Sarala Devi Acquitted of Corruption Charges

Case name: Sarala Devi T.C. vs State of Kerala (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos. 2910‑2911 of 2026)
Court/Authority: Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
Case/Order No.: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos. 2910‑2911 of 2026
Date of order: 19 May 2026 (hearing on 19‑05‑2026)
Period of alleged violation: Rs 1,500 allegedly entrusted on 16‑06‑2001 and Rs 14,000 on 26‑02‑2003; trial judgments dated 18‑12‑2013; High Court judgment dated 03‑12‑2025; appeals filed 2014.

Petitioner/Appellant: Sarala Devi T.C., former Secretary of Service Co-operative Society Ltd. No.4280, Thamarakkulam
Respondent: State of Kerala
Lower courts: Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram (CC Nos. 29 & 30 of 2008); High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam (Criminal Appeal Nos. 45 & 46 of 2014)
Counsel for Appellant: Mr. Bijo Mathew Joy (AOR), Ms. Gifty Marium Joseph, Adv.
Counsel for Respondent: Mr. C. K. Sasi (AOR), Dr. K. K. Geetha, Adv., Ms. Meena K. Poulose, Adv.
Supreme Court Judges: Justice Aravind Kumar, Justice Prasanna B. Varale
Witnesses referenced: PW1‑PW6, PW2, PW3 (names not fully disclosed)

Alleged misappropriation of Rs 1,500 (16‑06‑2001) and Rs 14,000 (26‑02‑2003) entrusted to the appellant while serving as Secretary of the cooperative society.
Charges framed under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) & 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Sections 409, 465, and 477A of the Indian Penal Code.
Prosecution relied on receipts Ext.P1(b) and Ext.P3(ab) purportedly signed by the appellant and oral testimony of PW2 and PW3.
Defence argued lack of proof of entrustment, fabricated receipts, and that PW3 was an interested witness (previously accused, later acquitted).

The Court noted PW1 had no direct knowledge of the disputed receipts; PW3’s testimony claimed the appellant signed the receipts, but the society’s letterhead was not exclusive to her.
No expert forensic examination of the receipts was presented; conviction relied solely on oral testimony of interested witnesses, which the Court deemed insufficient.
A material discrepancy was identified: receipt Ext.P3(ab) bore the date 03‑03‑2003, five days after the alleged entrustment date of 26‑02‑2003, with no satisfactory explanation.
The trial court had acquitted the appellant of the forgery charge under Section 465 IPC due to lack of proof of receipt authenticity; the Court held the same documents could not be treated as conclusive for Sections 409 IPC and PC Act provisions.
The prosecution failed to establish entrustment, a prerequisite for conviction under Section 409 IPC and the PC Act, as no independent evidence (e.g., disbursement registers, vouchers, expert testimony) was produced.
The Court found no evidence that the Service Co-operative Society Ltd. was a government‑aided institution; consequently, the appellant did not satisfy the definition of “public servant” under Section 2(1)(c) of the PC Act.

The original trial court sentenced the appellant to one year rigorous imprisonment for each charge and imposed fines of Rs 1,000 each; she was acquitted of the forgery charge (Section 465 IPC).
The Supreme Court set aside all convictions and sentences; no monetary penalties or imprisonment were imposed.
Any bail bonds, if existing, were ordered to be discharged.

The Court clarified that the appellant is not entitled to any service benefits, including pension, from the State Government or the Service Co-operative Society Ltd., Thamarakkulam, as per her affidavit.

The appeals were allowed; the High Court’s judgment dated 03‑12‑2025 was set aside.
Sarala Devi T.C. was acquitted of all charges and directed to be released forthwith if in custody.
Pending applications, if any, were consigned to the record.