Kerala High Court
T. P Mathew vs State Of Kerala on 9 September, 2025
CRL.REV.PET NO. 327 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:66693
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
TH
TUESDAY, THE 9 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 18TH BHADRA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 327 OF 2025
CRIME NO.V.C.19/2005 OF VACB, IDUKKI, Idukki
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.01.2025 IN CMP 330/2016 IN CC NO.5 OF 2016 OF
ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE (VIGILANCE), MUVATTUPUZHA
REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER/8TH ACCUSED:
T. P MATHEW
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O POULOSE, THONNAKKARA HOUSE, KOCHUTHOAVALA P.O., KATTAPPANA
VILLAGE, PIN - 685514
BY ADVS.
SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU
SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH
SMT.ARYA RAGHUNATH
SHRI.KARUKAPADATH WAZIM BABU
SMT.P.LAKSHMI
SMT.AYSHA E.M.
SHRI.ABUASIL A.K.
SHRI.HASHIM K.M.
SMT.HANIYA NAFIZA V.S.
SHRI.M.I.INSAF MOOPPAN
SHRI.RISHI VINCENT
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED DY S P, VACB, IDUKKI, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH
COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 685602
OTHER PRESENT:
SPL PP SRI. A. RAJESH, SR PP SMT. REKHA S
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.08.2025,
THE COURT ON 09.09.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.REV.PET NO. 327 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:66693
A. BADHARUDEEN, J
============================
Crl.Revision Petition No. 327 of 2025
==============================
Dated 9th day of September 2025
ORDER
The 8th accused in C.C. No. 5 of 2016, pending on the files
of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, assails the order in
C.M.P. No. 330 of 2016 dated 07.01.2025, whereby the discharge
plea filed by the 8th accused along with the 1st accused was
considered and rejected by the Special Judge as per the common
order in C.M.P. Nos. 330 of 2016 and 2335 of 2016. The
respondent is the State of Kerala, represented by the Vigilance and
Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB).
CRL.REV.PET NO. 327 OF 2025
2025:KER:66693
2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner /8th
accused and the learned special Public Prosecutor. Perused the
order impugned and the decision placed by the learned counsel for
the revision petitioner
3. Here the prosecution alleges commission of offences
punishable under Section 419, 468, 471, and 120B of the Indian
Penal Code as well as under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the PC Act'
hereafter) by the accused.
4. The prosecution allegation as per the final report is that
the 1st accused Sri.K.G.George, S/o A.D.George, Kallickal House,
Konnathady.P.O., Idukki District, Formerly Assistant Manager
CRL.REV.PET NO. 327 OF 2025
2025:KER:66693
(Legal) Kerala Financial Corporation (for short, 'KFC'), District
Office Kattappana, the 2nd accused Sri.P.Mohandas, s/o
Parameswaran, Pournami House, NCC Road, Peroorkkada.P.O,
Thiruvananthapuram-5, formerly Assistant Manager (A&D) KFC,
District Office Kattappana (A3) Sri.Jossy Varghese, s/o T J Varghese,
Thoppil House, Kurisummoodu.P.O Changanassery, the 4th
accused Sri.Joji Varghese s/o T.J. Varghese, Thoppil house,
Kurisummoodu P/O, Changanassery, 5th accused Sri.M.J. Jose @
Josemon Joseph, s/o M.D. Joseph, Mylapparambil house, Anakkailu
P.O, Kanjirappally, 6th accused Sri.P.S. Thampi, s/o C.M.Samuel,
PF Quarter No. 12, Pattom Thiruvananthapuram formerly District
Manager, KFC, District Office, Kattappana, 7th accused Sri.Ashok
Kumar. N, s/o K. Narayanan, Flat No 3D, J.M. residency,
CRL.REV.PET NO. 327 OF 2025
2025:KER:66693
MaleThampanoor, Thiruvananthapuram - I, formerly regional
manager KFC, Kottayam and the 8th accused Sri.T.P.Mathew
Advocate Kattappana Bar Association s/o Poulose, Thonakkara
House, Kochuthovala PO, Kattappana of which 1st, 2nd, 6th and
7th accused being public servants while holding their respective
offices have entered into criminal conspiracy mutually and with the
3rd to 5th accused and the 8th accused being the private persons and
in furtherance of that criminal conspiracy. The 1st accused
fraudulently and willfully omitted to verify the correctness of bio-
data of the co-obligent, certificate containing attested photograph of
the co-obligent, photocopy of passport No H-273618, thus he
illegally assisted the 5th accused to impersonate as co-obligent and
thereby assisted to sign the loan agreement dated 15.02.2001, letter
