Kerala High Court
Venkiteswara Babu vs State Of Kerala on 24 October, 2025
CRL.A NO. 69 OF 2017
1
2025:KER:79656
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 2ND KARTHIKA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 69 OF 2017
CRIME NO.8/2007 OF VACB, PALAKKAD, Palakkad
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 24.12.2016 IN CC NO.8 OF
2009 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE,THRISSUR
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
VENKITESWARA BABU
AGED 57,S/O. RAJAGOPAL, (AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,KRISHI
BHAVAN, AGALI), RESIDING AT153/7TH STREET, NALLUR
NAGAR,BHARATHIYAR UNIVERSITY P.O.,COIMBATORE.
BY ADV SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA,ERNAKULAM.
OTHER PRESENT:
SPL PP RAJESH A,SRPP REKHA.S VACB
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.10.2025, THE COURT ON 24.10.2025 DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.A NO. 69 OF 2017
2
2025:KER:79656
"C R"
A. BADHARUDEEN, J
=======================
Crl.Appeal No. 69 of 2017
======================
Dated 24th day of October. 2025
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been filed under section 374(2) of code
of criminal procedure at the instance of the accused in C.C.No.8/2009
on the files of the enquiry commissioner and special judge, Thrissur
challenging conviction and sentence imposed against the accused as per
judgment in this case dated 24.12.2016. The respondent is the State of
Kerala represented by the learned Special Public Prosecutor.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused as well as
the learned Special Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the verdict under
CRL.A NO. 69 OF 2017
2025:KER:79656
challenge also the records of the special court and the decisions placed by
the learned Special Public Prosecutor.
3. In this matter, the prosecution alleges commission of offences
punishable under Sections 409 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code (for
short, 'the IPC' hereafter) as well as Section 13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of the the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the PC Act, 1988) by
the appellant/accused.
4. The summary of the prosecution allegation is that the
appellant/accused while working as Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan,
Agali misappropriated Rs.6,192/- granted in favour of one
Mr.Gangadharan K.V, Kailas Gardens, Kottathara, Agali as
compensation for the natural calamities he suffered, after forging and
falsifying records thereof.
CRL.A NO. 69 OF 2017
2025:KER:79656
5. The special court proceeded with the trial after completing the
pre-trial formalities. PW1 to PW11 were examined and Exts.P1 to P21
were marked on the side of the prosecution. No evidence recorded as
that of the appellant/accused. The special court on appreciation of
evidence found that the appellant/accused committed offences
punishable under section 409 and 465 of the IPC and Sections 13(1)(c)
r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 and accordingly the appellant/accused
was convicted and sentenced as under:-
"The Accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year
and shall also pay a fine of Rs.6,000/- (Rupees six thousand only) for offence
u/s. 13(2), r/w 13(1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In case of
default of payment of fine, the Accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for
a further period of one month. The Accused shall undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one year and shall also pay a fine of Rs.4,000/-
(Rupees four thousand only) for offence u/s. 409 of the I.P.C. In case of default
CRL.A NO. 69 OF 2017
2025:KER:79656
of payment of fine, the Accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a
further period of one month. The Accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment
for a period of one year for offence u/s. 465 of the I.P.C. The substantive
sentences shall run concurrently."
6. Two points raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant/accused to unsustain the verdict of the special court.
7. The first point argued is that in order to sustain a conviction for
the offence punishable under Section 409 of the IPC, the entrustment of
the property to the exclusive domain of the accused in his official
capacity must be proved. It is pointed out that in this case, the evidence
of PW3 who succeeded the appellant/accused as the Agricultural Officer,
Agali, deposed during cross-examination, when he was asked whether,
before he had taken charge, temporary hands from the Panchayat were
deputed in connection with the disbursement of compensation for
CRL.A NO. 69 OF 2017
2025:KER:79656
natural calamities, temporary staff from the Panchayat might have been
sent to assist the Agricultural Officer and that it was something that
occurred prior to his joining. Therefore the presence of other employees
is evident from the testimony of PW3 and in such circumstances the
crucial element in as much as exclusive entrustment of the
misappropriated amount at the hands of the accused cannot be found.
