Thursday, 07, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

P.T.Mathai vs State Of Kerala
2025 Latest Caselaw 4234 Ker

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 4234 Ker
Judgement Date : 19 February, 2025

Kerala High Court

P.T.Mathai vs State Of Kerala on 19 February, 2025

                                            2025:KER:15492

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                          PRESENT

        THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

 WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 30TH MAGHA,

                            1946

               CRL.APPEAL NO. 639 OF 2008

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.02.2008 IN CC NO.45 OF 2003

      OF THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE,

                     THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

         P.T.MATHAI,
         FORMERLY SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SERVANTS,
         CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO.Q.169, MANTHUKA,
         PATHANAMTHITTA.

         BY ADVS.
         SRI.B.KRISHNA KUMAR
         SRI.DINESH THANKAPPAN
         SRI.A.CHANDRA BABU



RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

         STATE OF KERALA
         REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
         HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-31.
                                                           2025:KER:15492
                                     2
Crl.Appeal No.639 of 2008

              SMT REKHA S, SR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
              SRI A RAJESH, SPL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (VIG)



       THIS      CRIMINAL   APPEAL       HAVING    COME   UP    FOR    FINAL
HEARING     ON     19.02.2025,   THE       COURT    ON    THE   SAME    DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                             2025:KER:15492
                                       3
Crl.Appeal No.639 of 2008


                       P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.
      -----------------------------------------------------------
                    Crl.Appeal No.639 of 2008
      -----------------------------------------------------------
            Dated this the 19th day of February, 2025

                                JUDGMENT

The appellant was the accused in C.C.No.45 of 2003 on

the files of the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special

Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. He was tried on a charge for

offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(c) and (d) read with

Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC

Act) and Sections 409, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (IPC). The Special Court convicted the appellant

for all those offences and sentenced him to undergo

imprisonment and pay fine. The said judgment of conviction

and sentence is under challenge in this appeal filed under

Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

(Code).

2. The prosecution was initiated based on the

allegation that while the appellant was working as the

Secretary of the Government Servants Co-operative Bank Ltd.

2025:KER:15492

No.Q.169, Manthuka, by misusing his position as a public

servant, created false documents and disbursed loans in the

names of Sri.V.K.Shaji, Smt.K.N.Thankamma, PW17 and

PW18 each for an amount of Rs.50,000/-. Those loan

amounts were not disbursed to the loanees, instead the

amounts were misappropriated by the appellant. Yet another

instance of misappropriation alleged is that he

misappropriated Rs.31,912/-, which was entrusted by one

Sri.A.N. Chandrasekhara Pillai for remitting instalments in his

two chitties with Nos.12/93 and 13/93.

3. Based on the said allegations, a charge was

framed and read over. The appellant pleaded not guilty.

Hence, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 28 and

produced Exts.P1 to P68. This case was tried along with

C.C.Nos.43, 47 and 48 of 2003 of the Special Court,

Thiruvananthapuram, since the transactions were similar in

nature, and the accused was common. The Special Court,

based on the said evidence, convicted the appellant in all the

four cases.

2025:KER:15492

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the

learned Special Public Prosecutor (Vigilance).

5. The appellant assails the impugned judgment on

various grounds. However, at the time of hearing, the learned

counsel for the appellant stressed mainly on the contention

that the offence under Sections 13(1)(c) and (d) read with

Section 13(2) of the PC Act is not established. The submission

of the learned counsel is that even admitting that the

appellant was the Secretary of the Government Servants

Co-operative Bank Ltd., Manthuka, the prosecution cannot

canvass for the position that he was a public servant coming

within the purview of Section 2(c) of the PC Act.

6. Clause (ix) of Section 2(c) of the PC Act takes in

its fold the president, secretary or other office-bearer of a

registered co-operative society engaged in agriculture,

industry, trade or banking, which is receiving or having

received any financial aid from the Central Government or a

State Government or from any corporation established by or

under a Central, Provincial or State Act. President, secretary 2025:KER:15492

or other office-bearer of such a co-operative society alone is

a public servant for the purpose of the PC Act. The Apex

Court in State of Maharashtra v. Brijlal Sadasukh

Modani [(2016) 4 SCC 417] held that even a sprinkle of

aid to the co-operative society is enough to bring an

employee of the co-operative society within the definition of

'public servant'.

