Kerala High Court
Sabu G vs State Of Kerala on 20 August, 2025
2025:KER:63123
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 29TH SRAVANA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 1047 OF 2013
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.07.2013 IN CC NO.1 OF 2009 OF
ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPELLANT/2ND ACCUSED:
SABU G.
S/O.GEORGE, AGED 38 YEARS,
SALEM HILL, ERAPPUKUZHY, KUDAPPANAKKUNNU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SALISH ARAVINDAKSHAN
SRI.K.S.SUMESH
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM.
2 DYSP OF VIGILANCE & ANTI-CORRUPTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001
BY ADV.SRI.RAJESH.A, SPL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, VACB,
ADV.SMT.REKHA.S, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, VACB
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.8.2025,
THE COURT ON 20.08.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.APPEAL NO.1047 OF 2013 2
2025:KER:63123
CR
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 20th day of August, 2025
2nd accused in C.C.No.1/2009 on the files of the Enquiry
Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram has filed
this Criminal Appeal under Section 27 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the PC Act, 1988' hereinafter) r/w
Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the
Cr.P.C.' hereinafter), challenging conviction and sentence imposed
against him in the said case dated 04.07.2013.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/2 nd accused
as well as the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Perused the
records.
3. The prosecution case is that the 1st accused, being a public
servant, employed as Lower Division Clerk and later Upper Division
Clerk in the Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Office,
2025:KER:63123
Thiruvananthapuram during the period from 4.1.1997 to 12.4.1999,
held additional charge of tapal distribution works and being the
custodian of all office seals since 4.1.1997, by corrupt or illegal
means or otherwise, abused his official position as such a public
servant, he entered into conspiracy with 2 nd and 3rd accused and in
furtherance of the said conspiracy, the 1 st accused forged two Non-
Liability Certificates, one in his name and another in the name of
one 'Sajeevkumar.P.D.', who is a fictitious person falsely stating that
'Sajeevkumar P.D.' was working with the 1st accused, and the 3rd
accused Ajayakumar impersonated as 'Sajeevkumar P.D.' and the 2 nd
accused knowingly used those forged Employment
Certificates/Non- Liability Certificates as genuine and applied for a
loan of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) from the
District Co-operative Bank, Nandancode Branch, and subsequently,
the 1st accused prepared forged confirmation letters and the 2nd
accused obtained Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) from
the Bank on 9.3.1998 on the surety of the 1 st accused and the 3rd
2025:KER:63123
accused, who had impersonated as 'Sajeevkumar P.D.' and accused
Nos.1 to 3 thereby cheated the Bank and obtained undue pecuniary
advantage of the said sum. On the above basis, the prosecution
alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 468, 471,
419, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 13(1)
(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988, by accused Nos.1 to 3.
4. When final report filed before the Special Court, the
Special Court took cognizance of the matter and proceeded with
trial. During trial, PW1 to PW14 were examined and Exts.P1 to P30
were marked on the side of the prosecution. On completion of the
prosecution evidence, the accused were questioned under Section
313(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. and opportunity was provided to them to
adduce defence evidence, but no defence evidence was adduced.
5. After appreciation of evidence, the Special Court found
that the appellant/2nd accused as well as accused Nos.1 and 3
committed offences under Sections 468, 471, 419, 420 and 120B of
the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC
2025:KER:63123
Act, 1988 and sentenced him as under:
"For the offence under Ss.420 I.P.C., 468 I.P.C., the
second accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) each. Fine, if not
paid, second accused shall undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a further period of three months each.
For the offence under S.120-B I.P.C. r/w S.13(1)(d) of
P.C. Act, 1988 r/w S.13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988, second
accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One
Thousand only). Fine, if not paid, the second accused
shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further
period of three months. For the offence under Ss.471 IPC,
120-B IPC and S. 120-B I.P.C. r/w S.419 I.P.C., second
accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for one year each."
