JUDGMENT : A. BADHARUDEEN, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , (hereinafter referred to as ‘ Cr.P.C ’ for short) by the sole accused in C.C.No.32/2016 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode, challenging judgment dated 07.11.2017 in the said case. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the relevant records available. 3. In this case, the prosecution case is that, the accused, while working as L.D. Clerk in Thrikkalangode Grama Panchayat, Edavanna, abused his position as public servant and fraudulently misappropriated an amount of Rs.98,758.15 (Rupees ninety eight thousand seven hundred and fifty eight and paise fifteen only) in between November, 2004 and February 2005, being the tax collected from various persons by using receipt book Nos.44034, 44035, 44038, 44040, 44043, 44045, 44048, 44053 and 44054. The further allegation is that, for making collection, he had stolen a receipt book bearing No.44062 and had also created a forged receipt book bearing No.44022 (this original book marked as Ext.P2), and thereby he committed offences of misappropriation, cheating, forgery and breach of trust punishable under Sections 409 , 468, 471, 420 and 381 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ for short) and under Section 13 (1) (c) (d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PC Act, 1988’ for short). 4. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused argued that the prosecution evidence is in the midst of doubts and the allegations against the accused failed to be proved by the prosecution. According to him mere recovery of Ext.P23, the allegedly forged book bearing No.44022, would not sufficient to constitute an offence of forgery and also other offences alleged against the accused. 5. Whereas the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that Ext.P5 stock account register, proved through PW7, would show receipt of Exts.P2(b) to P2(j) and P2(a) receipt books by the accused used for the collection of tax from the members of the Grama Panchayat. 5. Whereas the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that Ext.P5 stock account register, proved through PW7, would show receipt of Exts.P2(b) to P2(j) and P2(a) receipt books by the accused used for the collection of tax from the members of the Grama Panchayat. It is pointed out that as per the evidence given by PW2, who is none other than the son of the accused, he admitted the signature of the accused in Ext.P8, a letter addressed by the accused to the Deputy Director, Grama Panchayat, and Ext.P8 was tendered in evidence through the evidence of PW7 also. It is pointed out that as per the evidence available, subsequently the accused repaid Rs.60,350.50 and Rs.40,707.50 on 08.02.2005 and 13.04.2005 respectively, though the said remittances were disputed by the accused during trial. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the challenge against the sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C . under Section 19 of the PC Act, 1988 as well as under Section 122 of the Panchayat Raj Act, raised in the appeal memorandum also would not succeed. The learned counsel for the appellant fairly conceded that this contention is not sustainable. In this connection, the learned Public Prosecutor placed decision of this Court in Badarudeen V.E. & Another v. State of Kerala, 2015 KHC 459 , with reference to paragraph Nos. 20 and 21, which read as under: “20. As regards the sanction under Section 122 of the Panchayath Raj Act is concerned, the question as to whether sanction is required, if they seized to be the president, executive authority or members of the panchayath has been considered in the decision reported in State of Kerala v. Manikantan Nair, 2001 (3) KLT 80 and observed that, sanction under Section 122 is required, only if the person holds the office of the executive authority or any member and not otherwise at the time when the final report is filed. In that case, the accused was the executive officer of panchayath, who retired from service at the time when the final report was filed and it was held that, no previous sanction is required for prosecution under this section. 21. In that case, the accused was the executive officer of panchayath, who retired from service at the time when the final report was filed and it was held that, no previous sanction is required for prosecution under this section. 21. As regards the first accused is concerned, since he was elected for the second time, sanction has been accorded to prosecute the first accused for the offence under Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In fact, no such sanction is required at the time when the final report was filed, he had ceased to be the president of the panchayath as well, during 1999." 