7. There is no allegation in the final report or evidence

to prove that the Government Servants Co-operative Bank

Ltd. No.Q.169, Manthuka obtained or obtains any financial aid

from the Central Government or a State Government or from

any corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial

or State Act. Since the prosecution did not allege that the

Government Servants Co-operative Bank Ltd., Manthuka

obtained any aid from either the Central or State Government

and there is absolutely no evidence to prove the fact that the

conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under

Sections 13(1)(c) and (d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC

Act is unsustainable.

2025:KER:15492

8. Insofar as the offences of creating forged

documents for the purpose of providing loans in the proxy

names and to misappropriate the amounts of such loans,

sufficient evidence has been adduced by the prosecution. The

documents pertaining to the loans were all in the handwriting

of the appellant. The authorship of such documents, and also

the official documents concerning the loan transactions in

question is not successfully challenged even. When, such

overwhelming evidence, both documentary and oral, is

available in order to prove that the loans in question were

disbursed but the loanees concerned namely, Sri.V.K.Shaji,

Smt.K.N.Thankamma, PW17 and PW18 did not receive any

amount, and also misappropriation of amount entrusted by

Sri.A.N.Chandrasekhara Pillai, the irresistible conclusion is

that the appellant misappropriated the said amounts. In the

circumstances, it can further be held that the documents in

relation to such loans were forged attracting penal provisions

under Sections 468 and 471 of the IPC. The findings of the

Special Court that the appellant has committed the offences 2025:KER:15492

punishable under Sections 409, 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC

are therefore not liable to be interfered with.

9. Accordingly, the appellant is found not guilty and

acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 13(1)(c)

and (d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. Consequential

sentence is set aside. His conviction for the offences under

Sections 409, 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC is confirmed.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit

that the appellant suffered a stroke and had to undergo

treatment for a long period. He is now aged 74 years and

ailing of so many diseases. It is further submitted that a

major portion of the amount said to have been

misappropriated from the Co-operative Bank was repaid.

Moreover, the entire immovable property belonging to the

appellant has been kept under attachment. Accordingly, it is

submitted that there would not be any loss to the Co-

operative Bank.

11. The submission of the learned Special Public

Prosecutor is that the offence committed by the appellant is 2025:KER:15492

very serious and involved several similar instances. Therefore,

there is no justification for any interference with the order of

sentence.

12. Having considered the facts and circumstances of

the case, including the present age and physical condition of

the appellant, as are borne out from the records, I am of the

view that sentences imposed on the appellant can be modified

and reduced.

13. Accordingly, the appellant is sentenced to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each for the

offences under Sections 409, 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC. Besides

imprisonment, the appellant has to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with a

default sentence of two months under each of Sections 409, 420, 468

and 471 of the IPC. Terms of substantive sentence shall run

concurrently. Set off of the eligible period is allowed.

14. The appellant is convicted and sentenced in eight

cases, including the present one. The cases are C.C.Nos. 43,

44, 46, 47 and 48 of 2003 of the Special Court,

Thiruvananthapuram and C.C.Nos. 150 and 177 of 2003 of the 2025:KER:15492

Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Pathanamthitta. The offences

involved in all these eight cases were committed while the

appellant was functioning as the Secretary of the Government

Servants Co-operative Bank Limited, Manthuka. Different final

reports were filed with respect to distinct instances of

misappropriation. Since all the offences were committed by

the appellant in the capacity as Secretary of the said

Co-operative Bank and in quick succession, the offences form

part of a series of transactions.

15. The Apex Court in Mohanan Nair P.N. v. State of

Kerala [(2017) 14 SCC 719] held that when the allegations

constituted a single transaction between the same parties for

a block period, and split up by the prosecution, presumably

for its convenience, into different cases, it is appropriate to

order to run sentences imposed in all the cases concurrently,

invoking the provisions under Section 427(1) of the Code. A

similar view was taken by the Apex Court in Vicky @ Vikas v.

State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(2020) 11 SCC 540] also.

Identical are the circumstances in these cases also. Therefore, 2025:KER:15492

I am of the view that the said proposition can be applied to

these cases. Hence, it is ordered that the terms of substantive

sentence imposed on the appellant in this case and C.C.Nos.

43, 44, 46, 47 and 48 of 2003 of the Special Court,

Thiruvananthapuram and C.C.Nos. 150 and 177 of 2003 of the

Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Pathanamthitta shall run

concurrently. The appellant shall appear before the Court of

Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram

on or before 21.04.2025 for undergoing sentence. That court

shall inform the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Thiruvananthapuram once the appellant is committed to jail.

The appeal is allowed in part as above.

Sd/-

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

scl/dkr

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter