JAMES MATHEW Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.39/2014 on the files of the Special Judge-III, CBI/SPE, Ernakulam, have filed these appeals challenging the verdict in the above case, dtd. 31/8/2016, whereby accused Nos.1 and 2 were found guilty for the offences punishable under Ss. 120B r/w 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC' hereinafter) as well as under Sec. 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the PC Act, 1988' hereinafter).

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 and the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for CBI.

(3.) The case of the prosecution is that the 1st accused, while officiating as Senior Manager, Union Bank of India, Kattappana Branch, Idukki District, during the period from 17/5/2004 to 7/5/2005, conspired with accused Nos.2 to 6 with the intention of cheating Union Bank of India, Kattappana Branch, by sanctioning and disbursing housing loans while abusing his official position. In pursuance of the conspiracy, the 1st accused, in violation of banking norms, sanctioned five housing loans amounting to 50 lakh, viz., 10 lakh in the name of the 2 nd accused on 29/12/2004; 10 lakh in the name of the 3 rd accused on 2/9/2004; 10 lakh in the name of the 4 th accused on 14/7/2004; 10 lakh in the name of the 5th accused on 3/9/2004; and 10 lakh in the name of the 6 th accused (who is the wife of the 2nd accused) on 26/2/2005, on the basis of false and bogus documents. The 1st accused disbursed the amounts without conducting any pre or post sanction inspection, fully knowing that the amounts would not be used for construction of any house and would be applied to purposes other than those for which they were sanctioned. The 1st accused allowed the 2nd accused to utilise the amount for purchasing a cardamom estate in the name of the 2nd accused. Accused Nos.2 to 6 dishonestly induced the Bank to sanction the loans on the basis of false and bogus documents and got the amounts released, knowing well that they were not required for construction and would be used for other purposes. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of the above offences by the accused.