6. It is pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor further that when protection is available under Section 19 of the PC Act, 1988, there cannot be any other conflicting provisions in the State Law, in view of Article 251 of the constitution of India, to give any protection or immunity to any individual from prosecution under the PC Act, 1988. The PC Act, 1988 is general, a central law dealing with the subject and is in operation. In this connection, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of this Court in Sivadasan Pillai and Others v. State of Kerala and others, 2019 (4) KHC 529 with reference to paragraph No.8 which reads as under: “8. The PC Act is a Central law exclusively dealing with instances of corruption and criminal misconduct on the part of public servants. This law is applicable to every public servant irrespective of whether he/she is a member of the State service or the Central service. Section 19 of the PC Act gives a protection to public servants, that cognizance under some specified provisions of the PC Act shall not be taken against any public servant without the previous sanction obtained from the Government concerned, or from the authority competent to remove the public servant from service. When such a protection is there, and when the PC act exclusively deals with corruption and misconduct on the part of members of public service there cannot be any other conflicting provision in a State law in view of Article 251 of the Constitution. When such a protection is there, and when the PC act exclusively deals with corruption and misconduct on the part of members of public service there cannot be any other conflicting provision in a State law in view of Article 251 of the Constitution. No State law can give any protection or immunity from prosecution under the PC Act, when the PC Act is the general Central law dealing with the subject of eradication of corruption from the whole public service, including State and Central service, and any provision of any State law or local law in conflict with the provisions of the PC Act, cannot have any validity, or overriding effect over the Central law in view of Article 251 of the Constitution. Thus, I find that prosecutions under the provisions of the PC Act must be governed by the PC Act itself, and such a prosecution cannot be, in any manner, controlled by the provisions of any special or local law by way of protection from prosecution, or immunity from prosecution. A public servant facing proceedings or prosecution under the PC Act cannot avail any other protection under any special or local law than what is provided to him under the PC Act. Thus, I find that the immunity granted under Section 106 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act will have no overriding effect over the provisions of the PC Act, and under the guise of such an immunity granted only in respect of the acts done or purported to be done under the Co-operative Societies Act, or during the discharge of the functions under the said Act, a public servant cannot resist or defeat a prosecution under the PC Act.” 7. In this matter, the trial court framed charges for the above offences and recorded evidence. PW1 to PW19 were examined and Exts.P1 to P31 were marked on the side of the prosecution. No evidence was let in by the defence. Thereafter, the learned Special Judge found that the accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(c) and (d) of the PC Act, 1988 as well as under Sections 381 , 409, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC. No evidence was let in by the defence. Thereafter, the learned Special Judge found that the accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(c) and (d) of the PC Act, 1988 as well as under Sections 381 , 409, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC. Accordingly, he was sentenced as under: “a) He shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and, in default of payment of the fine, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(c) of the PC Act. b) He shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for offence under Section 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. c) He shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and, in default of payment of the fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for offence under Section 381 IPC. d) He shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and, in default of payment of the fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for offence under Section 409 of IPC. e) He shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and , in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for offence under Section 420 IPC f) He shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and, in default of payment of the fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for offence under Section 468 of IPC. g) He shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for offence under Section471 IPC. h) The period of detention, if any, undergone by the accused during the investigation, inquiry or trial of this case, shall be set off against the term of substantive sentences of imprisonment.” 