[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Ganesh Gopal @ G.Gopal vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 19 December, 2025
2025:KER:98391
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 1126 OF 2010
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.06.2010 IN CC NO.3 OF 1999 OF THE
SPECIAL JUDGE(SPE/CBI)- II, ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/1ST ACCUSED:
VISWANATHAN MANATH
S/O.LATE O.CHATHUKUTTY NAIR, ASST.ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PALAKKAD.
BY ADV.SRI.K.A.JALEEL
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CBI/SPE, COCHIN REP.BY STANDING
COUNSEL M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRI
BY ADV.SREELAL N. WARRIER, SPL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR CBI
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.12.2025
ALONG WITH CRL.A.1146/2010, THE COURT ON 19.12.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CRL.A.NOS.1126 & 1146 OF 2010 2
2025:KER:98391
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 1146 OF 2010
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.06.2010 IN CC NO.3 OF
1999 OF SPECIAL JUDGE (SPE/CBI)-II, ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.3:
GANESH GOPAL @ G.GOPAL
2ND FLOOR, 555/1 BLOCK-N, NEW ALIPORE, CALCUTTA
700 053.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)
SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
REPRESENTED BY THE STANDING COUNSEL, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTING THE INSPECTOR OF
POLICE, CBI/SPE COCHIN.
BY ADV.SRI.SREELAL N.WARRIER, SPL.PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
03.12.2025 ALONG WITH CRL.A.1126/2010, THE COURT ON
19.12.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.A.NOS.1126 & 1146 OF 2010 3
2025:KER:98391
CR
COMMON JUDGMENT
Dated this the 19th day of December, 2025
Accused Nos.1 and 3 in C.C.No.03/1999 on the files of the
Special Court, (SPE/CBI)-II, Ernakulam are the appellants herein
and they impugn the conviction and sentence imposed against
them, as per judgment dated 01.06.2010.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/accused
Nos.1 and 3 as well as the learned Special Public Prosecutor.
Perused the judgment under challenge.
3. In this matter, the prosecution alleges commission of
offences punishable under Section 120B r/w Section 420 of the
Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC' hereinafter), and Section
13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the
PC Act, 1988' hereinafter), and Section 13(2) r/w Section 15 of the
PC Act, 1988, as well as under Section 420 r/w Section 511 of the
CRL.A.NOS.1126 & 1146 OF 2010 4
2025:KER:98391
IPC, by the accused. The prosecution case is that the 1 st accused,
who was employed as Assistant Branch Manager, New India
Assurance Company Ltd., Kalpetta Branch, from 30.08.1990 to
30.12.1996, hatched a criminal conspiracy with the 3 rd accused
during the period from 29.07.1994 to 30.07.1994 to cheat the New
India Assurance Company Ltd. in relation to insurance claims and
to obtain pecuniary advantage for the 2 nd accused, Assam Brooks
Exports Ltd., 1 Sheksphere Sarani, Calcutta, represented by
Sri.Sidharth Rampuria, Director - a company engaged in the
purchase, sale and export of tea and having a branch office at
Willingdon Island, Cochin and to commit criminal misconduct.
According to the prosecution, the conspiracy was formed with a
view to misappropriate the funds of the insurance company in the
names of accused Nos.2 and 3 by fraudulently inserting
endorsements in the insurance policies taken by accused Nos.2
and 3, thereby covering FST risk after making such illegal
endorsements.
CRL.A.NOS.1126 & 1146 OF 2010 5
2025:KER:98391
4. The Special Court ventured the matter. PW1 to PW31
were examined and Exts.P1 to P75 and MO1 were marked on the
side of the prosecution. Exts.D1 to D47 were marked on the side
of the defence.
5. On analysis of the evidence, the Special Court found
that the accused Nos.1 and 3 committed offences punishable
under Section 120B r/w Section 420 of the IPC as well as under
Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988. Further, the 1 st accused also
committed offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w Section 15
of the PC Act, 1988. The 3rd accused also committed offence
punishable under Section 420 r/w Section 511 of the IPC.