6. The learned counsel for the 2nd accused/appellant argued
that as far as the 2nd accused/appellant herein is concerned, he is
innocent. According to the learned counsel, the 1 st accused never
hatched conspiracy with accused No.2 to commit forgery of the Non-
2025:KER:63123
Liability Certificates for the purpose of availing loan, as alleged by
the prosecution. According to him, during 1997 - 1998, the 1 st
accused was residing in a rented house nearby the house of the 2 nd
accused, made acquaintance with him and as a sequel thereof, he
requested the 2nd accused to avail a loan for raising fund for a
surgery to the wife of the 1st accused. The 2nd accused was a student
at that time and agreed to the request of the 1 st accused, since the 1st
accused agreed to arrange sureties. According to him, the 1 st accused
filled up the application form and entrusted the same to the 2 nd
accused and in turn, the 2nd accused presented the loan application
and Non-Liability Certificates before the Bank and accordingly, the
Bank sanctioned the loan and he put his signature in the records of
the Bank. Thereafter, the entire amount was entrusted to the 1 st
accused and later, he received notice from the Bank stating that the
loan amount was kept in arrears. Meanwhile, the 1 st accused, who is
a native of Idukki District transferred from the office, later, the 2 nd
accused informed the matter to one of the friends of the 1 st accused
2025:KER:63123
and in the meantime, Vigilance police approached the 2 nd accused
and gathered knowledge in this regard. Further, the 2 nd accused
repaid the loan amount with interest amounting to Rs.70,000/- and
cleared the loan. According to the learned counsel, the 2 nd accused
is totally innocent and he stated these things when he filed the
additional statement during his questioning under Section 313(1)(b)
of the Cr.P.C. The learned counsel conceded that, even though the
defence now argued by him was put forth, no corresponding
evidence let in. It is pointed out further that when the allegations
that the 1st accused forged Employment Certificates/Non- Liability
Certificates and obtained loan therefrom, none of the PC Act
offences would attract against him. According to him, there is no
evidence forthcoming to see any element of conspiracy in between
accused Nos.1 to 3 and therefore, the 2nd accused/appellant is
entitled to get acquittal.
7. Whereas, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the said
contention and submitted that the 1st accused did not escape from
2025:KER:63123
criminal culpability by merely stating that he was a mute spectator
and he did not have any knowledge regarding the forged
Employment Certificates after producing the same before the Bank
authorities and availing loan thereof. According to the learned
Public Prosecutor, PW5, who gave evidence in support of the Bank
documents, categorically deposed regarding the role of the 2 nd
accused and therefore, the contention now advanced could not
sustain, since pecuniary advantage was obtained by the 2 nd accused
with the assistance of accused Nos.1 and 3. Mere repayment of the
loan amount at a subsequent stage on the pressure of coercive steps
by itself, would not efface the offences.
8. Adverting to the rival arguments, the points arise for
consideration are;
(i) Whether the Special Court is right in holding
that the 2nd accused committed offence punishable under
Section 420 r/w 120B of the IPC?
(ii) Whether the Special Court is justified in
2025:KER:63123
holding that the 2nd accused committed offence
punishable under Section 419 r/w 120B of the IPC?
(iii) Whether the Special Court is justified in
holding that the 2nd accused committed offence
punishable under Section 468 r/w 120B of the IPC?
(iv) Whether the Special Court is justified in
holding that the 2nd accused committed offence
punishable under Section 471 r/w 120B of the IPC?
(v) Whether the Special Court was right in
holding that the 2nd accused committed offence under
Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 r/w 120B
of the IPC?
(vi) Whether the verdict would require
interference?
(vii) The order to be passed?
Point Nos.(i) to (vii)
9. Coming to the gist of the prosecution case, the allegation
2025:KER:63123
is that the 2nd accused applied for a loan before the District Co-
operative Bank, Nandancode Branch, Thiruvananthapuram and
availed a loan of Rs.30,000/-. While applying for the loan, the 2nd
accused produced two Employment Certificates in the name of the 1 st
accused and in the name of another person, viz., 'Sajeevkumar.P.D.',
who is a fictitious person, as the outcome of conspiracy hatched between
accused Nos.1 to 3 and on the basis of the said forged certificates, loan
was obtained and kept in arrears. The Special Court found that the
prosecution evidence established that the 1st accused, Sri.James Sam,
while holding charge of the Assessment Section of his office, and from
04.01.1997 onwards also holding charge of the distribution of tapal duty
in addition to his normal duties, forged the Employment Certificates with
the connivance of the 2nd and the 3rd accused, as part of conspiracy
hatched between them. In this regard, the Special Court relied on the
evidence of PW1, Sri.K.P.Krishna Kumar, who retired as Assistant
Commissioner of the Commercial Tax Department in 2005 February.