8. Addressing the rival submissions, the points arise for consideration are; 1. Whether the trial court is justified in holding that the accused committed offence punishable under Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1)(c) of the PC Act, 1988? 2. Addressing the rival submissions, the points arise for consideration are; 1. Whether the trial court is justified in holding that the accused committed offence punishable under Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1)(c) of the PC Act, 1988? 2. Whether the trial court is justified in holding that the accused committed offence punishable under Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988? 3. Whether the trial court is justified in holding that the accused committed offence punishable under Section 381 of IPC? 4. Whether the trial court is justified in holding that the accused committed offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC? 5. Whether the trial court is justified in holding that the accused committed offence punishable under Section 468 of IPC? 6. Whether the trial court is justified in holding that the accused committed offence punishable under Section 471 of IPC? 6. Whether the trial court verdict requires interference? 7. Order to be passed? 9. Point Nos.1 to 7: In this matter, the specific allegation of the prosecution is that, an amount of Rs.98,758.15 was misappropriated by the accused during the period between November, 2004 and February, 2005, who got custody of Ext.P2, Ext.P2(b) to P2(j) and P2(a) receipt books. The further allegation is that by making use of Ext.P23, forged book, having the same number, viz., 44022, the accused collected tax from various persons and the tabulation extracted in the trial court judgment reads as under: S. No. Ext. No. Receipt No. Receipt Book No. Amount in (Rs.) 1 P2 1 to 100 44022 38,291.20 2 P2(b) 51 to 100 44034 3,283.00 3 P2(c) 1 to 100 44035 6,893.00 4 P2(d) 1 to 100 44038 7,444.50 5 P2(e) 1 to 100 44040 7,316.50 6 P2(f) 1 to 100 44043 7,400.00 7 P2(g) 1 to 100 44045 8,334.00 8 P2(h) 1 to 100 44048 4,584.00 9 P2(i) 1 to 100 44053 7,214.00 10 P2(j) 1 to 100 44054 5,547.50 11 P3 series ...... ...... 2,451.50 Total 98,759.65 10. It is true that, as argued by the learned counsel for the accused, PW12 and PW13, who were examined by the prosecution to prove collection of amount by the accused, have turned hostile and they did not support the prosecution. 11. PW7 deposed that he had worked as L.D.Clerk at Thrikkalangode Panchayat from 28.10.2002 to June 2007. The accused, Sri. It is true that, as argued by the learned counsel for the accused, PW12 and PW13, who were examined by the prosecution to prove collection of amount by the accused, have turned hostile and they did not support the prosecution. 11. PW7 deposed that he had worked as L.D.Clerk at Thrikkalangode Panchayat from 28.10.2002 to June 2007. The accused, Sri. Kottekodan Mohammed, had been his colleague at the Thrikkalangode Panchayat. While they had been working at the Thrikkalangode Panchayat Office, he had seen the accused writing, signing, and initialling. He stated that he could identify the handwriting, signature, and initials of the accused. 12. According to PW7, he had produced Exts.P6, P14, P15 and P16 before the Investigating Officer and the Investigating Officer prepared Ext.P13 seizure mahazar for the same. In Ext.P13 seizure mahazar, PW7 as well as PW5 – R.S.Rajeev also signed. He also identified Exts.P2(b), P2(c), P2(d), P2(e), P2(f), P2(g), P2(h), P2(i) and P2(j), produced by one Gopan, L.D.Clerk, as on 02.03.2007, and the above documents are the receipts books. PW7 also identified filed No.A-113/05 as Ext.P8(a). His evidence further is that in Ext.P16 office order, having eight pages, the duties of the staff have been shown and the same has been signed by the Secretary. According to him, for outdoor collection, the staff would obtain receipt books, after making entries in the stock account and Ext.P5 is the Stock Account Register so maintained during the relevant period. His evidence further is that on page Nos.3 and 4 of Ext.P5, receipt Nos.44022, 44034, 44035, 44038, 44043, 44045, 44048, 44053 and 44054 were the receipt books issued to the accused and the accused written his name and signed showing receipt. In Exts.P2 to P2(j) receipts were written by the accused as the Clerk who collected the same and further, in Ext.P23 receipt book also, the handwriting and signature of the accused could be found and page Nos.29, 49, 69, 91 and 92 of Ext.P23 were marked as Exts.P3(a) to P3(e). It was through him, Ext.P8, a letter given by the accused to Dy.Director of Grama Panchayat, also tendered in evidence. Supporting the evidence of PW7, PW5 also given evidence. 13. PW5 deposed that he had been working as L.D. Clerk at Thrikkalangode Panchayat from January 2006 to January 2008. It was through him, Ext.P8, a letter given by the accused to Dy.Director of Grama Panchayat, also tendered in evidence. Supporting the evidence of PW7, PW5 also given evidence. 