5 days ago
Former Agriculture dept. official acquitted after 25 years of litigation
The Special Vigilance Court, Muvattupuzha, has acquitted a former Agriculture department officer of corruption charges after the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) filed a supplementary final report stating that the accused had not committed any offence.
L. Laila, 69, of Piravom, was acquitted after nearly 25 years of litigation following a discharge petition she had filed. She was accused of misappropriating ₹3.47 lakh of government funds through forgery while serving as Assistant Director, Piravom, between October 1, 1993, and October 30, 1996. Consequently, she was booked under the Prevention of Corruption Act and various provisions of the Indian Penal Code for criminal breach of trust, forgery, and falsification of accounts.
In his verdict, Special Judge N.V. Raju observed that there was neither any material evidence to suggest that Ms. Laila had forged documents nor any instance of falsification of accounts, either in the VACB's final report or in the statements of witnesses.
Ms. Laila was accused of misappropriating funds allotted for distribution to eight Krishi Bhavans under her jurisdiction by transferring them to a bank account in the name of the Assistant Director, Piravom, and to her personal account. The petitioner claimed that the transfer was made to overcome a treasury ban and that the funds were eventually distributed to the concerned Krishi Bhavans. In the supplementary final report, the VACB conceded that no loss was caused to the government, but stated that her act was, at best, a violation of the Kerala Financial Code and the Rules of the Treasury Code. She was represented by her counsel N.P. Thankachan.
'It is well settled that a mere violation of the rules of business does not amount to criminal misconduct unless there is evidence of gain made by the public servant or any other person through abuse of office or by criminal means. As already said, there is no misappropriation involved in this case,' the judge said.
'The supplementary report clearly exonerates the accused of the alleged offences, and hence the report is liable to be accepted,' the verdict said.