PW1 deposed that the Clerk (A1), who was in charge of distribution of
tapal duty was in possession of office seal. PW1 further would state that a
2025:KER:63123
recovery notice from District Co-operative Bank Ltd., Nandancode
Branch in the name of the 1st accused Sri.James Sam was received in
his office and on the basis of the said recovery notice, he went to the
said Bank and examined Ext.P4 file, i.e. file in respect of the
Consumer Loan No.82/1997-98 and Ext.P4(a) Non-Liability
Certificate in the name of the 1st accused, Sri.James Sam, Ext.P4(b)
Non-Liability Certificate in the name of one 'Sajeev Kumar P.D.', and
Ext.P4(c) confirmation letter purported to have been issued from the
office of PW1, were found to be available. PW1 also stated that in
Exts.P4(a), P4(b) and P4(c) one 'P.Ramachandran Nair' found
affixed his signature in the capacity as the Head of Office. According
to him, Officer named 'P.Ramachandran Nair' was not working in
this office during that period. PW1 further would state that the date
seen in Exts.P4(a) and P4(b) is 18th November 1997 and on that date,
the Head of the Office was PW1. PW1 categorically deposed that the
description of employee and salary particulars written in Exts.P4(a)
and P4(b) were in the handwriting of 1 st accused Sri.James Sam and
2025:KER:63123
the seal of his office found affixed in Exts.P4(a) and P4(b). PW1
further would state that no employee in the name 'Sajeevkumar P.D.'
was working in his office at that time. A perusal of Ext.P3 attendance
register also would make the same clear that no employee by name
'Sajeevkumar P.D.' or 'P.Ramachandran Nair' was working in the
office of PW1 at that time. PW1 further deposed that in Ext.P4(c) the
portion written as 'confirmed' was in the handwriting of the 1 st
accused Sri.James Sam. PW1 unequivocally deposed that Exts.P4(a)
and P4(b) Non-Liability Certificates and Ext.P4(c) confirmation
letter were not issued from his office. PW1 further testified that
handwritings of the 1st accused Sri.James Sam were in the
assessment files, distribution register of his office and he was
familiar with the handwriting of the 1 st accused Sri.James Sam. PW1
further testified that Ext.P5(a) was a leave application submitted by
the 1st accused Sri.James Sam and the same is in the handwriting of
the 1st accused. PW1 further testified that in Ext.P5(a) leave
application, leave was sanctioned by him. According to PW1, in
2025:KER:63123
Exts.P6, P6(a) and in Ext.P7 also, the handwritings of the 1 st accused
Sri.James Sam were available. During cross-examination, PW1
would state that in Ext.P2 as per order No.18 dated 4.12.1996 in page
No.49, it was noted that the 1 st accused Sri.James Sam joined on
4.12.1996. According to him, the Head Clerk of the office usually
drafts office orders; however, in this case, in Ext.P2, the initial of the
Head Clerk was not put.
10. PW1 deposed further that the assessment filing section
was known as 'A2-seat' in his office and as per Ext.P2 'A2-seat
(Assessment filing section) was given to the 1 st accused. During
cross-examination, PW1 further would state that, as per Ext.P2(a)
office order, Smt.G.Geetha (PW2) was directed to hand over
distribution register to the 1st accused Sri.James Sam. According to
PW1, the handwriting seen in Ext.P2(a) was the handwriting of the
Head Clerk Jayakumar and he could not say the handwriting seen in
Ext.P2(a) without referring the attendance register. During cross-
examination, PW1 further would admit that, as per Kerala Service
2025:KER:63123
Manual, Head Clerk was the custodian of office seal, but the same
time according to PWI, normally it would entrust to the Clerk, who
was in charge of distribution. PW1 also admitted during cross-
examination that the entrustment of the office seal to the
distribution Clerk was not specifically noted in Ext.P2(a) Office
Order. PWI would further state that the letter, in respect of
confirmation of Non-Liability Certificates would send in registered
post in the name of the office head. But in the case at hand, Ext.P4(c)
confirmation letter was reached in nearby Sales Tax Office and they
received the same. According to him, no confirmation letter was received
in his office in the name 'P.Ramachandran Nair', Sales
Tax Officer, Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Office,
Thiruvananthapuram. During cross-examination, PW1 further would
state that Non-Liability Certificate Issue Register was maintained in
his office during 1997-98. PW1 denied the suggestion put forward by
the learned defence counsel that due to the irresponsible act of the
office, the office seal which was to be kept by the Head Clerk was
2025:KER:63123
misused by somebody, but this suggestion was denied by PW1.
