused falsified Ext.P3(d) and Ext.P8 cheque. 8. Now the points arise for consideration are: (i) Whether the Special Court went wrong in finding that the appellant/accused committed offence punishable under Section 409 of IPC? (ii) Whether the Special Court went wrong in finding that the appellant/accused committed offence punishable under Section 477A of IPC? (iii) Whether the Special Court went wrong in finding that the appellant/accused committed offence under Section 13 (1)(c) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988? (iv) Whether the Special Court went wrong in finding that the appellant/accused committed offence under Section 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988? (v) Is it necessary to interfere with the verdict under challenge? (vi) The order to be passed? Point Nos.(i) to (vi) 9. Ext.P23 is the appointment order of the accused Sushama Balan, issued by the Managing Director, KSBC and the same would show that the accused had been appointed as Assistant Grade II. PW5 had given evidence in support of Ext.P23. Ext.P2 is the attendance register of KSBC, Head Office Administrative Section for the month of November, 2002 and December, 2002 therein in page Nos.2 and 6 the name of the accused with her initial could be seen. Exts.P2(a) and P2(b) are the relevant pages. PW1 supported Ext.P2. Apart from Ext.P2, PW7 the Administrative Officer, who was the custodian of Ext.P2 also supported the evidence of PW11. Ext.P16 is the office order dated 31.10.2002 issued by the Administrative Officer, KSBC and Ext.P16(a) is the letter issued by the General Manager (Administration) PW3, to the Investigating Officer. As per Ext.P16(a) the entrustment of the work relating to a case for 01.11.2002 to the accused could be seen. Ext.P16 is the office order dated 31.10.2002 issued by the Administrative Officer, KSBC and Ext.P16(a) is the letter issued by the General Manager (Administration) PW3, to the Investigating Officer. As per Ext.P16(a) the entrustment of the work relating to a case for 01.11.2002 to the accused could be seen. Further Ext.P17, a copy of the office order, would show that the accused was posted to the Secretariat section w.e.f 08.01.2003 from AS4 seat after posting Mr. Sivadasan in the said seat. Exts.P12, P16 and P17 were marked through General Manager. Thus the evidence of PW1 to PW3, PW5 and PW7 would categorically show that the accused was working as Assistant Manager, KSBC holding the charge of AS4 section dealt with all wages, pension contribution and uniform allowance for the month of January, 2003 due to the staff of the Excise Department attached to the Head Office of KSBC. 10. As regards to sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act, 1988 as per Ext.P25 proceedings, proved through PW5 and as admitted by the accused during her questioning under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C . the accused had retired on 21.11.2007 and, therefore, sanction was not required to prosecute her. Otherwise, no challenge was raised by the learned counsel for the accused regarding sanction in any manner. As already observed the prosecution succeeded in establishing that the accused held AS4 section of KSBC w.e.f 01.11.2002 and she was duty bound to prepare note and NSC in respect of the salary and allowances, as alleged by the prosecution. 11. PW2, the Assistant Manager (Administration) deposed that the Excise establishment was attached to the KSBC and thus it was necessary to remit the monthly salary amount of Excise wing from the account of KSBC in Treasury in advance and for that purpose the challans counter signed by the Assistant Excise Commissioner would be produced before the AS4 Section of KSBC and those challans were obtained by the accused while holding the charge of AS4 section and the accused originated note and NSC for the same. 12. In this case, admittedly Ext.P9 series were acted upon by the accused to prepare note and Ext.P3(a) NSC for the month of January, 2003 on 16.12.2002. With regard to Ext.P3(a), copy of NSC dated 16.12.2002, PW2 deposed that the initial of the accused was available in Ext.P3(a) along with the initial of PW2. 12. In this case, admittedly Ext.P9 series were acted upon by the accused to prepare note and Ext.P3(a) NSC for the month of January, 2003 on 16.12.2002. With regard to Ext.P3(a), copy of NSC dated 16.12.2002, PW2 deposed that the initial of the accused was available in Ext.P3(a) along with the initial of PW2. According to PW2, Ext.P3(a) had been prepared in the handwriting of the accused and PW2 was familiar with the handwriting of the accused. According to PW2, after preparation of notes and NSC, the Assistant, AS4 section (the appellant/accused) would place the same before the Assistant Manager (PW2) and she would verify the same and after verification she would put her initial. Then the same would be forwarded to the Manager through Peon. Then the file would be placed before the Administrative Officer, the Finance Manager and the Managing Director and all of them would verify the file. After obtaining signature of the Managing Director, the file would be given back to AS4 section and from the AS4 section, the same would be forwarded to cash section along with NSC. Thereafter cash cheque would be issued from cash section to AS4 section after acknowledging the same in the cheque issue register, ie. Ext.P7. Ext.P4 