13. PW5 deposed that he had been working as L.D. Clerk at Thrikkalangode Panchayat from January 2006 to January 2008. He stated that on 16-12-2006, he, along with PW7 Ginu Abraham, went to the Vigilance Office, and that PW7 had produced Exts. P6, P14 to P16 documents before the Investigating Officer, who had seized those documents by preparing Ext. P13 seizure mahazar. PW5 further stated that, as directed by the Panchayat Secretary, he had handed over Exts. P18 and P18(a) attendance registers to the Investigating Officer on 02-03-2007, and that the Investigating Officer had taken those documents into custody as per Ext.P17 seizure mahazar. He deposed during cross-examination that he had not seen any letter authorizing PW7 Ginu Abraham to hand over the documents to the Investigating Officer and that he could not mention the rank of the police officer to whom the documents were handed over. However, he maintained that he had produced Exts. P18 and P18(a) attendance registers before the Investigating Officer as directed by the Panchayat Secretary. It was suggested that PW1, being the custodian of the documents as Secretary of Thrikkalangode Panchayat, ought to have produced the documents before the Investigating Officer. PW1 deposed that PW5 had been working as L.D. Clerk at the Panchayat Office at the relevant time. PW5 maintained that there was no reason to disbelieve his testimony. He stated that his evidence was sufficient to prove the seizure of Exts. P6, P14 to P16, P18, and P18(a) documents from proper custody by the Investigating Officer. He further stated that evidence collected illegally or improperly was not per se inadmissible, relying on the decisions in State of M.P. v. Paltan Mallah, AIR 2005 SC 733 and Ali Mustafa v. State of Kerala, AIR 1995 SC 244 . 14. It was through PW6, Ext.P20 service books in two volumes as that of the accused was produced before the vigilance. Though the authority of PW6, being a U.D.Clerk, to produce the same was challenged, in fact, the same is of least significance. 15. PW8 stated that he was working as a U.D.Clerk in the Office of the Deputy Director of Panchayats. Though the authority of PW6, being a U.D.Clerk, to produce the same was challenged, in fact, the same is of least significance. 15. PW8 stated that he was working as a U.D.Clerk in the Office of the Deputy Director of Panchayats. He stated that, as directed by the Deputy Director of Panchayats, he had produced Ext.P24 audit report and Ext.P24(a) special report before the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer had seized both documents under separate seizure mahazars. PW8 was cross-examined at length in an attempt to show that he was not competent to prove the contents of Exts.P24 and P24(a) audit reports. It was also brought out that PW8 had been examined by the prosecution only for the limited purpose of proving the seizure of Exts.P24 and P24(a). Exts.P24 and P24(a) were audit reports containing the opinion of the auditor. The opinion of a witness, except that of an expert falling under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, cannot be treated as evidence, though such documents may be referred to by the Court for the limited purpose of analysing the materials on record. It thus emerged from the evidence of PW8 that, although his testimony was not sufficient to prove the contents or correctness of the facts stated in Exts.P24 and P24(a), it was sufficient to establish that those documents had been seized by the Investigating Officer. 16. PW9 deposed that he had worked as Secretary of the Thrikkalangode Grama Panchayat from 10.02.2004 to 21.06.2005. He stated that the accused had been working under him as an L.D. Clerk in the same Panchayat. He further stated that Office Order Nos. 01/2004 and 02/2004, both dated 08.12.2004, had been issued by him and that he had signed those office orders. According to him, all the employees of the Panchayat, including the accused, had signed below the office orders. PW9 stated that he was conversant with the handwriting, signature, and initials of the accused. He stated that the accused had signed against the entries made on pages 3 and 4 of Ext.P5 register regarding the issuance of receipt book Nos. 44022, 44023, 44034, 44035, 44038, 44040, 44043, 44045, 44048, 44053, and 44054 as the clerk who had received those books. PW9 further stated that he had issued those receipt books to the accused and had signed against the corresponding entries in Ext.P5 as the person who distributed the receipt books. 44022, 44023, 44034, 44035, 44038, 44040, 44043, 44045, 44048, 44053, and 44054 as the clerk who had received those books. PW9 further stated that he had issued those receipt books to the accused and had signed against the corresponding entries in Ext.P5 as the person who distributed the receipt books. He also stated that Exts.P2 and P2(b) to P2(j) receipt books had been issued by him to the accused, and that the contents of all the pages of those receipt books had been written by the accused, who had also signed all the receipts as the Panchayat employee who collected the taxes. 