8. Secondly, it is argued that according to the prosecution
allegation, a total amount of Rs.48,42,208/-, as quantified in Ext.P1, was
sanctioned for disbursement to 2045 farmers entitled to compensation
for the natural calamities. However the prosecution does not have a case
that anyone other than Mr. Gangadharan K.V. raised any grievance
regarding non-receipt of the compensation. According to the learned
counsel for the appellant/accused, based on the evidence of PW7, the
CRL.A NO. 69 OF 2017
2025:KER:79656
son of Mr. Gangadharan, it can be gathered that Mr.Gangadharan was
alive until 2010, and the investigation was completed prior to that.
Despite this, no attempt was made by the Investigating Officer to obtain
the specimen signatures or admitted signatures of Mr.Gangadharan for
the purpose of getting an expert opinion regarding his signatures in
Exts.P3, P4, and P10(a-1), the documents where the signatures of
Gangadharan were denied. According to the learned counsel, the only
evidence adduced by the prosecution to show that it was not the accused
who signed Exts.P3, P4, and P10(a-1) was the testimony of PW7, who is
none other than the son of Gangadharan. The learned counsel further
submitted that failure on the part of the Investigating Officer to seek
expert opinion is a circumstance creating doubt in the prosecution case,
which should be adjudged in favour of the appellant/accused.
Accordingly the learned counsel for the appellant/accused pressed for
CRL.A NO. 69 OF 2017
2025:KER:79656
interference in the impugned verdict by enlarging benefit of doubt to the
accused.
9. Dispelling this contention the learned Special Public
Prosecutor submitted that in view of the evidence of PW1 and PW3, it is
crystal clear that the appellant/accused alone was the Agricultural
Officer entrusted with custody of the money and was the only officer
empowered to draw the cheque. In the instant case Ext.P3 is the cheque
written in the name of Gangadharan duly signed by the
appellant/accused, as the payer/drawer of the same. The person who
obtained entrustment of money could only issue a cheque as the
payer/drawer of the same. Therefore, the entrustment of the money at
the hands of the appellant/accused is well established. Therefore relying
on the evidence of PW3 that some other staff were deployed from the
CRL.A NO. 69 OF 2017
2025:KER:79656
Panchayat to assist the Agricultural Officer by itself is insufficient to hold
that the appellant/accused was not entrusted with the money. That
apart, who were the staff so deputed also not forthcoming. The learned
Special Public Prosecutor further pointed out that expert opinion is only
opinion evidence and the prosecution case could not be disbelieved
solely for want of expert evidence/opinion. It is submitted that the
prosecution has sufficiently proved the signatures in Exts.P3, P4, and
P10(a-1) through the evidence of PW7, the son of Gangadharan, in
accordance with Section 47 of the Evidence Act, along with the
explanation thereof.
10. According to the learned Special Public Prosecutor, insofar as
expert opinion is concerned the Court must exercise caution while
evaluating the same, as it is considered as a weak form of evidence and
CRL.A NO. 69 OF 2017
2025:KER:79656
the same is not substantive in nature. It is further pointed out that expert
evidence if relied upon solely to prove the prosecution allegation
without the support of independent and reliable substantive evidence
cannot by itself establish the offence. In support of this contention the
learned public prosecutor produced decision of the Apex Court
reported in 2019 KHC 6862 Chennadijalapathi Reddy v. Baddam
Pratapa Reddy (Dead) through Legal Representatives and
Another and in Paragraph No.19 the Apex Court held that a reading of
S.47 of the Evidence Act makes it clear that this provision is concerned with
the relevance of the opinion of a person who is acquainted with the
handwriting of another person. The Explanation to this Section goes on to
enumerate the circumstances in which a person may be said to have such
acquaintance. The learned Special Public Prosecutor also placed a
decision of this Court reported in 2025 (1) KHC 70 James v. State of
CRL.A NO. 69 OF 2017
2025:KER:79656
Kerala to contend that evidence of PW7 alone is sufficient to identify
the signatures of Gangadharan in Exts.P3, P4 and P10(a-1) and it is
pointed out further that in this case this Court held that the evidence of
the biological brother of the deceased who was living at the same house
could not be held as not familiar with the handwriting of his own
deceased sister, while believing the said evidence.
