Kerala High Court
V.G.Usha Devi vs State Of Kerala on 23 September, 2025
CRL.A.NOS.1685 & 1686 OF 2010 1 2025:KER:71182
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 1ST ASWINA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 1685 OF 2010
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.07.2010 IN CC NO.81 OF
2008 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE,KOTTAYAM
APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.2:
V.G.USHA DEVI, AGED 50 YEARS,
PALIYIKUDIYIL HOUSE, THOKKUPARA.P.O., PALLIVASSAL,
CHITHIRAPURAM, IDUKKI, PIN-685 565., (FORMERLY
OVERSEER, MUNNAR GRAMA PANCHAYAT)
BY ADVS.
SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI (SR.)
SRI.ANIL K.MUHAMED
SRI.R.ANIL
SRI.T.ANIL KUMAR
SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX
SHRI.SUJESH MENON V.B.
SRI.SHYAM ARAVIND
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY SPL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.RAJESH.A.,VACB
SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SMT.REKHA.S., VACB
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
23.09.2025, ALONG WITH CRL.A.1686/2010, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.A.NOS.1685 & 1686 OF 2010 2 2025:KER:71182
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 1ST ASWINA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 1686 OF 2010
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.07.2010 IN CC NO.80 OF
2008 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE, KOTTAYAM
APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.2:
V.G.USHA DEVI, AGED 50 YEARS,
PALIYIKUDIYIL HOUSE, THOKKUPARA P.O., PALLIVASSAL,
CHITHIRAPURAM, IDUKKI, PIN-685 565. (FORMERLY
OVERSEER, MUNNAR GRAMA PANCHAYAT).
BY ADVS.
SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI (SR.)
SRI.ANIL K.MUHAMED
SRI.R.ANIL
SRI.T.ANIL KUMAR
SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX
SHRI.SUJESH MENON V.B.
SRI.SHYAM ARAVIND
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY SPL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.RAJESH.A.,VACB
SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SMT.REKHA.S., VACB
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
23.09.2025, ALONG WITH CRL.A.1685/2010, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.A.NOS.1685 & 1686 OF 2010 3 2025:KER:71182
CR
COMMON JUDGMENT
Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2025
These appeals have been filed by the 2 nd accused in
C.C.Nos.81/2008 and 80/2008 on the files of the Enquiry
Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam, challenging the
common judgment, dated 27.07.2010 in the above case. The
respondent herein is the State of Kerala, represented by the
Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, through the learned Public
Prosecutor.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/2 nd
accused in both these appeals as well as the learned Public
Prosecutor, in detail. Perused the common judgment under
challenge and the evidence available.
3. The prosecution case in C.C.No.80/2008 is that
the 1st accused, while serving as Secretary of Konnathadi Grama
Panchayat, the 2nd accused, while serving as 2nd Grade Overseer of
Munnar Grama Panchayat, and the 3rd accused, while serving as
Junior Superintendent in Konnathadi Grama Panchayat, entered
into a criminal conspiracy and created false and forged
CRL.A.NOS.1685 & 1686 OF 2010 4 2025:KER:71182
documents in the execution of works. These works included the
Homoeopathy Dispensary building in Konnathadi Panchayat, a
store-cum-latrine attached thereto, using untied funds for the
period 1993-1994, and a culvert on Parathodu-Thellithodu road
near Krishibhavan. They allegedly recorded false measurements
in the M-Books, issued cheques, and prepared vouchers with
forged signatures, thereby causing payment of excess amounts
and resulting in a wrongful loss of Rs.79,242.36/- to the
Panchayat and a corresponding wrongful gain to themselves or
others. By abusing their official positions as public servants,
performing their duties without regard to public interest, and
dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriating the said amount,
they allegedly had committed criminal breach of trust, forgery for
the purpose of cheating, use of forged documents as genuine, and
falsification of accounts.
4. The prosecution case in C.C.No.81/2008 is that the
1st accused, while serving as Secretary of Konnathadi Grama
Panchayat, and the 2nd accused, while serving as 2nd Grade
Overseer of Munnar Grama Panchayat, entered into a criminal
conspiracy and created false and forged documents in the
CRL.A.NOS.1685 & 1686 OF 2010 5 2025:KER:71182
execution of works. These works included the Homoeo
Dispensary building in Konnathadi Panchayat, a store-cum-
latrine attached thereto, using untied funds during the year 1995,
and a culvert on Parathodu-Thellithodu road near Krishibhavan.
They allegedly recorded false measurements in the M-Books,
issued cheques, and prepared vouchers with forged signatures,
thereby causing payment of excess amounts and resulting in a
wrongful loss of Rs.6,000/- to the Panchayat and a corresponding
wrongful gain to themselves or others. By abusing their official
positions as public servants, performing their duties without
regard to public interest, and dishonestly and fraudulently
misappropriating the said amount, they allegedly had committed
criminal breach of trust, forgery for the purpose of cheating, use
of forged documents as genuine, and falsification of accounts. On
this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences
punishable under Sections 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(c) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the PC Act, 1988'
hereinafter) and under Sections 409, 465, 471, 477A and 120B of
the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC' hereinafter), by the
accused.
