Kerala High Court
T. P Mathew vs State Of Kerala on 9 September, 2025
CRL.REV.PET NO. 327 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:66693
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
TH
TUESDAY, THE 9 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 18TH BHADRA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 327 OF 2025
CRIME NO.V.C.19/2005 OF VACB, IDUKKI, Idukki
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.01.2025 IN CMP 330/2016 IN CC NO.5 OF 2016 OF
ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE (VIGILANCE), MUVATTUPUZHA
REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER/8TH ACCUSED:
T. P MATHEW
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O POULOSE, THONNAKKARA HOUSE, KOCHUTHOAVALA P.O., KATTAPPANA
VILLAGE, PIN - 685514
BY ADVS.
SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU
SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH
SMT.ARYA RAGHUNATH
SHRI.KARUKAPADATH WAZIM BABU
SMT.P.LAKSHMI
SMT.AYSHA E.M.
SHRI.ABUASIL A.K.
SHRI.HASHIM K.M.
SMT.HANIYA NAFIZA V.S.
SHRI.M.I.INSAF MOOPPAN
SHRI.RISHI VINCENT
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED DY S P, VACB, IDUKKI, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH
COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 685602
OTHER PRESENT:
SPL PP SRI. A. RAJESH, SR PP SMT. REKHA S
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.08.2025,
THE COURT ON 09.09.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.REV.PET NO. 327 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:66693
A. BADHARUDEEN, J
============================
Crl.Revision Petition No. 327 of 2025
==============================
Dated 9th day of September 2025
ORDER
The 8th accused in C.C. No. 5 of 2016, pending on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, assails the order in C.M.P. No. 330 of 2016 dated 07.01.2025, whereby the discharge plea filed by the 8th accused along with the 1st accused was considered and rejected by the Special Judge as per the common order in C.M.P. Nos. 330 of 2016 and 2335 of 2016. The respondent is the State of Kerala, represented by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB).
CRL.REV.PET NO. 327 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:66693
2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner /8th accused and the learned special Public Prosecutor. Perused the order impugned and the decision placed by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner
3. Here the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 419, 468, 471, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the PC Act' hereafter) by the accused.
4. The prosecution allegation as per the final report is that the 1st accused Sri.K.G.George, S/o A.D.George, Kallickal House, Konnathady.P.O., Idukki District, Formerly Assistant Manager CRL.REV.PET NO. 327 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:66693 (Legal) Kerala Financial Corporation (for short, 'KFC'), District Office Kattappana, the 2nd accused Sri.P.Mohandas, s/o Parameswaran, Pournami House, NCC Road, Peroorkkada.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-5, formerly Assistant Manager (A&D) KFC, District Office Kattappana (A3) Sri.Jossy Varghese, s/o T J Varghese, Thoppil House, Kurisummoodu.P.O Changanassery, the 4th accused Sri.Joji Varghese s/o T.J. Varghese, Thoppil house, Kurisummoodu P/O, Changanassery, 5th accused Sri.M.J. Jose @ Josemon Joseph, s/o M.D. Joseph, Mylapparambil house, Anakkailu P.O, Kanjirappally, 6th accused Sri.P.S. Thampi, s/o C.M.Samuel, PF Quarter No. 12, Pattom Thiruvananthapuram formerly District Manager, KFC, District Office, Kattappana, 7th accused Sri.Ashok Kumar. N, s/o K. Narayanan, Flat No 3D, J.M. residency, CRL.REV.PET NO. 327 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:66693 MaleThampanoor, Thiruvananthapuram - I, formerly regional manager KFC, Kottayam and the 8th accused Sri.T.P.Mathew Advocate Kattappana Bar Association s/o Poulose, Thonakkara House, Kochuthovala PO, Kattappana of which 1st, 2nd, 6th and 7th accused being public servants while holding their respective offices have entered into criminal conspiracy mutually and with the 3rd to 5th accused and the 8th accused being the private persons and in furtherance of that criminal conspiracy. The 1st accused fraudulently and willfully omitted to verify the correctness of bio- data of the co-obligent, certificate containing attested photograph of the co-obligent, photocopy of passport No H-273618, thus he illegally assisted the 5th accused to impersonate as co-obligent and thereby assisted to sign the loan agreement dated 15.02.2001, letter CRL.REV.PET NO. 327 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:66693 