11. On appraisal of the rival contentions, the following questions
arise for consideration.
1. Whether the prosecution succeeded in proving that the
accused committed offence punishable under Section 409 of
IPC by the accused as found by the special court?
CRL.A NO. 69 OF 2017
2025:KER:79656
2. Whether the prosecution succeeded in proving that the
accused committed offence punishable under Section 465 of
IPC by the accused as found by the special court?
3. Whether the prosecution succeeded in proving that the
accused committed offence punishable under Section
13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 by the accused as
found by the special court?
4. Whether the verdict under challenge would require
interference?
5. The order to be passed?
Point Nos. 1 to 5:-
12. In response to the arguments tendered from both sides,
evaluation of evidence is necessary. The evidence of PW1 is that as per
CRL.A NO. 69 OF 2017
2025:KER:79656
Ext.P1 a total sum of Rs.48,42,208/- was allotted as compensation for
the loss of crops assessed in Ext.P9(a). The prosecution case specifically
pertains to the alleged forgery of records and misappropriation of
Rs.6,192/- granted in favour of Gangadharan, who is now no more.
According to the prosecution Ext.P3 cheque dated 13.09.2006 was
drawn in the name of Gangadharan for the said sum and duly signed by
the accused, being the drawing officer. On the reverse side of Ext.P3, two
signatures of Gangadharan could be the same with an endorsement
stating that 'one signature is attestation of the other'. Ext.P4 is the
receipt allegedly given by Gangadharan upon receiving Ext.P3. Ext.P10
is the register showing disbursement of financial assistance for crop loss
due to natural calamity during May 2006 and in Serial No.1886,
Rs.6,192/- in the name of Gangadharan was shown as disbursed to him.
His signature was also found as the recipient of the same. The specific
CRL.A NO. 69 OF 2017
2025:KER:79656
case of the prosecution is that contends that the signatures in Exts.P3,
P4, and P10(a-1) were not put by Gangadharan and were forged and
falsified by the accused who is the custodian of the amount as well as
documents. In this regard PW7, the son of Gangadharan was examined
and he testified that the signatures and handwriting in Ext.P9(a) the
application submitted by Gangadharan for compensation, were that of
Gangadharan. However when Exts.P3, P4, and P10(a-1) were shown to
him, he deposed that those signatures were not that of Gangadharan
specifying that Gangadharan had no habit of using a single stroke or
underlining the signature as seen in those documents. During
cross-examination attempts were made to suggest that PW7 had been
inimical to his father for the last fifteen years but PW7 categorically
denied the same. In this connection the evidence of PW8 who was the
Assistant Director in Alathur during April 2007 is relevant. He deposed
CRL.A NO. 69 OF 2017
2025:KER:79656
that while working under instructions from the Vigilance authorities he
conducted a surprise check at the Agricultural Office, Agaly and
prepared a joint inventory marked as Ext.P17. Upon verifying Ext.P9
and P10, he noticed differences in the signatures of beneficiary
Gangadharan. Similarly discrepancies were found in Ext.P4, the receipt
alleged to have been issued by Gangadharan. During his inspection,
Gangadharan was also present and when he was shown the signatures in
Ext.P4 and P10, he denied them. It is true that no attempt was made by
the Investigating Officer to obtain an expert opinion regarding the
signatures in Exts.P3, P4, and P10(a-1) by securing specimen signatures
of Gangadharan. However as rightly pointed out by the learned Special
Public Prosecutor, expert opinion is only a weak piece of corroborative
evidence and the same does not have an independent probative value
unless supported by substantive evidence. Admittedly in the instant case
CRL.A NO. 69 OF 2017
2025:KER:79656
no expert opinion was obtained as pointed out by the learned counsel
for the appellant/accused.
13. In this case insofar as the encashment of Ext.P3 and the release
of the amount involved therein are concerned, PW6 the Senior Associate
of SBI, Agaly Branch deposed that in September 2016 the bearer of the
cheque was given the money and he had verified the specimen signature
on the cheque against that of the drawer. Regarding the attested
signature and the signatures alleged to be of Gangadharan, PW6 stated
that he had no knowledge about the same.
