Court’s Decision
The Kerala High Court, through Justice A. Badharudeen, dismissed the criminal appeal of a former liquor shop-in-charge convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 409, 420, and 477A of the IPC, upholding the finding that he had misappropriated ₹5,52,549 from the Kerala State Beverages Corporation by falsifying records.
“When a court, having jurisdiction, accepts and marks a document without objection, the accused cannot later claim inadmissibility on appeal — objections to the mode of proof must be raised at trial,” the Court observed.
The Bench confirmed the conviction and concurrent sentences awarded by the Vigilance Court, noting that objections over non-production of Section 65B or Bankers’ Book Act certificates were belated and meritless.
Facts
The accused, employed with Kerala Electrical and Allied Engineering Company Ltd. (KEL), was deputed to the Kerala State Beverages Corporation (KSBC) as Shop-in-Charge of Foreign Liquor Shop FL-1-III at Lissy Junction, Ernakulam.
During his tenure between September and December 2001, he collected sales proceeds but failed to remit ₹5,52,549 into the Corporation’s account, falsifying bank and cash registers to conceal the default. A departmental audit and complaint by the Warehouse Manager led to registration of an FIR under the IPC and subsequently under the PC Act by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau.
The trial court convicted him under Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d)(ii) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act and relevant IPC sections, sentencing him to two years rigorous imprisonment and fines aggregating to over ₹5.5 lakh.
Issues
- Whether the conviction was sustainable in the absence of proof of deputation order and proper sanction.
- Whether the bank statement (Ext. P36) was admissible without a Section 65B or Bankers’ Books Evidence Act certificate.
- Whether the prosecution sanction (Ext. P1) was defective, rendering the trial invalid.
- Whether belated objections regarding evidence could be entertained at the appellate stage.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellant contended that no deputation order from KEL to KSBC was produced, making the allegation of him being Shop-in-Charge baseless. The only document showing the alleged shortfall — Ext. P36 (bank statement) — was inadmissible as it lacked the mandatory Section 65B certificate or certification under Sections 2(8), 2A, and 4 of the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891.
Relying on Om Prakash v. CBI [(2017) SCC OnLine Del 10249], he argued that such uncertified electronic records cannot be relied upon. Further, citing R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Temple (2003) KHC 1696, he contended that a document inadmissible in law cannot be read in evidence even if marked without objection.
He also challenged the validity of the sanction order (Ext. P1), asserting that there was no proof that the sanctioning authority had considered the entire record before granting approval. Reliance was placed on CBI v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (2013 KHC 4983) and State of Karnataka v. Ameer Jan (2007 KHC 4045).
Respondent’s Arguments
The Public Prosecutor defended the conviction, arguing that the accused’s role and entrustment were proved through Exts. P15–P35 (daily cash statements), Ext. P6 (movement register), and testimonies of co-workers (PWs 2–6). The accused’s own signatures appeared on all records of collection and remittance.
It was contended that failure to raise objections regarding the bank statement’s certification during trial constituted waiver, as held by the Supreme Court in Sundar @ Sundarrajan v. State (2023 KHC OnLine 6287) and Sonu alias Amar v. State of Haryana [(2017) 8 SCC 570].
The prosecution also cited CBI v. Jagat Ram (2024 KHC 6687) and Pramod Chandran M.C. v. State of Kerala (2025 KHC OnLine 904) to emphasize that minor irregularities in sanction orders do not vitiate proceedings absent demonstrable prejudice.
Analysis of the Law
The Court discussed in detail the admissibility of electronic evidence and the scope of Section 14 of the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, referencing the Delhi High Court’s Om Prakash decision but distinguishing it from the present facts.
Justice Badharudeen noted that under Roman Catholic Mission v. State of Madras (AIR 1966 SC 1457) and R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder, objections to the mode of proof must be raised at the time of exhibition. If not, they cannot be entertained later, as the opposing party is deprived of the chance to rectify defects.
The Court harmonized this principle with Sundar @ Sundarrajan and Sonu alias Amar, affirming that lack of a 65B certificate is a curable defect, and objections at the appellate stage are impermissible.
Regarding sanction validity, the Bench reiterated that Section 19(3)(a) of the PC Act prohibits appellate interference unless the defect in sanction results in a failure of justice.
Precedent Analysis
- Om Prakash v. CBI (Delhi HC, 2017) – Addressed 65B certification; rejected as distinguishable since the objection was belated.
- R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder (SC, 2003) – Defined two categories of evidentiary objections; relied on to hold waiver applies when no objection is raised at trial.
- Sundar @ Sundarrajan (SC, 2023) and Sonu alias Amar (SC, 2017) – Held that objections to 65B defects cannot be raised at appellate stage; curable at trial.
- CBI v. Jagat Ram (SC, 2024) – Sanction irregularities not fatal absent prejudice.
- State of Goa v. Babu Thomas (SC, 2005) – Reiterated that sanction errors do not vitiate conviction without failure of justice.
- Nanjappa v. State of Karnataka (2015) 14 SCC 186) – Valid sanction is jurisdictional; however, invalidity must cause prejudice.
- Dashrath v. State of Maharashtra (2025 INSC 654) – Balanced the need to prosecute corruption with protection of honest officials.
- State of Punjab v. Hari Kesh (2025 INSC 50) – Interference on sanction invalidity only where failure of justice occurred.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found overwhelming documentary and oral evidence proving that the accused functioned as Shop-in-Charge and misappropriated the funds collected. His signatures on Exts. P15–P35 (daily statements) and Ext. P6 (movement register) confirmed custody and control over the sale proceeds.
“Even without the deputation order, the prosecution established entrustment through contemporaneous records bearing the accused’s admitted signatures,” the Court held.
On the bank statement (Ext. P36), the Court observed that though certification was imperfect, PW7 (Bank Manager) had produced and authenticated it, and no objection was raised at trial. Thus, the accused could not later dispute its admissibility.
The Court emphasized the twofold test: (i) whether the document is inherently inadmissible, and (ii) whether the objection relates to mode of proof. The latter, being procedural, is waived if not raised timely.
Regarding sanction, the Court found Ext. P1 validly issued by PW1 after due application of mind. Since it was never challenged or cross-examined, no prejudice or failure of justice was shown.
Conclusion
The Kerala High Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Vigilance Court.
“The accused cannot escape liability by resorting to procedural objections belatedly raised after conviction,” the Court concluded, emphasizing that both entrustment and misappropriation were proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The judgment reaffirms that failure to object at trial bars later challenge and that defects in sanction or certification are curable if they do not cause failure of justice.
Implications
This ruling is a significant reaffirmation of evidentiary discipline in corruption trials. It clarifies:
- Objections to Section 65B certificates or bank document certifications must be raised at trial.
- Minor sanction irregularities do not nullify convictions unless failure of justice is proven.
- Procedural lapses cannot shield an accused when substantive guilt is established through consistent records and corroboration.
The judgment will influence future vigilance prosecutions and corruption cases involving documentary and electronic evidence, especially under the PC Act, 1988 and Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891.
FAQs
1. Can lack of Section 65B certificate invalidate evidence?
No, unless the objection is raised during trial. The defect is curable, and failure to object amounts to waiver.
2. Does an irregular sanction order vitiate prosecution?
Not unless it results in failure of justice. Section 19(3)(a) PC Act protects convictions from being overturned on technical grounds.
3. What did the Court decide on deputation proof?
Entrustment was proven through registers and records signed by the accused, rendering the missing deputation order immaterial.