CRL.REV.PET NO. 327 OF 2025
2025:KER:66693
of deposit of documents dated 17.02.2001 and deed of
hypothecation and has also illegally fabricated land valuation report
dated 07.01.2001. The 2nd accused fraudulently and willfully
omitted to verify the correctness of provisional SSI Registration
certificate, Trading Profit and Loss account of M/s.Revathy Gold
Cutting, rent deed related with room No.3 in building No.1/139/A
of Peruvanthanam, affidavit dated 20.02.2001, bio-data of
co-obligent, certificate containing attested signature and photograph
of the -co-obligent, sales vouchers of Thops Jewellery Kanjirappally
and also illegally assisted the 4th accused by fabricating the performa
for disbursing the loan amount and he was a member of the
RMLSC held on 19.01.2001 which illegally sanctioned the alleged
loan. The 3rd accused fraudulently and willfully obtained original
CRL.REV.PET NO. 327 OF 2025
2025:KER:66693
deed of document Nos 675/97, 677/97 and 678/97 in Sy No 183/1,
184/1 and 185/2 of Kokkayar Village and pledged them towards a
loan in favour of his brother at Kattappana without the knowledge
of Muhammed Iqbal, s/o Hassankutti Rawther, Panthuvallil house,
Mulakkuzha, Chengannur and cheated him. The 3rd and 4th
accused fraudulently and willfully forged and fabricated Provisional
SSI Registration certificate, Trading profit and loss account and
balance sheet, rent deed dated 21.11.2000, affidavit dated
20.02.2001, bio-data. and certificate containing the attested
signature of the co-obligent, photocopy of the passport
No.H-273618, sales vouchers of Thops Jewellery, Kanjirappally and
they also prompted and assisted the 5th accused to impersonate
Sri.Muhammed Iqbal and signed loan agreement dated 15.02.2001,
CRL.REV.PET NO. 327 OF 2025
2025:KER:66693
letter of deposit of documents dated 17.02.2001, declaration dated
22.02.2001, the deed of hypothecation and they misappropriated
Rs.44 lakh without using for the purpose which the amount was
sanctioned. The 5th accused fraudulently and willfully forged and
fabricated photocopy of passport No.H-273618 impersonated as
Muhammed Iqbal as per the direction of the 3rd and 4th accused
also forged bio-data and certificate containing attested photograph
and signature of the co-obligent with the assistance of the 3rd and
4th accused. The 6th accused fraudulently and willfully omitted to
verify the provisional SSI registration certificate, trading profit and
loss account and balance sheet and rent agreement dated 22.11.2000
and he was a member of RMLSC held on 19.01.2001 which
irregularly sanctioned the loan. The 7th accused fraudulently and
CRL.REV.PET NO. 327 OF 2025
2025:KER:66693
willfully sanctioned the alleged loan on the basis of fake records
produced by the applicant as the head of the RMLSC. The 8th
accused fraudulently and willfully furnished a false certificate that
he personally knew the 4th accused and W1 in the declaration dated
22.02.2001. Thus the said public servants committed criminal
misconduct by sanctioning a loan of Rs.44 lakh on the basis of a
loan application of the 3rd accused with the help of the 4th accused
using forged documents as genuine and by conniving at and/or
assisting cheating by personation by the 5th accused as the owner of
the property offered as collateral security to KFC and indulged in
cheating KFC, a legal entity by irregular sanction and disbursement
of loan to the tune of Rs.44 lakh during the period from 20.11.2000
to 30.03.2001 without verifying the legality as well as the correctness
CRL.REV.PET NO. 327 OF 2025
2025:KER:66693
of the documents submitted by the 3rd and 4th accused and the
affidavit prepared by the 8th accused and also without verifying the
stock in connection with the utilization of the loan by the 2nd
accused and blatantly violating the existing norms for sanction and
disbursement of loans by the accused officials and thus the accused
have committed the offences of criminal conspiracy using a forged
document as genuine knowing it to be forged document, forgery
for the purpose of cheating, cheating by personation and criminal
misconduct. The said facts and omissions on the part of the 1st
accused Sri K.G. George, the 2nd accused Sri P. Mohandas, the 3rd
accused Sri Jossy Varghese, the 4th accused Sri Joji Varghese, the 5th
accused Sri.Josemon Joseph @ M.J. Jose, the 6th accused Sri P.S
Thampi, the 7th accused Sri Ashok Kumar. N and the 8th accused
CRL.REV.PET NO. 327 OF 2025
2025:KER:66693
Sri T.P. Mathew constitutes the offences punishable under section
13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and
Sections 419, 468, 471, 120-B IPC.