14. Insofar as Ext.P7 the prosecution sanction order is concerned,
the same has been proved through the evidence of PW2 and no
contention has been raised by the learned counsel for the
CRL.A NO. 69 OF 2017
2025:KER:79656
appellant/accused regarding its sufficiency. Thus prosecution sanction
also proved by the prosecution.
15. As regards expert opinion, no explanation was elicited from
the Investigating Officer during cross-examination as to why such a
course of action failed to be adopted. In the instant case the evidence of
PW1 and PW3 indicates that the appellant/accused was the custodian of
the total sum of Rs.48,42,208/-, a part of which, viz Rs.6,192/-, was due
to Gangadharan. The first question for consideration is whether in view
of the evidence of PW3 the presence of temporary staff deputed from
the Panchayat negates the entrustment of the amount at the hands of the
accused, thereby the prosecution case as to entrustment of the above
sum is in the midst of doubts.
CRL.A NO. 69 OF 2017
2025:KER:79656
16. A perusal of the evidence of PW3 would show that during
cross-examination, PW3 stated that he succeeded the appellant/accused
and his version is that some staff from the Panchayat were deputed in
connection with disbursement of amount of compensation for natural
calamities when such a question was asked. In continuation of this
question nothing was asked to PW3 regarding the details of the staff so
deputed. Thus merely relying on this evidence given by PW3 without
naming the officers so deputed and any order for such deputation it
could not safely be concluded that any other staff worked in the office of
the appellant/accused during the period of disbursement of
compensation of natural calamities. If at all the evidence of PW3 is
given emphasis to hold that some other staff were also deputed that by
itself could not make any change as the entrustment of the
misappropriated money at the hands of the accused is well established by
CRL.A NO. 69 OF 2017
2025:KER:79656
the evidence of PW1 and PW3 as already discussed. That is to say,
section 409 of the IPC provides that when a property is entrusted with
the domain of a public servant in his capacity as a public servant when
commit criminal breach of trust in respect of the property so entrusted
he shall be liable for the offence punishable under section 409 of the
IPC.
17. Before conclusion it is relevant to consider what are the
essentials to be proved to complete an offence under Section 409 of IPC.
In the decision reported in [(2012) 8 SCC 547 : AIR 2012 SC 3242]
Sadhupati Nageswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the Apex
Court held that, in order to sustain a conviction under section 409 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860, two ingredients are to be proved: namely: (i) the
accused, a public servant or a banker or agent was entrusted with the
CRL.A NO. 69 OF 2017
2025:KER:79656
property of which he is duty bound to account for; and (ii) the accused has
committed criminal breach of trust. What amounts to criminal breach of
trust is provided under section 405 IPC. The basic requirement to bring
home the accusations under section 405 IPC are the requirements to prove
conjointly (i) entrustment and (ii) whether the accused was actuated by a
dishonest intention or not, misappropriated it or converted it to his own use
or to the detriment of the persons who entrusted it.
18. That apart, it is also the essential requirement that it should be
shown that the accused has acted in the capacity of a public servant,
banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, as held by the Apex
Court in the decision reported in [2015 CrLJ 4040 : (2015) 3 SCC
(Cri) 724 : (2015) 8 Scale 95], Robert John D'Souza v. Stephen V
Gomes.