is the cheque No.16461 for Rs.94,206/- dated 17.12.2002 and it was issued on Ext.P3(a) NSC. PW2 deposed that Ext.P5 (cheque No.16457) and Ext.P6 (cheque No.16458) were received by her on 18.12.2002 along with Ext.P4 cheque as per Ext.P7 cheque issue register and she soon entrusted Exts.P4 to P6 to the accused. Even though it was PW2, who accepted Exts.P4 to P6 cheques for and on behalf of AS4 Section, PW2’s version is that soon she entrusted the same to the accused. In this context, it is interesting to note that the evidence discussed herein above would indicate that Ext.P4 cheque of Rs.94,206/- was issued on the basis of Ext.P3(a) NSC. Ext.P3(a) NSC proved to be generated by the accused. In this context, it is interesting to note that the evidence discussed herein above would indicate that Ext.P4 cheque of Rs.94,206/- was issued on the basis of Ext.P3(a) NSC. Ext.P3(a) NSC proved to be generated by the accused. It is surprising to see that though the accused was aware of Ext.P3(a) NSC prepared for drawing Ext.P4 cheque, she had again generated Ext.P3(d) NSC on the basis of Ext.P9 series of challans (for which Ext.P4 cheque was issued) and were placed before the superior officers including the Finance Manager, Administrative Officer and the Managing Director on 24.12.2002 and after obtaining their signature in Ext.P3(d) she placed before C section (cash section) and obtained Ext.P8 cheque on the basis of Ext.P3(d) NSC for Rs.94,206/- and encashed the same on 27.12.2002. On the next day, i.e. on 28.12.2002, Ext.P4 cheque also was encashed. Ext.P3(d) was generated on the day when PW2 was absent as deposed by her; and the same otherwise should have been routed through her. 13. The specific contention raised by the learned counsel for the accused is that as regards to entrustment of Exts.P4 to P6 cheques with the accused is concerned, there is no documentary evidence apart from the evidence of PW2. Here comes the significance of Ext.P3(d) NSC again prepared by the accused. Prudence would indicate that an officer who prepared Ext.P3(a) NSC for drawing cheque for an amount of Rs.94,206/- again prepares Ext.P3(d) NSC for the said amount based on the same challans Ext.P9 series, which would show that she wanted to suppress Ext.P3(a) NSC and Ext.P4 cheque. This suppression to be discernible from the fact that Ext.P3(d) was granted on a day when PW2, who was to see the same, was absent. To put it otherwise, if Ext.P4 cheque was not received by the accused, prudence would suggest that she ought to have enquired about Ext.P3(d) NSC based on Ext.P9 series challans to ensure as to whether any cheque was written thereof instead of generating Ext.P3(d) NSC for the same amount. Here comes the significance of the stand taken by the accused contending that she did not receive Exts.P4 to P6 cheques. If this contention is true, she ought to have generated note and NSC on Exts.P5 and P6 cheques also for the second time. But she didn’t generate note or NSC in relation to Exts.P5 and P6 cheques. Here comes the significance of the stand taken by the accused contending that she did not receive Exts.P4 to P6 cheques. If this contention is true, she ought to have generated note and NSC on Exts.P5 and P6 cheques also for the second time. But she didn’t generate note or NSC in relation to Exts.P5 and P6 cheques. To the contrary, those cheques were encashed at the instance of the accused since the same were account payee cheques. 14. Even though the contention of the accused is that she did not receive Exts.P4 to P6 cheques, Ext.P34 FLS report authored by PW2 would show that 213 markings on the reverse side of Ext.P5 cheque leaf and 212 markings on the reverse side of Ext.P6 cheque were written in the handwriting of the accused Sushama Balan. If she received Exts.P5 and P6 cheques as deposed by PW2 and as supported by the evidence of PW12 and Ext.P34, the contention that she did not receive Ext.P4 alone would not stand. That is to say, as I have already observed, if Ext.P4 cheque was not received by the accused, she ought to have enquired about Ext.P3(a) NSC instead of initiating another NSC as Ext.P3(d), that too, when PW2 was absent in the office and generated Ext.P8 cheque because NSC should have been rooted through PW2 alone. Thus it is established by the evidence of PW2 Assistant Manager, PW12 expert, PW5 Finance Manager and PW7 Administrative Officer supported by PW3 General Manager, who conducted Ext.P15(a) enquiry, that the accused, who prepared Ext.P3(a) NSC for the purpose of Ext.P4 cheque again, after suppressing Ext.P4 cheque in her custody, generated Ext.P3(d) NSC, thereby Ext.P8 cheque was encashed for the same purpose. As per the evidence of PW10, the officer of SBT and from Ext.P3(g) and Ext.P32 letter issued by SBT, Sasthamangalam Branch, it is clear that Ext.P4 was encashed on 28.12.2002 at 10.10 a.m and on 27.12.2002 Ext.P8 cheque was also encashed for the said purpose. It is true that PW2 was arrayed as an accused earlier since she found to have received Exts.P4 to P6 cheques. But during investigation entrustment of Exts.P4 to P6 cheques by PW2 to the accused had been revealed and accordingly she was removed from the array of accused and made as a witness. It is true that PW2 was arrayed as an accused earlier since she found to have received Exts.P4 to P6 cheques. But during investigation entrustment of Exts.P4 to P6 cheques by PW2 to the accused had been revealed and accordingly she was removed from the array of accused and made as a witness. Merely because PW2 got arrayed as an accused initially, the same has no bearing to act upon her evidence if the same found to be wholly reliable and supported by other evidence already discussed. 