17. PW1 examined in this case is the Secretary, Thrikkalangode Grama Panchayat, in between 02.12.2005 till the end of 2006. According to him, he had produced 6 documents before the Vigilance on 20.05.2006 and the Vigilance seized the documents in custody by preparing Ext.P1 mahazar and he had signed in Ext.P1. He supported Exts.P2 and P2(a) (receipt book Nos.44022 and 44062) and also Ext.P3, P3(a) to P3(e) the carbon copies of receipts. Apart from that, Exts.P4 and P4(a), two outdoor collection register also marked through PW1. He also deposed about the mode by which the collecting staff would get custody of receipt books and according to him, procedure is getting the same by recording the same in the stock account register marked as Ext.P5. 18. According to him, on getting the tax collected, receipts would be written by using carbon copy method and the receipts usually have an original in white in colour and a copy pink in colour. The original receipts would kept in the office and the carbon copies would be given to the person paying the tax. Thereafter, the clerk concerned should remit the amount after recording the same in the outdoor collection register to the authorised clerk to deal with receipt of the collected amount and then the clerk could have been remit the same in the bank by preparing challan. Ext.P6 identified as the office collection register in between 01.04.2003 to 13.04.2005. 19. PW1 was cross-examined to show that he was not competent to prove the writings and signatures allegedly made by the accused in Exts. P2 to P6 documents. It was brought out that PW1 was not familiar with the handwriting and signature of the accused. PW1 admitted that he was not competent to identify the handwriting or signatures of the accused. PW1 was cross-examined to show that he was not competent to prove the writings and signatures allegedly made by the accused in Exts. P2 to P6 documents. It was brought out that PW1 was not familiar with the handwriting and signature of the accused. PW1 admitted that he was not competent to identify the handwriting or signatures of the accused. However, he stated that his evidence was sufficient to prove the practice and procedure followed in the Thrikkalangode Panchayat Office. He further stated that the Investigating Officer had seized Exts. P2 to P6 documents from proper custody as per Ext. P1 seizure mahazar and that he had no reason to give false evidence to secure conviction to the accused. He maintained that he was a reliable witness. 20. PW2 deposed that accused is his father. He had been residing along with his father at Pathapiriyam. His father was employed in Thrikkalangode Gramapanchayat as a clerk. Vigilance Police had registered a case against his father. Vigilance Police did not come to their house for investigation. Ext.P7 search list bore his signature. According to him, it was incorrect to say that Ext.P7 was prepared by the Vigilance Police at the time of seizing a receipt book from their house. He did not know whether his father had remitted money in Panchayat office during the period of suspension. He was not aware whether his father had filed an application before the Deputy Director requesting to reinstate in service. According to him, in Ext.P8 application, his father's signature was there. His father retired from service while under suspension. He had been helping his father in defending this case. He had not given Ext.P9 statement to the Investigating Officer. He admitted that Ext.P7 bore his signature. His signature seen in Ext.P7 was put at the lorry stand, Edavanna. At the time of putting signature, nothing rather preparing or signing Ext.P8 application. Anyhow as far as recovery of the receipt book, PW2 turned hostile to the prosecution . 21. PW4 is examined to prove Ext. P12 certificate. Ext.P12 certificate was issued by PW4 on the request of the Investigating Officer. It is written in Ext P12 ownership certificate that the accused is the owner of house No. X/556 of Edavanna Panchayat. Anyhow as far as recovery of the receipt book, PW2 turned hostile to the prosecution . 21. PW4 is examined to prove Ext. P12 certificate. Ext.P12 certificate was issued by PW4 on the request of the Investigating Officer. It is written in Ext P12 ownership certificate that the accused is the owner of house No. X/556 of Edavanna Panchayat. According to PW4, he prepared Ext.P12 certificate on the basis of the entries contained in the Building Tax Assessment Register for the period 1997-98 to 2006-07 maintained at Edavanna Panchayat Office. 22. In this case, PW15, who was working as Village Officer, Edavanna village as on 07.07.2006 was examined to prove Ext.P7 search list, prepared to seize Ext.P2 receipt book from the house of the accused. Ext.P2 is the receipt book No.44022 of the Thrikkalangode Grama Panchayat. 