CRL.A NO. 69 OF 2017
2025:KER:79656
19. It is equally the well settled law that once it is proved by the
prosecution that there was entrustment of property and there was no
proper accounting of the entrusted property, then the burden is on the
accused to prove that there was no misappropriation and to explain what
happened to the property so entrusted. When the accused fails to
discharge his burden or failed to explain or account for the
misappropriated property, the accused is said to have committed the
offences of criminal breach of trust and misappropriation. The
fraudulent intention of the accused could be inferred from the attending
circumstances from the evidence adduced and the same could not always
be proved by direct evidence. Thus, the law on the point is that
prosecution has the duty to prove entrustment of property to the
accused and then it is the duty of the accused to account for the same or
to explain the same. The same ingredients of criminal breach of trust and
CRL.A NO. 69 OF 2017
2025:KER:79656
misappropriation have to be proved by the prosecution for convicting
the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(c) of the
P.C. Act, 1988 as well. Decisions reported in Jaikrishnadas
Manohardas Desai and Another v. State of Bombay, 1960 KHC
694: AIR 1960 SC 889: 1960 (3) SCR 319: 1960 CriLJ 1250, Krishan
Kumar v. Union of India, 1959 KHC 635: AIR 1959 SC 1390: 1960
(1) SCR 452: 1959 CriLJ 1508, State of Kerala v. Vasudevan
Namboodiri,- 1987 KHC 518: 1987 (2) KLT 541: 1987 KLJ 270: 1987
(1) KLT SN 7, Bagga Singh v. State of Punjab,- 1996 KHC 3288:
1996 CriLJ 2883 (SC), Vishwa Nath v. State of J. & K, 1983 KHC
420: AIR 1983 SC 174: 1983 (1) SCC 215: 1983 SCC (Cri) 173: 1983
CriLJ 231, Om Nath Puri v. State of Rajasthan, 1972 KHC 414:
AIR 1972 SC 1490 : 1972 (1) SCC 630: 1972 SCC (Cri) 359: 1972
(3) SCR 497: 1972 CriLJ 897, T. Ratnadas v. State of Kerala,-
CRL.A NO. 69 OF 2017
2025:KER:79656
1999 KHC 2074: 1999 CriLJ 1488, State of Rajasthan v. Kesar
Singh,1969 CriLJ 1595, Roshen Lal Raina v. State of Jammu &
Kashmir, 1983 KHC 584: 1983 (2) SCC 429: AIR 1983 SC 631: 1983
SCC (Cri) 533: 1983 CriLJ) 975 and Raghavan K v. State of Kerala,
2012 KHC 420 are in support of this view.
20. In this matter the evidence available as that of PW1 would
show that the amount quantified as per Ext.P1 to the tune of
Rs.48,42,208/- was assessed by the accused who was the Agricultural
Officer and the same was recommended by PW1. The Principal
Agricultural Officer had signed below the endorsement to the effect that
the amount was passed and in consequence thereof Ext.P2 proceedings
was issued by the Principal Agricultural Officer, Palakkad as per which
sanction was accorded for payment of the said sum. As per Ext.P2, it
CRL.A NO. 69 OF 2017
2025:KER:79656
has been revealed that the amount to be disbursed by means of cheques
as mandated in the Government order referred to in Ext.P2. PW1
deposed that Ext.P1(a) is the receipt issued by the accused while
accepting the amount in his custody by way of entrustment as per
cheque No.630312 dated 17.08.2006 and in Ext.P1(a) the accused had
signed receipt of the said sum as per the said cheque to give assistance to
2045 farmers. Thus the evidence available as that of PW1 supported by
Exts.P2 and P1(a) would show that the accused got entrustment of the
above money being the Agricultural Officer empowered to disburse the
same to the farmers 2045 in numbers. When entrustment is proved
beyond reasonable doubt it is for the accused to account for or to explain
what happened to the amount entrusted on already observed. In this
case as already discussed, Ext.P3 cheque was issued in the name of
Gangadharan and was encashed from the bank. Ext.P4 receipt alleged to
CRL.A NO. 69 OF 2017
2025:KER:79656
be issued by Gangadharan and the signatures on the reverse side of
Ext.P3 as well as in Ext.P10(a-1) were denied by Gangadharan when he
was present along with PW8, when PW8 prepared inventory doubting
the signatures of Gangadharan in Ext.P9 and P10. Thus PW8 deposed
that Gangadharan who is now no more stated that he did not obtain any
amount and he was not the signatory in the above documents. It is
interesting to note that in order to prove the signatures in Exts.P3, P4,
and P10(a-1) not that of the accused PW7 was examined and his
evidence denying the signatures as that of Gangdharan was not at all
shaken during cross-examination. As far as the mode of proof is
concerned the same is governed under section 47 of the Indian Evidence
Act. Section 47 provides as under:-
CRL.A NO. 69 OF 2017
2025:KER:79656
Section 47 -- Opinion as to handwriting, when relevant. -- When
the Court has to form an opinion as to the person by whom
any document was written or signed, the opinion of any
person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by
whom it is supposed to be written or signed, that it was or was
not written or signed by that person, is a relevant fact.