15. In this connection, it is necessary to refer the ingredients to attract offence under Section 409 of IPC. Section 409 of IPC is extracted as hereunder: “409. Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent: Whoever, being 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.” 16. Section 409 is pari materia to Section 316(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (`BNS’ for short) and Section 316(5) of BNS reads as under: “316: Criminal breach of trust: Whoever, being 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.” 17. Analysing the ingredients to attract offence under Section 409 of IPC, its applicability is as held by the Apex Court in Sadhupati Nageswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh , (2012) 8 SCC 547 : AIR 2012 SC 3242 as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 18. Analysing the ingredients to attract offence under Section 409 of IPC, its applicability is as held by the Apex Court in Sadhupati Nageswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh , (2012) 8 SCC 547 : AIR 2012 SC 3242 as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 18. In Sadhupati Nageswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh ’s case (supra), the Apex Court, while upholding the conviction held that, where the appellant, an agent entrusted with the distribution of the rice under the “Food for Work Scheme” to the workers on production of coupons, was charged with misappropriation of 67.65 quintals of rice, the evidence proves that there was entrustment of property to the accused 19. In order to sustain a conviction under Section 409 of the IPC, two ingredients are to be proved; namely, (i) the accused, a public servant or a banker or agent was entrusted with the property of which he is duty bound to account for; and (ii) the accused has committed criminal breach of trust. What amounts to criminal breach of trust is provided under Section 405 IPC. The basic requirements to bring home the accusation under Section 405 IPC are to prove conjointly; (i) entrustment and (ii) whether the accused was actuated by a dishonest intention or not, misappropriated it or converted it to his own use or to the detriment of the persons who entrusted it, as held by the Apex Court in the decision reported in Sadhupati Nageswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh ’s case (supra). 20. The gravamen of the offence under Section 409 of IPC is dishonest intention on the part of the accused but to establish the dishonest intention, it is not necessary that the prosecution should establish an intention to retain permanently, the property misappropriated. An intention, wrongfully to deprive the owner of the use of the property for a time and to secure the use of that property for his own benefit for a time would be sufficient. Section 409 of IPC cannot be construed as implying that any head of an office, who is negligent in seeing that the rules about remitting money to the treasury are observed, is ipso facto, guilty of criminal breach of trust; but something more than that is required to bring home the dishonest intention. 21. Section 409 of IPC cannot be construed as implying that any head of an office, who is negligent in seeing that the rules about remitting money to the treasury are observed, is ipso facto, guilty of criminal breach of trust; but something more than that is required to bring home the dishonest intention. 21. Tracing the ingredient of the offence punishable under Section 477A of IPC, Section 477A provides as under: “ Section 477A – Falsification of Accounts : “Whoever, being a clerk, officer or servant, or employed or acting in the capacity of a clerk, officer or servant, willfully, and with intent to defraud, destroys, alters, mutilates or falsifies any book, electronic record, paper, writing, valuable security or account which belongs to or is in the possession of his employer, or has been received by him for or on behalf of his employer, or willfully, and with intent to defraud, makes or abets the making of any false entry in, or omits or alters or abets the omission or alteration of any material particular from or in any such book, electronic record, paper, writing, valuable security or account, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.” 22. Section 344 of BNS is corresponding to Section 477A of IPC. The same reads as under: “344. Falsification of accounts:- Whoever, being a clerk, officer or servant, or employed or acting in the capacity of a clerk, officer or servant, wilfully, and with intent to defraud, destroys, alters, mutilates or falsifies any book, electronic record, paper, writing, valuable security or account which belongs to or is in the possession of his employer, or has been received by him for or on behalf of his employer, or wilfully, and with intent to defraud, makes or abets the making of any false entry in, or omits or alters or abets the omission or alteration of any material particular from or in, any such book, electronic record, paper, writing, valuable security or account, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.” 