Accordingly, accused Nos.1 to 3 were sentenced as under:
"A1 and A3 are sentenced to undergo Sl for six
months and A2 company to pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) for the
offence punishable under Sections 120(B) IPC read
with Section 420 IPC and Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C
Act. A1 is sentenced to undergo SI for one year and
to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand
CRL.A.NOS.1126 & 1146 OF 2010 6
2025:KER:98391
only) with default sentence of three months for the
offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 15 PC
Act. A3 is sentenced to undergo SI for one year and
to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand
only) with default sentence of three months and A2
is sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 15,000/-(Rupees
fifteen thousand only) for the offence under Section
420 read with Section 511 IPC. It is enough if A1
and A3 suffer the substantive sentence of
imprisonment concurrently."
6. While assailing the conviction and sentence, the
learned counsel for the 1st accused argued that the 1st accused, who
was the Branch Manager of the New India Assurance Company
Ltd., Kalpetta Branch, was unfairly blamed for the wrong
committed by the higher officials. It is further contended that the
2nd accused - Company had filed a civil suit claiming the amounts
covered by Exts.P2 and P3 policies, to which, Exts.P5 and P6
endorsements were made subsequently. The learned counsel
vehemently argued that, in this case, two specific aspects assume
CRL.A.NOS.1126 & 1146 OF 2010 7
2025:KER:98391
significance. The first point urged is that the 1 st accused had
visited Willingdon Island, and Ext.P19 is the TE Bill, evidencing
his visit. It is contended that this visit was as authorized by PW1,
and the 1st accused had gone there only on the basis of a fax
message purportedly issued by PW2, directing him to meet the 3 rd
accused and discuss the insurance matter. According to the
learned counsel for the appellants, insofar as Exts.P5 and P6
endorsements are concerned, the issuance of such endorsements
was well within the powers of PW1, and therefore, the 1 st accused
issued Exts.P5 and P6, namely, the Fire Extra endorsement dated
01.08.1994 and the endorsement adding Peirce Leslie Godown
No.1. It is further contended that the issuance of these
endorsements without inspection or regional approval, and the
adjustment of the excess premium, would not by itself constitute
an offence. According to the learned counsel, the entire case in
this matter rests on Ext.D5 (the proposal for the policy), and on
the issuance of Ext.P3 (the policy) and Ext.P6 (the endorsement).
CRL.A.NOS.1126 & 1146 OF 2010 8
2025:KER:98391
Specifically, it is argued that the prosecution case depends upon
Ext.P3 and the subsequent Ext.P6 endorsement, which
purportedly extended FST cover in respect of Peirce Leslie
Godown No.1. In this connection, the learned counsel for the 1 st
accused pointed out that Ext.D5 is the photocopy of the
application submitted by the 3rd accused on behalf of the 2 nd
accused Company for issuance of the policy, and in column No.6,
FST coverage was opted for, though the said coverage was not
given at the time of issue of policy. It is further submitted that,
subsequently, the 3rd accused filed Ext.D8 application on
30.07.1994, and based on that request, Ext.P6 endorsement was
issued to extend FST cover. According to the learned counsel, the
additional premium was treated set off against the excess
premium paid earlier and by paying additional amount for the
FST coverage. It is pointed out that, although PW1 deposed in his
chief examination that the 1 st accused had no authority to issue
Exts.P5 and P6 endorsements, the learned counsel for the 1 st
CRL.A.NOS.1126 & 1146 OF 2010 9
2025:KER:98391
accused contended that Ext.D2 letter of authority would clearly
show that the 1st accused was empowered to make such
endorsements. Thus, the sum and substance of the argument
advanced by the learned counsel for the 1 st accused is that Exts.P5
and P6 endorsements were issued in the exercise of the authority
conferred on him, acting upon the application subsequently filed
as Ext.D8. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the
prosecution miserably failed to establish the commission of the
alleged offences by convincing and cogent evidence, and the
evidence on record is not free from doubt.
7. The learned counsel for the 3rd accused also shared the
argument of the 1st accused and contended that the evidence
available are quite insufficient to find guilt of the 3rd accused.
8. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI
submitted that, in this case, the original policies were issued as
Exts. P2 and P3 on the basis of Ext.P1 proposal. It is further
submitted that the endorsements in Exts.P5 and P6 were made on
CRL.A.NOS.1126 & 1146 OF 2010 10
2025:KER:98391
01.08.1994 acting on Ext.D8 proposal, by which, Peirce Leslie
Godown No.1 was added without inspection or the requisite
regional approval, and by enhancing the sum assured while
granting FST coverage. Subsequently, the 1st accused issued
Ext.P21 letter dated 09.08.1994 to the 3 rd accused, confirming
that the endorsements would be effective from the dates of the
original policies, thereby enabling submission of a false claim
under Ext.P4 (fire claim form). It is pointed out that, as per
Ext.P19, even before a decision was taken on Ext.D8, which was
filed on 30.07.1994, the 1 st accused had visited Willingdon Island
on 29.07.1994, and Ext.P19 (the TE bills) would establish the
same. It is pointed out that, in view of Exts.P5 and P6
endorsements, when the claim for flood damage was submitted by
the 2nd accused through the 3rd accused, the 1st accused prepared
Exts.P16 and P17 Fire Special Claim Reports, recommending an
amount of Rs.49.82 Lakh on the basis of the manipulated
coverage. It is submitted that, as per Ext.P61 Meteorological
CRL.A.NOS.1126 & 1146 OF 2010 11
2025:KER:98391
Register, heavy rainfall was recorded on 29.07.1994, 30.07.1994,
and 31.07.1994. According to the learned Special Public
Prosecutor, before making the endorsements in Exts.P5 and P6,
there ought to have been a proper verification, which was not
carried out.
9. Having considered the rival submissions, the points
arise for consideration are:
(i) Whether the Special Court was right in
holding that accused Nos.1 and 3 committed offence
punishable under Section 120B r/w Section 420 of the
IPC?
(ii) Whether the Special Court was right in
holding that accused Nos.1 and 3 committed offence
punishable under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988?
(iii) Whether the Special Court was right in
holding that the 1st accused committed offence
punishable under Section 13(2) r/w Section 15 of the
CRL.A.NOS.1126 & 1146 OF 2010 12
2025:KER:98391
PC Act, 1988?
(iv) Whether the Special Court was right in
holding that the 3rd accused committed offence
punishable under Section 420 r/w Section 511 of the
IPC?
(v) Whether the verdict would require
interference?
(vi) The order to be passed?
Point Nos.(i) to (vi):
10. The prosecution relied on the evidence of PW18
Sri.Badri Prasad, who was examined to speak about the procedure
relating to risk assessment and verification prior to the issuance of
policies and endorsements. He deposed that he was serving as the
Risk Engineer of the New India Assurance Company from May
1998 to 2008. He stated that he had inspected the godown on
receiving the claim application on 25.03.1993, prior to the
issuance of Exts.P2 and P3 policies. However, with respect to the
CRL.A.NOS.1126 & 1146 OF 2010 13
2025:KER:98391
issuance of Exts.P5 and P6 endorsements, he deposed that no
methodology or procedure was adopted to assess the additional
risk, nor was any verification conducted to ascertain whether any
incident had occurred on or prior to the date of the application
seeking such enhancement of coverage.
11. The learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that,
as per the evidence of PW2 Smt.Alice Vaidyan, who had worked as
Assistant Manager at the Regional Office of the New India
Assurance Company, Exts.P5 and P6 endorsements were beyond
the powers of the 1st accused and ought to have been issued only
from the Regional Office.
12. PW3, the Godown Keeper also was examined to speak
about the condition and features of the godown, for which, FST
coverage was given and the circumstances relating to the alleged
damage. PW3 deposed about the lie, location and level of the
godown, the existence of shutters and a hump as a precaution to
prevent the entry of rainwater, the manner in which the tea dust
CRL.A.NOS.1126 & 1146 OF 2010 14
2025:KER:98391
of the 2nd accused Company was stocked therein, and the damage
caused to the said tea dust during the heavy rainfall in the last
week of July 1994. He also testified that Peirce Leslie Godown
was included in Ext.P6 endorsement.
13. PW5, Sri.Ashok Kumar was further examined to prove
the communications received from the 2nd accused, the deputation
of the 1st accused to Willingdon Island, and the preparation and
processing of the relevant T.E. bills and Special Claim Reports.
PW5 is the Principal, Chavara Institute of Management Studies,
Calicut and had earlier served as the Senior Divisional Manager of
the New India Assurance Company, Calicut, during the period
1992 to 1998, under which the Kalpetta Branch also fell. He
identified the 1st accused, who was present before the Special
Court and stated that he had been the Assistant Branch Manager in
Kalpetta and was in charge of the branch during the relevant period.