5. While assailing the order, it is submitted by the learned
counsel for the revision petitioner that the only allegation against
the petitioner who has been practicing as a lawyer in Kattappana
Bar is that he had attested a declaration, copy of the same has been
produced as Annexure A1, made by Sri.Jossy Varghese who is
arrayed as the 3rd accused and CW1 Sri. Muhammed Iqbal who
was alleged to be impersonated by the 5th accused. According to the
learned counsel for the revision petitioner, insofar as attestation of
the affidavit or declaration is concerned, the KFC prescribed a
format and the same was acted upon by the revision petitioner. It is
CRL.REV.PET NO. 327 OF 2025
2025:KER:66693
submitted further that the revision petitioner believed parties who
approached the revision petitioner along with the declaration as
bonafide persons and attested the declaration in the format.
According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as per
Section 3 of the Oaths Act 1969 the power to administer oaths have
been given to many persons including lawyers. When such power
being exercised if wrongly, the same would not attract any offences.
It is submitted further that the prosecution alleges that the Advocate
who attested the declaration joined hands with the other accused in
the matter of processing loan applications which resulted in granting
of Rs.44 lakh loan in the name of the 2nd accused and 5th accused
who were fictitiously represented CW1 Muhammed Iqbal. The
learned counsel for the revision petitioner also placed a statement
CRL.REV.PET NO. 327 OF 2025
2025:KER:66693
of Sri. Abdul Kadher (CW2) in this case regarding the procedure of
getting attestation of the declaration from any Advocate in this
regard. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner placed the
decision of the Apex Court reported in (2012) 9 SCC 512
Central Bureau of Investigation Hyderabad v. K Narayana
Rao and contended when allegation against a panel lawyer who had
given false legal opinion to the bank in respect of housing loan in the
capacity as a panel Advocate who failed to point out actual
ownership of the properties was considered by the Madras High
Court the case against him alleging commission of similar offences
had been quashed by the Madras High Court and when the CBI
challenged the same, the Apex Court confirmed the order of
CRL.REV.PET NO. 327 OF 2025
2025:KER:66693
quashment as observed in paragraph Nos.24 to 26. Paragraph
Nos.24 to 26 read as under:-
24. The ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are
that there should be an agreement between the persons who are
alleged to conspire and the said agreement should be for doing
an illegal act or for doing, by illegal means, an act which by
itself may not be illegal. In other words, the essence of criminal
conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and such an
agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by
circumstantial evidence or by both and in a matter of common
experience that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely
available. Accordingly, the circumstances proved before and
after the occurrence have to be considered to decide about the
CRL.REV.PET NO. 327 OF 2025
2025:KER:66693
complicity of the accused. Even if some acts are proved to have
been committed, it must be clear that they were so committed
in pursuance of an agreement made between the accused
persons who were parties to the alleged conspiracy. Inferences
from such proved circumstances regarding the guilt may be
drawn only when such circumstances are incapable of any
other reasonable explanation. In other words, an offence of
conspiracy cannot be deemed to have been established on mere
suspicion and surmises or inference which are not supported by
cogent and acceptable evidence.
25. In the earlier part of our order, first we have noted that the
respondent was not named in the FIR and then we extracted
the relevant portions from the charge-sheet about his alleged
CRL.REV.PET NO. 327 OF 2025
2025:KER:66693
role. Though statements of several witnesses have been enclosed
along with the charge-sheet, they speak volumes about others.