23. The three ingredients to prove the offences are: (i) That at the relevant point of time, the accused should be a clerk or officer or servant or acting in that capacity ; (ii) That he should destroy, alter, mutilate or falsify any book, electronic record, paper, writing, valuable security or account, which belongs to or was in the possession of his employer and (iii) The act should have been done willfully and with an intention to defraud. To convict a person under section 477A of the IPC, the prosecution has to prove that there was a willful act, which had been made with an intent to defraud and while proving “Intention to defraud”, the prosecution has to further prove the two elements that the act was an act of deceit and it had caused an injury. In the present case, there may be an injury, but there is no deceit. 24. For the offence under Section 477A of IPC, what has got to be proved is twofold viz., that the person who commits the offence is a clerk, officer or servant, and secondly, that there was intent to defraud. It is sufficient, to satisfy the words of the section, to prove that the person charged under this section is one who undertakes to perform and does perform the duties of a clerk or servant whether in fact he is a clerk or servant or not, and though he is under no obligation to perform such duties and receives no remuneration. The emphasis is upon the words "in the capacity of a clerk, officer or servant”. 25. To attract Section 477A , the-employee concerned must destroy, alter, mutilate or falsify book or accounts etc, of the employer, inter alia, with intent to defraud. The term "intend to defraud" has already been explained in Section 25 of IPC. It contains two elements, viz., deceit and injury. A person is said to deceive another when by practising suggestio falsi or suppressio veri or both, he intentionally induces another to believe a thing to be true. "Injury" defined in Section 44 of IPC means any harm whatever illegally caused to any person in body, mind, reputation and property. In the decision reported in Harman Singh v. Delhi Administration, 1976 Cri. L.J. 913 (SC) : 1976 Cri. "Injury" defined in Section 44 of IPC means any harm whatever illegally caused to any person in body, mind, reputation and property. In the decision reported in Harman Singh v. Delhi Administration, 1976 Cri. L.J. 913 (SC) : 1976 Cri. L.R. (SC) 178 : (1976) 2 SCC 819 : AIR 1976 SC 2140 , the Apex Court held that whenever the words "fraud" or "intent to defraud" or "fraudulently" occur in the definition of a crime, two elements at least are essential to the commission of the crime; namely, firstly, deceit or an intention to deceive or in some cases mere secrecy; and, secondly, either actual injury or possible injury or an intent to expose some person either to actual injury to a risk of possible injury by means of that deceit or secrecy. Where the accused prepared a false travelling allowance bill, presented it to a sub-treasury and withdrew the amount, it meant securing an advantage by deceitful act and causing corresponding loss to the State. The offence will fall under Section 477A and the fact that the accused subsequently paid over the entire amount is not a matter to be considered. 26. As per Section 13 (1)(c) and (d) of the PC Act, 1988, a public servant is said to come under the offence of `criminal misconduct’, 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; or if he — (i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest. 27. Bearing in mind the ingredients to attract the offences which were discussed herein above, the evidence evaluated in detail would show that the accused herein who was entrusted with AS4 section to deal with pension contribution, and uniform allowance for the month of January 2003 due to the staff of the Excise establishment attached to the Head Office of KSBC, generated file for Ext.P4 cheque. Evidence available would go to show that the accused got custody of Exts.P4 to P6 cheques and out of which Exts.P5 ad P6 account payee cheques were encashed and Ext.P4 cheque was kept at her custody. Then using Ext.P9 chalan series again she had generated Ext.P3(d) notes and Ext.P8 cheque for the said sum. Thereafter Ext.P8 cheque was encashed for Rs.94,206/- on 27.12.2002. On the next day, she had encashed Ext.P4 cheque and the amount thereof was also misappropriated. Thus the finding of the Special Court that the accused committed the offenses punishable under Sections 409 , 477A of IPC as well as Section 13 (1)(c) and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 is only to be justified and no interference with the conviction is found necessary. Therefore, the conviction is confirmed. 28. Coming to the sentence, the Special Court imposed rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1)(c) and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988, the minimum permissible as per the statute. The Special Court imposed the same sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year each for the offence punishable under Section 409 and 477A of IPC. Thus the sentence is, in fact, confined to the statutory minimum. Therefore, there is no interference required and this Crl. Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, for information and further steps.