CRL.A.NOS.1685 & 1686 OF 2010 6 2025:KER:71182
5. While challenging the common judgment,
whereby the 2nd accused was convicted and sentenced by the
learned Special Judge, it is submitted by the learned counsel for
the 2nd accused that mainly finding commission of offences under
Sections 465 and 120B of the IPC r/w Section 13(2) of the PC Act,
1988, the appellant was convicted and sentenced in both these
cases. According to the learned counsel for the 2nd accused, the
Special Court has given heavy reliance on the evidence of PW4 to
find that M-Book was corrected by the accused, who did not work
during period, as admitted by PW4, since PW4 given evidence
that the entries therein were in the handwriting of the 2 nd accused.
According to the learned counsel for the 2 nd accused, the
Investigating Officer did not collect the specimen or admitted
handwriting of the appellants, nor did he attempt to obtain an
expert opinion to establish that the handwriting in Exts.P10, P13,
P37, and P8, as identified by PW4, is that of the appellants. It is
pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants further that,
going through the evidence of PW4, the only evidence given by
PW4 is that he was familiar with the 2 nd accused, as he worked
along with him and he knew the handwriting and signature of the
CRL.A.NOS.1685 & 1686 OF 2010 7 2025:KER:71182
2nd accused. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the
2nd accused, relying on a decision of this Court in Manmadhan
v. State of Kerala reported in [2025 KHC 937] that the
evidence of PW4 is quite insufficient to act upon the same to hold
that the entries in Exts.P10, P13, P37, and P8 are written by the
2nd accused to find commission of the offences alleged against her.
According to the learned counsel for the 2 nd accused, in
Manmadhan's case (supra), this Court addressed this question
with reference to the explanation to Section 47 of the Indian
Evidence, Act, 1872.
6. Whereas, it is submitted by the learned Public
Prosecutor that the evidence of PW4, supported by the evidence
of PW1, who spoke about the conspiracy between the accused and
misappropriation of the amount alleged by the prosecution,
mainly at the instance of the 1st accused with the assistance of the
2nd accused, the Special Court is justified in finding that the
accused committed offences punishable under Sections 13(2) r/w
Section 13(1)(c) of the PC Act, 1988 and under Sections 409, 465,
471, 477A and 120B of the IPC, in both these cases. Therefore, no
interference in the common judgment is necessary and therefore,
CRL.A.NOS.1685 & 1686 OF 2010 8 2025:KER:71182
these appeals are liable to be dismissed.
7. Now, the question arises for consideration are:
(i) Whether the Special Court was right in holding
that the 2nd accused committed offences punishable under
Section 120B r/w Section 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988, in both these
cases?
(ii) Whether the Special Court was right in holding
that the 2nd accused committed offence punishable under Section
465 of the IPC, in both these cases?
(iii) Whether the common verdict would require
interference?
(iv) The order to be passed?
8. Point Nos.(i) to (iv)
As pointed out by the learned counsel for the 2 nd accused,
the Special Court given much emphasis to the evidence of PW4 to
hold that the entries in Ext.P8 UTF file, Ext.P10 - M-Book No.I of
1994 - 1995, Ext.P13 - M-Book No.II of Konnathadi Panchayat
from 1994 to 1995 and Ext.P37 - M-Book of Latrine of store
construction of Konnathady Panchayat, were written by the 2 nd
accused. On reading the evidence of PW4, he deposed that as per
CRL.A.NOS.1685 & 1686 OF 2010 9 2025:KER:71182
Ext.P3 Attendance Register, the 2 nd accused joined for duty in
Konnathadi Panchayat in June 1993 and he worked there as UD
Clerk during the period 1993-1994. He deposed that the
construction of the Homoeopathy Dispensary building in
Konnathadi Panchayat, a store-cum-latrine attached thereto, and
a culvert near Krishi Bhavan, etc., were carried out using the
untied funds of Konnathadi Panchayat, and the voucher file
pertaining to the same is marked as Ext.P46. Ext.P47 tendered in
evidence through PW4, is the voucher file pertaining to
construction of culvert at Krishibhavan. As already pointed out,
PW1 identified the writings alleged to be made by the 2 nd accused
in Exts.P10, P13, P37 and P8, as that of the 2 nd accused. In fact,
no attempt was made by the Investigating Officer to prove the
handwritings of the 2nd accused in the above documents by getting
assistance of an expert.
9. In the decision in Manmadhan's case (supra),
this Court in paragraph Nos.7, 14 and 17 to 19 observed as under:
"7. On perusal of the explanation, the opinion of the
court in the matter of handwriting, based on the evidence
given by a person acquainted with the handwriting of the
person whose handwriting is sought to be proved, the
CRL.A.NOS.1685 & 1686 OF 2010 10 2025:KER:71182
person giving evidence regarding the acquaintance
should have familiarity with one among the three
modalities mentioned in explanation to S.47, they are,
(1) Who has seen that person writes;
(2) or who has received documents written by that
person in answer to documents written by himself or
under his authority and addressed to that person or;
(3) who has in the ordinary course of business
receives documents written by that person or such
documents are habitually submitted to him.