However, there is no specific reference to the role of the present
respondent along with the main conspirators.
26. The High Court while quashing the criminal proceedings
in respect of the respondent herein has gone into the allegations
in the charge-sheet and the materials placed for his scrutiny
and arrived at a conclusion that the same do not disclose any
criminal offence committed by him. It also concluded that
there is no material to show that the respondent herein joined
hands with A-1 to A-3 for giving false opinion. In the absence
of direct material, he cannot be implicated as one of the
conspirators of the offences punishable under Section 420 read
CRL.REV.PET NO. 327 OF 2025
2025:KER:66693
with Section 109 IPC. The High Court has also opined that
even after critically examining the entire material, it does not
disclose any criminal offence committed by him. Though as
pointed out earlier, a roving enquiry is not needed, however, it
is the duty of the Court to find out whether there is any prima
facie material available against the person who has been
charged with an offence under Section 420 read with Section
109 IPC.
6. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner
merely attesting a declaration in the name of a wrong person by
itself would not attract any offences, therefore the prosecution as
against the revision petitioner is totally unwarranted. He also
pointed out that by the common order the 1st accused was
CRL.REV.PET NO. 327 OF 2025
2025:KER:66693
discharged while disallowing discharge sought for by the 8th
accused.
7. The learned Special Public Prosecutor zealously opposed
the contentions at the instance of the learned counsel for the
revision petitioner and submitted that the allegation against the
revision petitioner/the 8th accused is that he had attested the
declaration in the name of Muhammad Iqbal who is CW1 when
he was impersonated by the 5th accused without knowing the
identity of Sri.Muhammad Iqbal by stating that "he was personally
known to him". Therefore the complicity of the 8th accused as
part of conspiracy in between the accused could not be viewed
lightly and therefore the prosecution of the petitioner is well made
out prima facie warranting trial. In such a case, the special court
CRL.REV.PET NO. 327 OF 2025
2025:KER:66693
rightly dismissed the discharge plea of the revision petitioner. In
paragraph No.15 of the order, the learned special judge discussed
the reasons for disallowing the discharge plea filed by the revision
petitioner herein, which reads as follows:-
"15.As far as the eighth accused is concerned, the
allegation is that as a lawyer, he had attested an affidavit
signed by the fifth accused but purporting to be sworn by
CW1, wherein the fifth accused personated CW1. The
said affidavit has been produced as Ext. G by the
prosecution and purports to have been executed on 22
February 2001. The disbursement of the loan to the 4th
accused was made thereafter relying on this affidavit also.
Attestation of the affidavit by an Advocate sworn by a
CRL.REV.PET NO. 327 OF 2025
2025:KER:66693
person would not normally make an Advocate criminally
liable. But the eighth accused attested the affidavit,
declaring that the deponents of the affidavit were
personally known to him. This is as if declaring that the
fifth accused who personated CW1 was actually CW1.
This is prima facie assisting the fifth accused in
personating CW1, thereby making the eighth accused a
party to the agreement between the fourth and fifth
accused in committing the offences of impersonation and
cheating. Whether the eighth accused had unintentionally
attested the affidavit without properly reading the
declaration as was brought before him or not is a matter
that can be decided only during trial. In view of the
CRL.REV.PET NO. 327 OF 2025
2025:KER:66693
declaration made in the affidavit mentioned above, the
discharge of the eighth accused is not possible. Under the
above circumstances, it is not possible to hold that there is
no prima facie case against the eighth accused. On the
other hand, evidence on record shows a prima facie case
against the eighth accused."
8. To be on the crux of the matter as per Annexure -A1
declaration two deponents were shown. They are (1) - Sri.Jogy
Varghese and (2) - Sri.Muhammed Iqbal. Both of them signed in
all the four pages of the declaration. But the investigation revealed
that Sri.Muhammed Iqbal named in the declaration, in fact, did
not sign in the declaration or he did not apply for the loan or he
did not provide his property as collateral security for the same. On
CRL.REV.PET NO. 327 OF 2025
2025:KER:66693
reading the attestation made by the revision petitioner the same
would recite that 'solemnly affirmed and signed this before me by
the deponents who are personally known to me this the 22nd day of
February 2007 at my office at Kattappana' .