11. When PW1 was further cross-examined, he testified that
in Ext.P4(a) Non-Liability Certificate, photograph of the employee
was affixed, whereas, in Ext.P4(b) Non-Liability Certificate, no
photograph seen affixed. PW1 also admitted during cross-
examination that he filed report to his higher authorities, i.e. report
No.A1-397/1999 dated 6.8.1999 though the same was not filed
before the court. During re-examination, PW1 stated that he had
knowledge regarding the loan transaction mentioned in Ext.P4 on
getting recovery notice of the same.
12. Apart from the evidence of PW1, PW2, who was working
as UD Clerk in Thiruvananthapuram Agricultural Income Tax and
Sales Tax Office in between 26.5.1997 till 13.4.1998, was examined
and according to PW2, the 1st accused Sri.James Sam worked along
with him in the same office. PW2 supported that pursuant to
Ext.P2(a) proceedings, she handed over charge of Distribution
section to the 1st accused Sri.James Sam and during this period, PW1,
2025:KER:63123
Sri.K.P.Krishnakumar was the head of the office. He identified the
hand writing of the 1st accused in Exts.P4(a), P4(b) and P4(c) and
identified the same as that of the 1st accused Sri.James Sam. PW2
also stated that one "P.Ramachandran Nair" noted in Exts.P4(a),
P4(b) and P4(c) never worked in the office when she worked therein.
The Special Court relied on this evidence to hold that Exts.P4(a),
P4(b) and P4(c) were forged.
13. Now, the question then arises is; who committed forgery?
PW11 examined in this case is the handwriting expert and he
produced Ext.P24 report prepared by him after examining the
disputed portions of handwriting seen in Exts.P4(a), P4(b) and P4(c)
and reported that the person, who wrote the blue enclosed standard
writings and signatures, stamped and marked as S1 to S6 and A1 to
A6 also wrote the red enclosed questioned writings similarly
stamped and marked as Q1 to Q7 and Q9 to Q17. PW11 also opined
that he could not express any opinion about the authorship of the
red enclosed questioned standard writings stamped and marked Q8,
2025:KER:63123
in comparison with blue enclosed standard writings and signatures
similarly stamped and marked as S1 to S6 and A1 to A6.
14. In fact, S1 to S6 are the specimen standard writings of the
1st accused. Q1 to Q7 questioned documents in Ext.P4 file, i.e. in
Exts.P4(a) and P4(b) Non-Liability Certificates. Q1 to Q4 are marked
in Ext.P4(a) and Q5 to Q7 are marked in Ext.P4(b). In Ext.P24
report prepared by PW11 expert, it is specifically reported that the
person who wrote the blue enclosed standards writings and
signatures, stamped and marked S1 to S6 (Exts.P25(a) to P25(e))
and A1 to A6 (Exts.P5(a), Pб, P6(a) and P7) also wrote the red
enclosed questioned writings similarly stamped and marked Q1 to
Q7 and Q9 to Q17. Q1 to Q7 in Exts.P4(a) and P4(b) disputed Non-
Liability Certificates. That means, from the evidence of PW11 expert
and from Ext.P24 report prepared by him it is clear that Exts.P4(a)
and P4(b) Non-Liability Certificates were prepared in the
handwriting of the 1st accused Sri.James Sam. From Ext.P24 report
prepared by the handwriting expert and from the evidence of PW11
2025:KER:63123
expert, it is well discernible that Q9 to Q17 reported in Ext.P24
would tally with S1 to S6 and A1 to A6, i.e. specimen and admitted
writings of the 1st accused. Q9 and Q10 are seen in Ext.P4(e) and Q11
seen in Ext.P4(d). Q12 to Q17 seen in Ext.P12. Ext.P4(d) is a 4 th sheet
of Ext.P4 file in respect of the loan application of the 2 nd accused
Sri.Sabu.G. In Ext.P4(d), the 1st accused Sri.James Sam and
'Sajeevkumar P.D.' are noted as surety No.1 and surety No.2,
respectively. Q11 noted in Ext.P4(d) is the name of surety No.1, i.e.
