K. S. RAMANKUTTY Vs. CBI/SPE KOCHI-17

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arose on the judgment dtd. 6/11/2009 of the Court of Special Judge (SPE/CBI)-I, Ernakulam. Out of the six accused, who faced trial, accused Nos.2 to 5 were convicted; while accused Nos.1 and 6 were acquitted. Accused Nos.2 and 3 together filed Crl.Appeal No.2545 of 2009, accused No.4 filed Crl.Appeal No.2544 of 2009 and accused No.5 filed Crl.Appeal No.2581 of 2009. Since the issues involved in these appeals are common, these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) There were two sets of allegations. The first set pertaining to accused No.6 and owing to his acquittal, the facts concerning that matter need not require mention. The accusation against accused Nos.2 to 5, which requires mention are the following: Accused No.1 was the Manager of Kottayam Branch of State Bank of India (SBI) and as such a public servant. He together with accused Nos.2 to 5 hatched a conspiracy for misappropriating money by cheating the SBI. In furtherance of that conspiracy, accused No.3 presented six discounting draft bills (DD bills) together with forged lorry receipts and other documents on 23/3/1998 in the Bank. He submitted three more such discount draft bills along with forged lorry receipts and connected documents on 26/3/1998 in the Bank. The consignments were centrifugal latex. The consignees were M/s Mattress House and M/s Premier Foam Industries, New Delhi, of which accused No.5 was the proprietor. M/s Kerala Trading Corporation to which accused No.2 is the proprietrix had sent the consignments. Her husband is accused No.3. The lorry receipts were fabricated and corresponding invoices were drawn falsely. Accused No.1 allowed to discount the fake bills so submitted and paid an amount of Rs.30,60,855.00 to accused Nos.2 and 3 causing loss of that amount to the bank. The offences thereby committed by the accused are punishable under Ss. 120B, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and Sec. 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).

(3.) At the trial of the case, PWs.1 to 32 were examined and Exts.P1 to P284 were marked. On the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused were questioned under Sec. 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code). All of them maintained that they were innocent. Their respective defences were also mentioned in their statements. DW1 was examined and Exts.D1 to D10 were marked on the side of the accused. The Special Court, after appreciating the evidence, convicted accused Nos.2 to 5 for the offences under Sec. 120B read with Ss. 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC. They were sentenced accordingly as well.