In Brief
The appellant, a public servant, was convicted of misappropriating wages by falsely claiming to have disbursed them to a worker named Surendran at a government rest house. The appellant argued that a different Surendran (s/o Raghavan, also called Chidambaran locally) actually received the wages, supported by a village officer's certificate. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding the village officer's certificate unreliable because it was based on inadequate inquiry from only two neighbours who did not confirm the alias, lacked documentary support, and was implausible for a financial transaction. The conviction was sustained but the sentence was reduced from two years to one year rigorous imprisonment considering the appellant's age and time elapsed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.