PW5 proved Ext.P25, the telex message received by him on 27.07.1994
from the 2nd accused Company, bearing his initials, by which the
CRL.A.NOS.1126 & 1146 OF 2010 15
2025:KER:98391
3rd accused, the General Manager of the 2 nd accused Company,
requested that a senior and responsible officer be deputed to meet
him to sort out an issue relating to insurance coverage of tea
stored at the Central Warehouse, Cochin. Pursuant to this request,
PW5 deputed the 1st accused and simultaneously informed the
Regional Office, Ernakulam, under Ext.P26 message, and sent
Ext.P27 message to PW2 on the same day. Exts.P18 and P19, the
T.E. bills submitted by the 1 st accused, were passed by PW5.
Ext.P28 is the T.E. bill of PW5 himself, showing that he had
reached Ernakulam on 08.08.1994 and left the next day. Exts.P16
and P17 Fire Special Claim Reports relating to the 2 nd accused
Company, bear the signature of the 1 st accused, indicating that
they were prepared by him, and also bear the signature of PW5,
showing that the reports were placed before him.
14. According to the learned counsel for the appellant/1 st
accused, the visit of the 1 st accused to Willingdon Island was duly
authorised by his senior officers, and the encashment of Exts.P18
CRL.A.NOS.1126 & 1146 OF 2010 16
2025:KER:98391
and P19 T.E. bills in respect of the said visit is not in dispute. The
crucial question to be considered in this case is whether Exts.P5
and P6 endorsements were made in Exts.P2 and P3 policies
issued on the basis of Ext.P1 proposal on 01.08.1994, by which,
Peirce Leslie Godown No.1 was added without inspection or the
requisite regional approval and by providing the sum assured
while granting FST coverage.
15. Here, acting on Ext.D8 proposal, Exts.P5 and P6
endorsements were made in Exts.P2 and P3 policies granting FST
coverage and it was informed by the 1st accused as per Ext.P21
letter, dated 09.08.1994 to the 3rd accused, confirming that the
endorsements would be effective from the dates of the original
policies. The prosecution case is that, Ext.D8 proposal was made
after destruction of the tea dust kept in Peirce Leslie Godown
No.1, which was not covered by Exts.P2 and P3 policies due to
flood on 30.07.1994 because of heavy rainfall on 29.07.1994.
Even though it is argued by the learned counsel for the 1 st
CRL.A.NOS.1126 & 1146 OF 2010 17
2025:KER:98391
accused/appellant that a civil suit had been filed by the 2 nd
accused Company when the claims under Exts.P2 and P3 policies,
inclusive of Exts.P5 and P6 endorsements, were repudiated by the
Insurance Company on the ground of falsification after the flood,
Ext.P75, copy of the judgment in O.S.Nos.108/2002 and
109/2002, would show that both the suits were dismissed on
merits with costs in favour of the Insurance Company. No appeals
therefrom have been filed so far, and therefore, the denial of the
said claims has attained finality. As per the evidence given by
PW3 and PW6, the 3rd accused, Ganesh Gopal of Assam Brooks
Exports Ltd., came to Peirce Leslie Godown No.1 and witnessed
the damage caused to the tea dust on account of the heavy rainfall
on 29.07.1994 and the consequential flood on 30.07.1994. In this
matter, Ext.D8 dated 30.07.1994 given by the 3 rd accused to the 1st
accused to include the godown which was fully damaged by flood
and the 1st accused issued Exts.P5 and P6 endorsements covering
the risk of Peirce Leslie Godown No.1 which was already fully
CRL.A.NOS.1126 & 1146 OF 2010 18
2025:KER:98391
damaged due to flood. Even though it is argued by the learned
counsel for the 1st accused/appellant that the 1st accused was fully
empowered to make Exts.P5 and P6 endorsements by collecting
additional premium, any such power vested in the 1 st accused to
make those endorsements had to be exercised only after verifying
the physical condition of the insured structures before effecting
the endorsements. If there had been no conspiracy among
accused Nos.1 to 3, as alleged, Exts.P5 and P6 endorsements
would not have been made by the 1 st accused in respect of Peirce
Leslie Godown No.1, acting on the proposal dated 30.07.1994, in a
case where the tea dust stored in the godown had already been
fully destroyed on 29.07.1994 and 30.07.1994 due to heavy rain
and flood.