21. In this regard the explanation to Section 47 of the Indian
Evidence Act is very relevant. The mode of proof of disputed
handwritings as has been stated in the Explanation to Section 47 of the
Indian Evidence Act are threefold. A person is said to be acquainted with
the handwriting of another person when:
1.He has seen that person write, or
2. He has received documents purporting to be written by that person in
answer to documents written by himself or under his authority and
addressed to that person.
CRL.A NO. 69 OF 2017
2025:KER:79656
3. He has, in the ordinary course of business, documents purporting to be
written by that person have been habitually submitted to him.
22. Thus Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with proof
of opinion as handwriting and the same would include signatures as
well. When any person acquainted with the handwriting and signature
of the person by whom it is supposed to be written or signed or was not
written or signed by that person, was examined and he being a person
acquainted with the handwriting of that person give evidence with the
required essentials extracted herein above the same is sufficient for the
court to form an opinion regarding the disputed handwriting and
signature. Therefore the evidence of PW7 the son of Gangadharan can
be relied on in this regard. Apart from the evidence of PW7, PW8
deposed that Gangadharan while alive also specifically denied having
received the money and also specifically denied having signed in the
CRL.A NO. 69 OF 2017
2025:KER:79656
above documents. Similarly PW7 categorically denied the signatures of
Gangadharan in Exts.P3, P4, and P10(a-1). It is true that no expert
opinion has been obtained by collecting the specimen signatures of
Gangadharan as a corroborative piece of evidence to prove that
Gangadharan was not the signatory to Exts.P3, P4, and P10(a-1). It is a
settled law that experts opinion is only a corroborative piece of evidence
which has no independent existence unless the fact in issue is not proved
with the aid of substantive evidence. It is also well settled that when
there is sufficient substantive evidence to prove the fact is issue, absence
of opinion evidence would not by itself weaken the substantive evidence.
23. Having appraised the evidence available it is held that the
prosecution succeeded in proving that the accused was entrusted with
Rs.6,192/-. Further as far as disbursement of Rs.6,192/- is concerned
CRL.A NO. 69 OF 2017
2025:KER:79656
there was forgery on Exts.P3, P4 and P10(a) by putting false signatures
of Gangadharan to show that the amount was received by Gangadharan.
In such a case the contention raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant/accused to wipe out criminal culpability on the part of the
accused for the grounds argued is found unsustainable. As a corollary
thereof the finding of the special court that the prosecution succeed in
proving that the accused committed offence punishable under sections
409 and 465 of the IPC as well as Section 13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of the PC
Act, 1988 by the accused is only to be confirmed. Therefore the
conviction does not require any interference.
24. Coming to the sentence, the punishment imposed by the
special court for the offence punishable under section 13(1)(c) r/w 13(2)
of the PC Act, 1988 is for one year in relation to an occurrence of the
CRL.A NO. 69 OF 2017
2025:KER:79656
year 2006 and the same is the statutory minimum. The sentences
imposed for the offences under Sections 409 and 465 of the IPC are
also one year each. Since the special court imposed only the statutory
minimum sentence for the offence punishable under section 13(1)(c)
r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 no reduction beyond the statutory
minimum is permissible. Thus no reduction in sentence for the other
offences under sections 409 and 465 of the IPC is found necessary being
reasonable. Therefore, the reduction in sentences also could not be
considered.
25. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly.
26. The order suspending sentence and granting bail to the
appellant/accused is cancelled and his bail bond also is cancelled.
Accordingly, the appellant/accused is directed to surrender before
CRL.A NO. 69 OF 2017
2025:KER:79656
the special court forthwith to undergo the sentence. If the
appellant/accused fails to surrender as directed, the special court is
directed to execute the sentence without fail.
The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to
the special court forthwith for information and compliance.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE
RMV