14. While addressing the question as to whether the
evidence of PW2 and PW3 would satisfy the requirements
of explanation to S.47 regarding the proof of handwriting
and signatures, it is relevant to note that, as already
observed, a person, who acquainted with the
handwriting of another person, was examined in
prosecution to prove the same, his evidence must be by
deposing the manner in which he made acquaintance
with the handwriting or the signatures by the 3 modes
provided in explanation to S.47. They are, (1) Who has
seen that person writes: (2) or who has received
documents written by that person in answer to
documents written by himself or under his authority and
addressed to that person or; (3) who has in the ordinary
course of business receives documents written by that
person or such documents are habitually submitted to
him. In the instant case, no such evidence forthcoming.
17. It is well settled law that in order to prove signature
and handwriting, it may not be always necessary to get
opinion evidence of an expert, though the same is one
CRL.A.NOS.1685 & 1686 OF 2010 11 2025:KER:71182
among the modes prescribed for the same by way of
corroborative evidence. The second mode is the mode
provided by proving the handwriting and signature with
that of a person, who had acquaintance with the
handwriting and signature of the person who disputed it
or not available and for which, conditions (1) to (3) in
explanation to S.47 to be necessary. The third mode is
one provided under S.73 of the Evidence Act, allowing
the court itself to compare the signatures and form an
opinion.
18. In the instant case, S.73 of the Evidence Act was not
applied by the trial court may be for want of comparison
of the disputed documents with admitted documents,
and the mode adopted by the prosecution to prove that
the signatures as well as the handwriting in the disputed
loan application, vouchers and receipts etc. were entered
by accused Nos.1 to 3 is by examining PW2 and PW3
who are familiar with the handwriting and signatures.
19. When the prosecution relies on the disputed
handwriting of a person by examining those who are
familiar with the handwriting and signatures, definitely
three ingredients viz., (1) Who has seen that person
writes; (2) or who has received documents written by
that person in answer to documents written by himself
or under his authority and addressed to that person or;
(3) who has in the ordinary course of business receives
documents written by that person or such documents
are habitually submitted to him should be satisfied and
without satisfying the ingredients, mere identification of
CRL.A.NOS.1685 & 1686 OF 2010 12 2025:KER:71182
the disputed signature and handwriting of a person
merely saying that they are familiar with same would
not suffice the requirement.
10. Going by the decision in Manmadhan's case
(supra), the opinion of the court in the matter of handwriting,
based on the evidence given by a person acquainted with the
handwriting of the person whose handwriting is sought to be
proved, the person giving evidence regarding the acquaintance
should have familiarity with one among the three modalities
mentioned in Explanation to Section 47, viz.,
(1) Who has seen that person writes;
(2) or who has received documents written by that
person in answer to documents written by himself or under his
authority and addressed to that person or;
(3) who has in the ordinary course of business
receives documents written by that person or such documents
are habitually submitted to him.
11. It could be noticed that the 2nd accused worked
in Konnathadi Panchayat for the period between June 1993 till
March 1994. The prosecution case is that after relieving of her
duties, she attended the office for getting some arrears of salary
and Provident Fund and at this Juncture, she had done the entries
CRL.A.NOS.1685 & 1686 OF 2010 13 2025:KER:71182
in Ext.P8 UTF file and in Exts.P10, P13 and P37 M-Books and
thereby, accused Nos.1 to 3 (the 3 rd accused was acquitted by the
Special Court) misappropriated Rs.79,242.36/- during 1993 -
1994 and Rs.6,000/- during 1995. The prosecution records would
not justify how the 2nd accused had opportunity to write the
documents. In fact, the evidence available as that of PW4, in no
way, would sufficiently prove that handwritings in the above
documents were that of the 2 nd accused in tune with the
Explanation to Section 47 of the Indian Evidence, Act, 1872, as
already discussed. That apart, PW4 further deposed that accused
Nos.1 and 2 never worked together in the office, and the entries
were allegedly made after she had been relieved from her duties.
Thus, the allegation of conspiracy also not fully established
against the 2nd accused in both these cases though the role of the
1st accused in these cases could be found. Therefore, it is held
that the evidence available to find commission of the offences by
the 2nd accused is either insufficient or not entirely free from
doubts. Thus, the 2nd accused in both these cases deserve benefit
of doubt. In view of the matter, the conviction and sentence
imposed against the appellants herein in both these cases are
CRL.A.NOS.1685 & 1686 OF 2010 14 2025:KER:71182
liable to be set aside.
In the result, these appeals succeed. The common verdict
under challenge stands set aside and the appellants herein are
acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 465 and
120B of the IPC r/w Section 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988, and Section
409 of the IPC in C.C.Nos.81/2008 and 80/2008 and she is set at
liberty forthwith. Her bail bonds stand cancelled.
Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to
the Special Court, forthwith.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN
JUDGE
Bb
