The court considered the category of institutions to which financial loss is
caused and observed that insurance companies and public bodies are not
included but the section did not use the word “and” but instead commas and
under ejusdem jeneris the list was not exhaustive and that construing the
section otherwise would create an absurdity in the law.
The 2 nd ground of appeal was that prosecution had not proved knowledge or
reason to believe that his acts would cause financial loss. The court observed
that the sale of bonds by the appellant before their maturity date would
cause financial loss which fact the appellant was well aware according to the
evidence of two letters he wrote to the purchasing bank.
The court observed that unlike abuse of office, causing financial loss does not
require proof of an arbitrary act hence acting against policy need not be
The appeal was thereby dismissed