Manipulations Found But No Misappropriation; Discrepancies Likely Clerical Errors: Kerala High Court Acquits Teacher Accused Of Falsifying PF Records
The Bench was of the opinion that the case was based largely on entries made during a mass accounting exercise conducted under time constraints.
Justice A. Badharudeen, Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has acquitted an Assistant Teacher accused of falsifying Provident Fund records, observing that while certain manipulations were found in the ledger entries, there was no evidence of any misappropriation and the discrepancies were likely attributable to clerical or calculation errors. Holding that the prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt, the Court extended the benefit of doubt to the accused and set aside his conviction under Sections 471 and 477A IPC.
The Court, upon reappreciating the evidence, noted that although certain discrepancies and “manipulations” were visible in the ledger entries, there was no proof of actual misappropriation of funds. The Court emphasised that the case was based largely on entries made during a mass accounting exercise conducted under time constraints, where clerical or calculation errors were reasonably possible.
Justice A. Badharudeen, while allowing the criminal appeal filed, observed, “…On scrutiny of the entire evidence, some manipulations in preparing Exts.P4 and P5 series to be found. But, no misappropriation to be found from the evidence adduced and it was so found by the learned Special Judge as well. Preparation of Exts.P4 and P5 series by showing excess amounts during the camp in the GPF, is the crux of the allegation. Therefore, there is a likelihood of some clerical/calculation mistakes, as contended by the accused. Therefore, the prosecution case cannot be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubts, particularly when there is no evidence for any misappropriation. In such circumstances, it cannot be held that the offences alleged against the accused are proved beyond reasonable doubts. Thus, benefit of doubt shall go in favour of the accused. Taking into consideration all these aspects, I am inclined to interfere with the verdict impugned and set aside the same”.
Advocate T.G. Rajendran appeared for the appellant and Rajesh A., Special PP, and Rekha Singh, Senior PP appeared for the respondent.
The prosecution alleged that the accused, while participating in a credit slip preparation camp in 1996, manipulated ledger entries relating to his own Provident Fund account and that of his wife. By allegedly inflating credits and suppressing withdrawals, he was said to have attempted to secure undue pecuniary advantage of ₹19,626 in his account and ₹24,213 in his wife’s account.
Therefore, the prosecution alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 13(1)(c), Section 15 r/w 13(1)(d) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and under Sections 471, 477A, 409 and 511 r/w 420 IPC, by the accused.
The trial court had found him guilty of falsification of accounts and use of forged documents, sentencing him to imprisonment and fine, while acquitting him of corruption-related charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
During trial, the prosecution examined multiple witnesses and relied on documentary evidence, including ledger sheets and revised account statements. A handwriting expert from the Forensic Science Laboratory had opined that the disputed entries “could have been written” by the accused.
However, several key witnesses turned hostile or failed to conclusively attribute the entries to the accused. Evidence also revealed that the preparation of ledger sheets during the camp involved multiple teachers, often working collectively, raising doubts about individual responsibility.
Importantly, the Court found that the handwriting expert’s opinion was not definitive but merely suggestive. It also noted that no wrongful gain was ultimately realised by the accused and the possibility of clerical mistakes in a camp setting could not be ruled out.
“…The Special Court, however, concluded that there was deliberate intention on the part of the accused to falsify the figures in Exts.P4 and P5 series. The defence taken by the accused before the trial court was that during the preparation of the accounts, the entries were read aloud by one teacher and another person used to record them in the ledger, which was the usual method adopted for preparing the accounts at the camp. It was further contended that the discrepancy noticed in the Provident Fund accounts of the accused and his wife occurred due to the deliberate acts of certain teachers who involved in preparation of the entries, allegedly owing to animosity arising from the activities carried out by the accused at the organisational level. On scrutiny of the entire evidence, some manipulations in preparing Exts.P4 and P5 series to be found. But, no misappropriation to be found from the evidence adduced and it was so found by the learned Special Judge as well. Preparation of Exts.P4 and P5 series by showing excess amounts during the camp in the GPF, is the crux of the allegation”, the Bench noted.
Accordingly, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the accused was ordered to be released. The Court also directed that any fine amount deposited be refunded.
Cause Title: C.M. Kelu v. Deputy Superintendent Of Police & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:22718]
Appearances:
Appellant: T.G. Rajendran Advocate,
Respondents: Rajesh A. Spl. Public Prosecutor, Rekha Singh, Sr. Public Prosecutor.