She had shown deviance from the path of honesty and integrity: Kerala High Court upholds conviction of teacher under Prevention of Corruption Act

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday upheld the conviction of a headmistress/teacher under the Prevention of Corruption Act for withdrawing money from the accounts of two other teachers and misappropriating the same (MK Valsamma v. State of Kerala)..While doing so, the Court altered the quantum of punishment from two years' imprisonment to one year..At the outset, Justice R Narayana Pisharadi noted in the judgment,"A teacher shall be a role model, not only for the students but also for the society. But, the appellant, who was a teacher and a headmistress, did not prove to be so. It is unfortunate that she had shown deviance from the path of honesty and integrity.".The judgment was passed in an appeal filed by the accused teacher who was charged and convicted by the lower court. The trial court had sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000 each for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1) (c) and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act..Having regard to the age of the accused and the fact that she had returned the amounts of money to the other two teachers, the Court reduced her sentence."The appellant/accused is now aged about 65 years. She paid the defalcated amount to PW3 and PW4, though at a belated point of time. Considering these aspects, I find that the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the accused by the trial court can be reduced to the minimum prescribed for the offences, that is, imprisonment for a period of one year. There is no sufficient ground to reduce the sentence of fine imposed on the accused by the trial court.".The accused was the headmistress of the Government Tribal Upper Primary School in Kombukuthy, Kerala. It was contended that she dishonestly and fraudulently, and by abusing her official position as a public servant, withdrew Rs.24,960 each from the General Provident Fund (GPF) accounts of two teachers without their knowledge, and misappropriated that money..One of the prime witnesses in the case gave evidence that the accused had signed in the treasury bill book and obtained the amount of Rs.49,920 from the treasury. The evidence of the prime witness in this regard was unchallenged by the accused in the cross-examination..In March 2008, the two teachers filed a complaint against the accused. In the written statement, the accused submitted that in the month of October 2006, she requested the duo to give her money as loan. Accordingly, both of them told her that they would take a loan from their GPF account and give it to her and that she would have to repay the amount in time. .The Court, while rejecting the contentions made in the written statement, observed: "The plea of the accused, as stated above, is not at all convincing. No evidence was adduced by the accused to prove the aforesaid plea. Nothing was also brought out in the cross-examination of PW3 and PW4 to show that the plea of the accused is at least probable. On the other hand, there are circumstances to show that the plea of the accused is highly improbable. If PW3 and PW4 had really made applications for taking advance from the GPF account to raise money for giving loan to the accused and if withdrawal of amount from their GPF account was made for that purpose, monthly repayment of the amount in installments by PW3 and PW4 in the GPF accounts should have been made by them.".The contention of the accused that the offence was undone after she paid the amounts back to the two teachers was rejected by the Court."However, learned counsel for the appellant contended that, since the accused paid the amount to PW3 and PW4 subsequently, the offence, if any, committed by her has been undone. There is no merit in this contention. The fact that the accused refunded the amount, when the act of defalcation came to be discovered, does not absolve her of the offences committed by her (See Vishwa Nath v. State : AIR 1983 SC 174).".After examining the records and statements of the prime witnesses, the Court allowed the appeal in part, and confirmed the conviction of the trial court..[Read Order]