'James Sam'. Ext.P4(e) is the loan application submitted by the 2 nd
accused Sri.Sabu.G. Q9 noted in Ext.P4(e) is address of surety No.1
and Q10 noted in Ext.P4(e) is address of surety No.2 'Sajeevkumar
P.D.'. Ext.P12 is account opening form of the 1st accused Sri.James
Sam submitted before Thiruvananthapuram District Co-operative
Bank Ltd., Nandancode Branch. The name, occupation, address of
Sri.James Sam and the address of the nominee of Sri.James Sam
written in Ext.P12 are noted as Q12 to Q17. In Ext.P24 report of the
handwriting expert, it is specifically reported that Q9 to Q17 were
2025:KER:63123
tallying with S1 to S6 and A1 to A6, i.e. standard writings and
admitted writings of the 1st accused Sri.James Sam. Based on this
evidence, the Special Court found that from Exts.P4(d) and P4(e), it
was clear that the 1st accused Sri.James Sam stood as surety No.1 in
Ext.P4 loan transaction, which was in the name of the 2 nd accused
Sri.Sabu.G. That apart, based on Ext.P4(e), the Special Court found
that the so called 'Sajeevkumar P.D.' shown as surety No.2, in
respect of the loan transaction was no person other than the 3 rd
accused. Thus, finding of the Special Court above to be justified on
re-appreciation of evidence.
15. It is evident from Ext.P4(c) confirmation letter that the
same was forwarded in the name of Sri.P.Ramachandran Nair.
However, the evidence available would show that no officer by name
Sri.P.Ramachandran Nair was worked in the office of the 1 st accused
and PW2 during the relevant time.
16. In this case, Charge witness No.7 Smt.Suseela, who was
cited as the Manager of the District Co-operative Bank, could not be
2025:KER:63123
examined since she left abroad for a long period and her presence
could not be secured reasonably. From the evidence of PW5, PW6
and PW9, Officers of the Bank, it could be seen that Ext.P4 loan file
kept at the Nandancode Branch of the Bank and the same was seized
from the Bank by the Investigating Agency after preparing
inventories. The guarantee executed by the 1 st accused Sri.James
Sam and so called 'Sajeevkumar P.D. are also part of Ext.P14. In
Ext.P14, the signature of the then Branch Manager, i.e. CW9,
Smt.Suseela was present. Exts.P14 and Ext.P14(a) were marked and
proved through PW5, Chief Accountant of the Bank. PW5 identified
the signature of CW9, Smt.Suseela present in Ext.P14. The account
opening form submitted by the 1 st accused Sri.James Sam before the
Bank, i.e. Ext.P12 is also marked through PW5, Chief Accountant of
the Bank. Ext.P16 i.e. account opening form submitted by the 2 nd
accused Sri.Sabu.G. and Ext.P17 Ledger sheet in respect of the
account of the 2nd accused Sri.Sabu.G. were marked and proved
through PW6, Senior Accountant of the Bank. From Ext.P17, it could
2025:KER:63123
be seen that the 2nd accused Sri.Sabu.G. withdrawn Rs.30,000/-
from his account on 9.3.1998 i.e. the loan amount mentioned in this
case. That means, even though there is no direct evidence regarding
Ext.P4 loan transaction, the documentary evidence produced in this
case in respect of Ext.P4 loan transaction from the Bank concerned
is sufficient to infer that the 2 nd accused availed a loan on the basis
of Exts.P4(a) and P4(b) Non- Liability Certificates and Ext.P4(c)
confirmation letter. From the above discussion, it could be found
that the 1st accused by corrupt or illegal means abused his position as
such a public servant for the purpose of deriving undue pecuniary
advantage to the 2nd accused and forged Exts.P4(a) and P4(b) Non-
Liability Certificates and Ext.P4(c) confirmation letter intending the
same for the purpose of cheating and thereafter, used the same as
genuine.
