GOPAL MOHAN K Vs. S GOVINDAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are against the common judgment dated 30/12/2002 in CC Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 of 1998 on the file of the Special Judge (SPE / CBI) - II, Ernakulam. Criminal Appeal Nos. 75, 95, 93, 98, 96, 92, 99, 91, 88, 86, 87, 97, 94, 90 and 89/1993 respectively were preferred by the first accused. Criminal Appeal Nos. 268, 538, 533, 530, 534, 536, 532, 528, 267, 537, 527, 526, 529, 535 and 531/2004 respectively were filed by the second accused. The third accused in CC Nos. 5/1998 and 7/1998 died pending trial. The third accused in CC Nos. 10/1998, 11/1998 and 12/1998 were acquitted by the Trial Court. Criminal Appeal No. 127/1993 was filed by the third accused in CC No. 6/1998. Criminal Appeal Nos. 122/1998 and 133/1998 were filed by the 3rd accused in CC Nos. 8/1998 and 9/1998. Criminal Appeal Nos. 135, 156, 134, 123, 149, 154 and 151/1993 were filed by the third accused in CC Nos. 13/1998 to 19/1998 respectively. The Inspector of Police SPE / CBI, Kochi, in Crime No. RC. 25 / A / 1993 prosecuted the appellants along with deceased and acquitted third accused in the respective cases alleging offences under S.120B r/w 420, 466, 468 and 471 IPC and S.13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'PC Act' for short) and also under S.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the PC Act and S.420, S.468, S.471 IPC. In CC No. 8/1998 to 19/1998 offence under S.419 IPC was also alleged against the third accused. Conspiracy for the said offence was also alleged against all the accused in those cases.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that the first accused was working as Field Officer / Assistant Manager in State Bank of India at its Main Branch, Kottayam from 13/06/1989 to 29/06/1992 and as such he is a public servant as defined under S.2(c) of the PC Act. The Bank had scheme for Agricultural Cash Credit (in short 'ACC') loans for raising crops in Thiruvarpu and Nattakam villages. The first accused being the Field Officer, it was his duty to recommend for sanctioning ACC loans to the eligible loanees after ensuring their need and possession of the agricultural land for which loans to be granted. The applicants for loan had to produce Tax Receipt and Possession Certificate issued by the respective Village Officer in proof of possession of land along with a No Due Certificate from the local Co - operative Bank certifying that the applicants had no dues with the Co - operative Bank in respect of the land. The first accused had the duty to identify the borrower and to conduct pre - sanction inspection to ascertain the location of the land, verify the credit worthiness of the party, the viability and feasibility of the proposal, the credit requirements and repaying capacity of the borrower. The prosecution would allege that the first accused with the intention to deceive State Bank of India, abusing his official position as a public servant committed criminal conspiracy with the common second accused and different third accused and in pursuance to the conspiracy, forged Tax Receipts and Possession Certificates as if issued from the Village Office, Thiruvarpu and No Due Certificate issued from the Thiruvarpu Village Service Co - operative Bank. In CC No. 7 of 1998 to 19/1998, in pursuance to the criminal conspiracy the respective third accused also impersonated as fictitious persons and using the forged Tax Receipts, Possession Certificates and No Due Certificates, applications were made for ACC loans. The first accused being a member of the group of conspirators, without making any inspection, recommended ACC loans in favour of the third accused in CC Nos. 5 and 6/1998. Loans were also recommended in favour of the 3rd accused in the other cases but as impersonate persons. Loan amount @ Rs.10,000/- each was disbursed to the respective third accused knowing that the Tax Receipts, Possession Certificates and No Due Certificates were forged and that the 3rd accused in CC Nos. 7/1998 to 19/1998 are impersonated applicants.

(3.) The third accused defaulted the loan instalments. Registered letters were sent to the loanees in the addresses available in the Bank records. Notices were returned with endorsement 'no such addressee'. The matter was reported to the zonal office Chennai. The Deputy General Manager of the zonal Office of the Bank directed PW 2, the Deputy Manager of the Bank to conduct an enquiry. Accordingly, PW 2 conducted the enquiry. Ext. P37 is the enquiry report. Falsification of the accounts, misappropriation, conspiracy, impersonation etc. were revealed out. On the basis of Ext. P37 report, PW 1, the then Assistant General Manager of the Kottayam Main Branch filed Ext. P1 complaint before the CBI. PW 1 in his complaint mentioned about 22 cases of misappropriation and forgery, more specifically mentioned in the annexure to the report. Ext. P1(a) is the Annexure. On the basis of Ext. P1, case as Crime No. RC 25 / A / 93 was registered for which Ext. P188 First Information Report was prepared. The investigation was taken over by PW 39, an inspector attached to the SPE / CBI Kochi. PW 39, after completing the investigation filed separate final reports alleging the above said offences before the trial Judge. The learned Judge took cognizance and issued process responding to which the appellants and the other accused entered appearance. Copies of the relevant records were furnished to all the accused. After hearing either side, having satisfied with a prima facie case to send the accused for trial, a charge for the said offences was framed in each case. When the charge was read over and contents explained, the accused pleaded not guilty. Hence, they were sent for trial. In Criminal MC No. 3482/2000, a petition filed by the first accused, this Court ordered joint trial of all the cases. Accordingly, all the cases were tried jointly. The evidence was recorded in CC No. 5/1988. On the side of the prosecution PWs 1 to 39 were examined and Exts. P1 to 189 were marked. During the course of the cross examination, Exts. D1 to D6 and D8 to D12, certain portions of the CD statement of the witnesses were marked. Ext. D7, a photocopy of the letter dated 17.02.1993 sent by the Secretary Thiruvarpu Service Co - operative Bank Limited was also marked. After closing the evidence for the prosecution the accused were questioned under S.313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused denied the incriminating evidence.