16. That apart, it is interesting to note that, based on Exts.
P5 and P6 endorsements, when the claim for flood damage was
submitted by the 2nd accused through the 3rd accused, the 1st
accused, without conducting any enquiry, prepared Exts.P16 and
CRL.A.NOS.1126 & 1146 OF 2010 19
2025:KER:98391
P17 Fire Special Claim Reports recommending an amount of
Rs.49.82 Lakh on the basis of the said endorsements, without
verifying whether Peirce Leslie Godown No.1 had in fact been
subjected to flooding and whether the tea dust stored therein had
been totally damaged. Ext.P61 Meteorological Register would also
justify the allegation of the prosecution that there was heavy
rainfall at the Peirce Leslie Godown No.1 on 29.07.1994,
30.07.1994 and 31.07.1994.
17. In the instant case, Ext.P21 communication was issued
by accused Nos.1 to 3 stating that the risk of Peirce Leslie Godown
No.1 relates back to the date of issuance of policy. In this
connection, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused,
Section 64VB of the Insurance Act, 1938 assumes significance.
Section 64VB states that "no risk to be assumed unless premium
is received in advance". Section 64VB(1) provides that no insurer
shall assume any risk in India in respect of any insurance
business on which premium is not ordinarily payable outside
CRL.A.NOS.1126 & 1146 OF 2010 20
2025:KER:98391
India unless and until the premium payable is received by him or
is guaranteed to be paid by such person in such manner and
within such time as may be prescribed or unless and until
deposit of such amount as may be prescribed, is made in
advance in the prescribed manner. Section 64VB (2) provides
further that for the purposes of this section, in the case of risks
for which premium can be ascertained in advance, the risk may
be assumed not earlier than the date on which the premium has
been paid in cash or by cheque to the insurer. Thus, it is
emphatically clear that as per Section 64VB(2), assuming risk
more than what is covered in the previous policy is permissible
subject to payment of additional premium and the risk may be
assumed not earlier than the date on which premium has been
paid in cash or by cheque to the insurer. Thus, payment of
premium is decisive in determining the date of coverage and the
same is undoubtedly the date of remittance of the premium.
Here, Ext.D8 proposal was on 30.07.1994 and Exts.P5 and P6
CRL.A.NOS.1126 & 1146 OF 2010 21
2025:KER:98391
endorsements on getting additional premium was issued after
30.07.1994 and as per Ext.P21 letter, the 1 st accused informed the
3rd accused that the risk would be covered starting from the date
of the policy so as to cover the damages on 29.07.1994 and
30.07.1994, for which, no premium was actually paid before these
dates. In fact, this course of action is not legally permissible.
18. Thus, on a re-appreciation of the evidence, it emerges
that the issuance of Exts.P5 and P6 endorsements and Ext.P21
letter, showing coverage of Peirce Leslie Godown No.1 prior to the
date of payment of premium (i.e. from the date of issue of Exts.P2
and P3 original policies), was the result of a conspiracy hatched
among accused Nos.1 to 3 with a view to unlawfully enrich the 3 rd
accused, though the amount was not disbursed due to the
intervention of higher officials, on detecting this falsity. If so, the
Special Court was right in finding that accused Nos.1 to 3 have
committed offences punishable under Section 120B r/w Section
420 of the IPC as well as under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act,
CRL.A.NOS.1126 & 1146 OF 2010 22
2025:KER:98391
1988. Similarly, the Special Court was right in holding that the 1 st
accused also committed offence punishable under Section 13(2)
r/w Section 15 of the PC Act, 1988. Accused Nos.2 and 3 accused
also committed offence punishable under Section 420 r/w Section
511 of the IPC. Therefore, the conviction does not require any
interference.
19. Coming to the sentence, the maximum sentence
imposed by the Special Court on the appellants/accused Nos.1 and
3 is one year and the 2nd accused - Company was sentenced to pay
a fine of Rs.10,000/-. Therefore, the sentence is found to be
reasonable. Hence, no reduction in sentence is found necessary.
Accordingly, the sentence also is confirmed.
In the result, both the appeals fail and are accordingly
dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the
Special Court against the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 3. The
order suspending sentence and granting bail to the
appellants/accused Nos.1 and 3 stand cancelled and the bail
CRL.A.NOS.1126 & 1146 OF 2010 23
2025:KER:98391
bonds executed by them also stand cancelled. The
appellants/accused Nos.1 and 3 are directed to surrender before
the Special Court, forthwith to undergo the sentence, failing
which, the Special Court is directed to execute the sentence,
without fail.
Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment of
the Special Court, forthwith, without fail, for information and
execution of the sentence against all the accused.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN
JUDGE
Bb