17. The prosecution case that the 3 rd accused Sri.Ajayakumar
impersonated as 'Sajeevkumar.P.D.' as a fictitious person and acted
as surety for the 2nd accused for availing loan as per Ext.P4
2025:KER:63123
proceedings, the prosecution relied on Ext.P24, the handwriting
expert's report and the evidence of PW8, the then Commanding
Officer of 'D' Company, SAP, Thiruvananthapuram to prove this
allegation. The 3rd accused is a person working as a police constable
in SAP 'D' company. During the course of investigation, PW14,
Investigating Officer obtained the specimen handwriting of the 3 rd
accused Sri.Ajayakumar on 27th December 2006. The same were
marked as Exts.P25(f) to P25(u) through PW14, Investigating
Officer. On 28.12.2006, PW14 seized Ext.P20, Deployment
Statement of SAP 'D' company. PW14, Investigating Officer deposed
the said aspects. The prosecution version is that Ext.P20
Deployment Statement was written in the handwriting of the 3 rd
accused Sri.Ajayakumar, while he was working in SAP 'D' Company
under PW8, the Commanding Officer. Exts.P20 and P25(f) to P25(u)
were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for the purpose of
comparing with Ext.P19, i.e. account opening form submitted by the
so called 'Sajeevkumar P.D' and Ext.P14 which would include the
2025:KER:63123
guarantee agreement executed by the so called 'P.D.Sajeevkumar'.
Q28 to Q30 are the signature seen in Ext.P14 file purported to have
been affixed by 'Sajeevkumar P.D'. Q18 to Q27 appears in Ext.P19.
The entries seen in Ext.P19 account opening form purported to have
been submitted by the so called 'P.D.Sajeevkumar' before the Bank
includes his name, occupation and signatures. From Ext.P24 report
prepared by the handwriting expert and from the evidence of PW11
handwriting expert, it could be seen that the person who wrote the
blue enclosed standard writings and signatures stamped and marked
S7 to S22 and A7 to A21 also wrote the red enclosed questioned
writings and signatures similarly stamped and marked Q18 to Q31.
S7 to S22 are the specimen writings of the 3 rd accused
Sri.Ajayakumar, i.e. Exts.P25(f) to P25(u). A7 to A21 are the portions
of Ext.P20 Deployment Statement alleged to have been written by
the 3rd accused Sri.Ajayakumar while he was working as a police
constable in SAP 'D' Company. Apart from that, PW8, the
Commanding Officer of 'D' Company, SAP deposed that during
2025:KER:63123
2007, he had retired from SAP as Armed Police Inspector and during
December 2006, he was working as SAP 'D' Company,
Thiruvananthapuram as Officer, Commanding and he had
acquaintance with Police Constable 8785 Sri.Ajayakumar, who was
working in 'D' Company. According to PW8, every day, the duty
details of the Officers were noted in the Deployment Statements and
the same were prepared by the police officers working under him
and the 3rd accused also one among the Police Constables worked
among him, who used to prepare Deployment Statements. Ext.P20
is the Deployment Statement marked through PW8. Regarding the
handwriting in Ext.P20, PW8 turned hostile in the matter of
identification of the handwriting of Sri.Ajayakumar and in Ext.P21,
contradiction in this regard got marked. From Ext.P24 report
prepared by the handwriting expert, it is clear that Exts.P25(f) to
P25(u) i.e. S7 to S20 and Ext.P20 i.e. A7 to A21 were similarly
written. Based on the said report, it could be safely concluded that
the handwriting seen in Ext.P20 deployment statement is the
2025:KER:63123
handwriting of the 3rd accused Sri.Ajayakumar and in Ext.P19
account opening form purported to have been submitted by the
fictitious person 'Sajeevkumar.P.D.', the photograph of the 3 rd
accused Sri.Ajayakumar was fixed. The Special Court found that the
3rd accused did not offer any explanation how his photograph reached in
the file of Thiruvananthapuram District Co-operative Bank, Nandancode
Branch. From the evidence discussed in detail as aforesaid, it could be
gathered that regarding forgery of Employment Certificate in the name of
'Sajeevkumar.P.D.' is concerned, it was done by Sri.Ajayakumar and
accused Nos.1 and 2, as part of conspiracy hatched between them, as
rightly found by the Special Court.
18. In this matter, even if the 2nd accused discharged the liability
after coercive steps were taken, that by itself would not efface the liability.