23. PW10 deposed that he had been serving as L.D. Clerk in Thrikkalangode Gramapanchayat from June 2002 to June 2009. Accused was his colleague at Thrikkalangode Gramapanchayat. On 02.03.2007, he went to Vigilance Office along with PW7 and handed over 11 documents to the Investigating Officer. Investigating Officer seized those documents and prepared Ext.P21 seizure mahazar. On that day, he handed over Exts.P2(b) to P2(j) receipt books. P8(a) and P22 files to the Investigating Officer. PW9 Rajesh.T.Varghese was working as Secretary, Thrikkalangode Gramapanchayat at the relevant time. As sought by PW9, he along with accused went to accused's house to search and find out a missing receipt book. When they carried out search in the house of the accused, they got Ext.P2(g) receipt book No. 44045 from an almirah. He entrusted Ext.P2(g) receipt book to PW9. Accused wrote the contents of Exts.P2 to P2(j) receipt books, P3 to P3(e) receipts and Ext.P23 receipt book. Accused signed the above mentioned documents. He does not know the contents of the documents given by him to the Investigating Officer. Vigilance Police had not given instruction to him to produce documents. No written instruction was given to him by the Secretary to produce documents before the Vigilance Police. Secretary had given oral instruction to produce documents before the Vigilance Police. Secretary entrusted documents to him without packing and sealing. Movement register kept in the Panchayat Office would reveal that he had gone to Vigilance Office. No written instruction was given to him by the Secretary to produce documents before the Vigilance Police. Secretary had given oral instruction to produce documents before the Vigilance Police. Secretary entrusted documents to him without packing and sealing. Movement register kept in the Panchayat Office would reveal that he had gone to Vigilance Office. He went to accused's house by 7 P.M. He does not remember the correct date on which he went to the house of accused. He had given the receipt book to the Secretary on the date on which he went to the house of accused. He had not given statement to the Investigating Officer that he had entrusted the receipt book to the Secretary during the night on which he went to the house of accused. 24. PW12’s evidence is that he had been residing at Amayoor, within the limits of Thrikkalangode Grama Panchayat. At the time of the incident, the assessment number of his house was V/39. He had been remitting building tax on his house in the Panchayat. Ext.P3(c) was the receipt obtained by him when he remitted Rs.16 as house tax. He further stated that he had remitted the tax when the Panchayat had organised a tax collection camp at Amayoor Market. He stated that he did not remember the Panchayat employee who had received the tax from him and that he was unable to identify the said employee. He also stated that he had not given the Ext.P27 statement to the Investigating Officer. 25. PW13 deposed that he had been residing within the limits of Thrikkalangode Grama Panchayat. In the year 2005, the building tax assessment number of his house was V/136. He had been remitting building tax on his house to the Panchayat. Ext.P3(a) was the receipt issued to him when he remitted the building tax. He further stated that he had remitted the tax when the Panchayat had organised a tax collection camp at Amayoor Market. He stated that he did not know the Panchayat employee who had collected the tax from him and that he was unable to identify the said employee. He also stated that he had not given the Ext.P28 statement to the Investigating Officer. 26. He stated that he did not know the Panchayat employee who had collected the tax from him and that he was unable to identify the said employee. He also stated that he had not given the Ext.P28 statement to the Investigating Officer. 26. On evaluation of the evidence, it could be gathered that as per Ext.P16 office order, dated 08.12.2004, the accused was working as LD Clerk in A4 Section in Thrikkalangode Gram Panchayat with duty of collecting taxes and fees from Ward Nos.I -V and XV – XVIII. Ext.P5 stock account register would go to show that receipt Book Nos.44022, 44023, 44034, 44035, 44038, 44040, 44043, 44045, 44048, 44053 and 44054 were given to the accused for collecting taxes and fees. PW9 and PW10 proved the signatures of the accused against the entries made in Ext.P5 register regarding the distribution of above mentioned receipt books to the accused. Ext.P8 is a letter available in file No. A-113/2005, at pages 7 to 9 of the Thrikkalangode Grama Panchayat records. As per Ext.P8, and having regard to its contents, the accused admitted the allegations of the prosecution. As per Ext.P8, the accused stated that after 12.01.2005, he had collected Rs.60,350.50 as per receipt book Nos.44034, 44035, 44038, 44040, 44043, 44045, 44048, 44053 and 44054. According to him, he used the said amount for discharging the gold loan taken by him in connection with the daughter’s marriage. Anyhow, the contention of the accused is that PW9 entered the entries in Ext.P8 whereas, PW9 categorically stated that the accused singed in Ext.P8 after knowing its contents. The Special Court given emphasis to Ext.P8 where the accused had no case that his signature in Ext.P8 was obtained under threat or coercion as a corroborative piece of evidence apart from the substantive evidence discussed. 