9. Regarding the contention raised by the learned counsel for
the revision petitioner that as per the observations in Paragraph
No.14 the learned special judge discharged the 1st accused and for
the same reasons as a parity approach the 8th accused also would
deserve discharge, it is relevant to note that this court could not
address the said finding without challenging the same. The learned
Special Public Prosecutor not in a position to submit that whether
any challenge raised against the said finding. In fact the finding of
the special court for discharging one among the accused could not
CRL.REV.PET NO. 327 OF 2025
2025:KER:66693
be blindly relied on by this court without addressing the challenge
thereof. Therefore I am not inclined to accept the argument that
the reasons for discharging the 1st accused would apply in the case
of the 2nd accused on parity basis. Moreover here the allegation
against the 8th accused is totally different from that of the 1st
accused and it had been specifically alleged by the prosecution that
the 8th accused had falsely attested the declaration in the name of a
person impersonated by the 5th accused without enquiry and
identifying the said person properly though the declaration
was pertaining to grant of loan to the tune of Rs.44 lakh in favour
of the 4th and 5th accused. The prosecution has a specific case
that there was conspiracy between all the accused in this case to
obtain loan from KFC by impersonating Sri.Muhammed Iqbal
CRL.REV.PET NO. 327 OF 2025
2025:KER:66693
(CW1) and offering his property as collateral security by pledging
the same without his knowledge.
10. In the case dealt by the Apex Court for which reliance has
been placed by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner viz.
K Narayana Rao (Supra) the Apex Court confirmed the
quashment of a case against a Panel Lawyer who had given false
legal opinion to the bank in respect of a housing loan. Giving legal
opinion on misunderstanding law and facts would operate on a
different footing than certifying a false declaration after identifying
a fictitious person as a person "personally known" to the Advocate.
To put it otherwise there is no compulsion for a lawyer to attest a
declaration or an affidavit unless he would be satisfied that the
person making the declaration is the real person with specific
CRL.REV.PET NO. 327 OF 2025
2025:KER:66693
identity to rule out the possibility of issuing such declaration or
affidavit under the name of a fictitious person. When an Advocate
who is empowered to attest a declaration or an affidavit, without
properly identifying the person, attesting the same certifying that
the declaration was made by the person "who was personally
known to him" and the said declaration was also acted upon by the
banking institution to grant a huge sum of loan, conspiracy in
these circumstances is to be inferred. In such a case, the reasons
stated by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner to
discharge the petitioner herein in the said case could not succeed.
11. In this matter the prosecution alleges commission of the
above offences by the accused as part of the conspiracy hatched in
between them. It is difficult to hold at the pre-trial stage that the
CRL.REV.PET NO. 327 OF 2025
2025:KER:66693
petitioner is innocent and he had no role in certifying a false
declaration in the name of a fictitious person since the same was
used for availing a huge sum of loan in the name of a fictitious
person, that too by offering property of the said fictitious person as
the security for the loan. Therefore prima facie the allegation
against the petitioner are made out from the prosecution records
warranting framing of charge and consequential trial.
12. In view of the above discussion the revision petition is
liable to fail and is accordingly dismissed.
13. The interim order of stay stands vacated.
It is specifically made clear that the observations in this order
have no binding effect while deciding the case on merits, and the
CRL.REV.PET NO. 327 OF 2025
2025:KER:66693
same are intended to address the plea of discharge alone. Further
the special court shall decide the case on merits on evaluation of
the evidence to be adduced.
Sd/-
A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE
RMV
CRL.REV.PET NO. 327 OF 2025
2025:KER:66693
APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 327/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE DECLARATION, PURPORTED TO
HAVE BEEN ATTESTED BY THE PETITIONER/ 8TH
ACCUSED ON 22/02/2001 AND PRODUCED AS EXT. G
BY THE PROSECUTION
Annexure A2 THE RELEVANT PART OF THE DRAFT CHARGE
SUBMITTED BY THE PROSECUTION FORMS THE PART
OF FINAL REPORT