The evidence would suggest that accused Nos.1 and 2 were familiar with
each other, being nearby residents and at the instance of the 2nd accused,
loan was applied and forged Non-Liability Certificates in the name of
Sri.James Sam, the 1st accused and a fictitious person, by name
'Sajeevkumar.P.D.' authorized by the 3rd accused at the connivance of the
2025:KER:63123
1st accused were produced before the Bank. Pursuant to
that, loan was availed and kept in arrears. Thus, it
can be seen that, even though it is argued by the learned counsel for
the 2nd accused that there is no evidence to establish any conspiracy,
it is well-settled law that conspiracy, by its very nature, is hatched in
secrecy, and it is therefore extremely rare that direct evidence of
conspiracy could be forthcoming from wholly disinterested persons
or from strangers. Therefore, in order to prove conspiracy, the
circumstantial evidence would have to be relied on. Meeting of
minds and doing of certain acts may lead to conspiracy when the
other circumstances would show achievement of something on the
basis of meeting of minds and subsequent actions. Therefore, while
analyzing a case where conspiracy is alleged, if there are materials to
show circumstances indicating that the parties knew each other and
acted with a common purpose to commit an illegal act and
accomplish the same, meeting of minds for the purpose of forgery
after hatching conspiracy could be inferred from the said
2025:KER:63123
circumstances.
19. Since the evidence discussed in detail would suggest
hatching of conspiracy in between accused Nos.1 to 3, the argument
advanced by the learned counsel for the 2nd accused/appellant that the 2nd
accused should not be punished for the offence under the PC Act also
would not succeed.
20. On analysis of the entire prosecution evidence discussed
at length, as extracted hereinabove, it is emphatically clear that the
2nd accused applied for a loan of Rs.30,000/- from the District Co-
operative Bank, Nandancode Branch along with forged Non-Liability
Certificates in the name of the 1 st accused Sri.James Sam and in the
name of Sri.'Sajeevkumar.P.D.' impersonated by the 3 rd accused.
Even though the 2nd accused contended that he had no role in
applying for the loan or in producing the forged Employment
Certificates, the evidence suggests otherwise, and not even a remote
piece of evidence is forthcoming to substantiate the contention
raised by him. Thus, it could be gathered that the Special Court
2025:KER:63123
rightly found that accused Nos.1 to 3 committed offences punishable
under Sections 468, 471, 419, 420 and 120B of the IPC as well as
Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988. Therefore, the
conviction does not require any interference.
21. Coming to the sentence, where the Special Court
sentenced the 2nd accused as under:
"For the offence under Ss.420 I.P.C., 468 I.P.C., the
second accused is sentenced to undergo RI for one year
each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One
Thousand only) each. Fine, if not paid, second accused
shall undergo RI for a further period of three months
each. For the offence under S.120-B I.P.C. r/w S.13(1)(d)
of P.C. Act, 1988 r/w S.13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988, second
accused is sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to
pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only).
Fine, if not paid, the second accused shall undergo RI for
a further period of three months. For the offence under
Ss.471 IPC, 120-B IPC and S. 120-B I.P.C. r/w S.419
I.P.C., second accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one year each."
2025:KER:63123
22. As per Section 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988, the minimum
punishment prescribed for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w
Section 13(2) is imprisonment for a term not less than one year, in
addition to fine. Since the Special Court imposed imprisonment for
one year alone for other offences and directed that the sentences
shall run concurrently, there is no meaning in reducing the sentence
for the other offences as well.
In the light of the findings recorded above, it is evident that the
conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Court are strictly in
accordance with law. Since the minimum sentence has already been
awarded and the sentences have been directed to run concurrently,
no interference is called for.
Hence, the appeal fails and is dismissed by confirming the
conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Court.
Consequently, the order suspending sentence and granting bail to
the 2nd accused/appellant stands cancelled and his bail bond also
stands cancelled. The 2nd accused/appellant is directed to surrender
2025:KER:63123
before the Special Court to undergo the sentence, forthwith, failing
which, the Special Court is directed to execute the sentence, without
fail.
Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the
Special Court, for information and compliance.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN
JUDGE
Bb
2025:KER:63123
APPENDIX OF CRL.APPEAL NO.1047 OF 2013
APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 : TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY
CO-OPERATIVE BANK
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES : NIL
