P. SOUNDARARAJAN Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein is the first accused in C.C. No. 10 of 1997 of the Special Court, SPE/CBI -I, Ernakulam. He, along with three others, faced prosecution before the court below on the allegation that as part of a conspiracy hatched by them the first accused, by using his official position as Manager of the Bank of Baroda, Palayam Branch, Trivandrum issued bankers cheques in favour of the District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Trivandrum towards the credit account of the second accused when the second accused had no cash credit facility to that extend, thus helped the second accused and others to derive illegal benefits, and the first accused also derived some benefits in the said vitiate transaction. It is alleged that documents and registers were also forged or fabricated by him for the said purpose.

(2.) ALL the four accused appeared before the trial court, and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them. The prosecution examined 29 witnesses and proved Ext. P1 to Ext. P87 documents. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., all the accused denied the incriminating circumstances. Though opportunity was granted no defence evidence was adduced by the accused. On an appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Judge found the first accused guilty, but found the accused Nos. 3 and 4 not guilty. As the second accused died pending proceedings, the charge against him abated under the law. On conviction the first accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years, and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/ - under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years, and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/ - under Section 120B read with Section 420 IPC, and to undergo another term of rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 477A of the IPC, by judgment dated 21.12.2004. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction the first accused has come up in appeal.

(3.) IN view of the submission made by the learned counsel conceding that the conviction is right under the law, especially in view of Ext. P20 and P21 documents containing extra judicial confession, I find it necessary to go to the factual aspects or to the merits of the case. Anyway, on a perusal of the materials including the evidence given by the material witnesses, and also the material documents including Ext. P20 and Ext. P21, I find that the finding of the trial court is quite correct. Issuance of bankers cheque by the accused stands well proved, and the prosecution records also prove that he issued such cheques when the other accused had no cash credit facility in his account at the time. No doubt, the first accused did so to help the other accused illicitly. Of course, it is true that definite materials are not there to show that the appellant was in fact benefited by the said transaction. So far as the offence made punishable under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act is concerned, it would suffice that somebody else is benefited by the illegal acts of the public servant. In view of the clear evidence adduced by the prosecution proving the guilt, I find that the appellant was rightly found guilty by the learned trial Judge.