27. Most importantly, in the instant case, the accused remitted Rs.60,350.50 on 08.02.2005 and Rs.40,707.50 on 13.04.2005 (total 1, 01,058/-) and page Nos.60 to 98 of Ext.P6 would establish the same. Regarding repayment, the contention of the accused is that he did not repay the amount. Anyhow, as per the available documents, the accused had repaid the amount though the same is insufficient to absolve the accused have criminal liability. In this regard, the Special Court relied on a decision of the Apex Court in Viswanath v. State of J&K, AIR 1983 SC 174. 28. Anyhow, as per the available documents, the accused had repaid the amount though the same is insufficient to absolve the accused have criminal liability. In this regard, the Special Court relied on a decision of the Apex Court in Viswanath v. State of J&K, AIR 1983 SC 174. 28. After evaluation of the evidence, the learned Special Judge found in paragraph No.49 that 22 aspects have been proved by the prosecution evidence. They are extracted as under: “1) Accused was employed as L.D. Clerk in Thrikkalangode Gramapanchayat at the relevant time. 2) Accused was assigned with the duty of collecting fees and taxes in respect of Ward Nos. 1 to 5 and15 to 18. 3) PW9 had distributed receipt book Nos. 44022, 44023, 44034, 44035, 44038, 44040, 44043, 44045, 44048, 44053 and 44054 to the accused between 01-01-2005 and 01-02-2005 for making outdoor collection of taxes and fees. 4) Ext.P23 receipt book bearing No. 44022 is a fake receipt book and accused had collected Rs.5,281/- using Ext.P23 receipt book. 5) Accused collected Rs.3,283/- as per receipt Nos. 51 to100 of Ext.P2(b) receipt book No. 44034. 6) Accused collected Rs.6,893/- as per Ext.P2(c) receipt book No.44035 7) Accused collected Rs.7,444.50 as per Ext.P2(d)receipt book No.44038 8) Accused collected Rs.7,316.50 as per Ext.P2(e)receipt book No. 44040. 9) Accused collected Rs.7,400/- as per Ext.P2(f) receipt book No. 44043. 10) Accused collected Rs.8,334/- as per Ext.P2(g) receipt book No.44045. 11) Accused collected Rs.4,584/- as per Ext. P2th) receipt book No 44048 12) Accused collected Rs.7.214/- as per Ext.P21) receipt book No 44053 13) Accused collected Rs.5,547.50/- as per Ext.P2(1)receipt book No. 44054. 15) He had collected Rs.38.291.65/- as per Ext.P2, original receipt book No. 44022 He did not remit this amount in Panchayat 16) Similarly, he had collected ? 2.451.50/- issuing receipt Nos. 1 to 6 and 10 to 13 of Ext.P2(a) receipt book. However, he did not remit that amount in Panchayat 17) Accused had misappropriated a total sum of Rs.98.759.65/- 18) Accused taken away the receipt Book No. 44062 from the custody of PW9 with the dishonest intention to use it for collecting taxes and fees and to misappropriate collected money. 20) Accused made false receipts intending to use them for collecting taxes and fees from persons bound to pay tax to Thrikkalngode Panchayat. 20) Accused made false receipts intending to use them for collecting taxes and fees from persons bound to pay tax to Thrikkalngode Panchayat. 21) Accused made false representations, issued false receipts and induced many persons to remit taxes and fees due to the Panchayat. 22) Accused abused his official position and made undue monetary advantage by corrupt and illegal means." 29. On evaluation of the evidence, the finding of the Special Court in the above line appears to be perfectly justifiable since the above aspects have been proved beyond reasonable doubts. Therefore, the learned Special Judge found that the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 381 , 409, 468 and 471 of IPC as well as under Section 13 (2) r/w. Section 13 (1)(c)(d) of the PC Act, 1988. In fact, the said finding of conviction does not require any interference. 30. Coming to the sentence, the minimum sentence provided for the offence under Section 13 (1)(c) and 13(1)(d) is for one year. No sentence in excess of one year granted by the Special Court for any other offences wherein the substantive sentence would run concurrently. In view of the matter, the sentence also does not require interference. 31. The order suspending execution of sentence and granting bail to the appellant/accused shall stand vacated and the bail bond executed by the appellant/accused stands cancelled. The appellant/accused is directed to surrender before the special court to undergo the sentence within two weeks from today, failing which, the special court shall execute the sentence without fail. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the trial court concerned for compliance and further steps.