of deposit of documents dated 17.02.2001 and deed of hypothecation and has also illegally fabricated land valuation report dated 07.01.2001. The 2nd accused fraudulently and willfully omitted to verify the correctness of provisional SSI Registration certificate, Trading Profit and Loss account of M/s.Revathy Gold Cutting, rent deed related with room No.3 in building No.1/139/A of Peruvanthanam, affidavit dated 20.02.2001, bio-data of co-obligent, certificate containing attested signature and photograph of the -co-obligent, sales vouchers of Thops Jewellery Kanjirappally and also illegally assisted the 4th accused by fabricating the performa for disbursing the loan amount and he was a member of the RMLSC held on 19.01.2001 which illegally sanctioned the alleged loan. The 3rd accused fraudulently and willfully obtained original CRL.REV.PET NO. 327 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:66693 deed of document Nos 675/97, 677/97 and 678/97 in Sy No 183/1, 184/1 and 185/2 of Kokkayar Village and pledged them towards a loan in favour of his brother at Kattappana without the knowledge of Muhammed Iqbal, s/o Hassankutti Rawther, Panthuvallil house, Mulakkuzha, Chengannur and cheated him. The 3rd and 4th accused fraudulently and willfully forged and fabricated Provisional SSI Registration certificate, Trading profit and loss account and balance sheet, rent deed dated 21.11.2000, affidavit dated 20.02.2001, bio-data. and certificate containing the attested signature of the co-obligent, photocopy of the passport No.H-273618, sales vouchers of Thops Jewellery, Kanjirappally and they also prompted and assisted the 5th accused to impersonate Sri.Muhammed Iqbal and signed loan agreement dated 15.02.2001, CRL.REV.PET NO. 327 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:66693 letter of deposit of documents dated 17.02.2001, declaration dated 22.02.2001, the deed of hypothecation and they misappropriated Rs.44 lakh without using for the purpose which the amount was sanctioned. The 5th accused fraudulently and willfully forged and fabricated photocopy of passport No.H-273618 impersonated as Muhammed Iqbal as per the direction of the 3rd and 4th accused also forged bio-data and certificate containing attested photograph and signature of the co-obligent with the assistance of the 3rd and 4th accused. The 6th accused fraudulently and willfully omitted to verify the provisional SSI registration certificate, trading profit and loss account and balance sheet and rent agreement dated 22.11.2000 and he was a member of RMLSC held on 19.01.2001 which irregularly sanctioned the loan. The 7th accused fraudulently and CRL.REV.PET NO. 327 OF 2025 9 2025:KER:66693 willfully sanctioned the alleged loan on the basis of fake records produced by the applicant as the head of the RMLSC. The 8th accused fraudulently and willfully furnished a false certificate that he personally knew the 4th accused and W1 in the declaration dated 22.02.2001. Thus the said public servants committed criminal misconduct by sanctioning a loan of Rs.44 lakh on the basis of a loan application of the 3rd accused with the help of the 4th accused using forged documents as genuine and by conniving at and/or assisting cheating by personation by the 5th accused as the owner of the property offered as collateral security to KFC and indulged in cheating KFC, a legal entity by irregular sanction and disbursement of loan to the tune of Rs.44 lakh during the period from 20.11.2000 to 30.03.2001 without verifying the legality as well as the correctness CRL.REV.PET NO. 327 OF 2025 10 2025:KER:66693 of the documents submitted by the 3rd and 4th accused and the affidavit prepared by the 8th accused and also without verifying the stock in connection with the utilization of the loan by the 2nd accused and blatantly violating the existing norms for sanction and disbursement of loans by the accused officials and thus the accused have committed the offences of criminal conspiracy using a forged document as genuine knowing it to be forged document, forgery for the purpose of cheating, cheating by personation and criminal misconduct. The said facts and omissions on the part of the 1st accused Sri K.G. George, the 2nd accused Sri P. Mohandas, the 3rd accused Sri Jossy Varghese, the 4th accused Sri Joji Varghese, the 5th accused Sri.Josemon Joseph @ M.J. Jose, the 6th accused Sri P.S Thampi, the 7th accused Sri Ashok Kumar. N and the 8th accused CRL.REV.PET NO. 327 OF 2025 11 2025:KER:66693 Sri T.P. Mathew constitutes the offences punishable under section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and Sections 419, 468, 471, 120-B IPC.
5. While assailing the order, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the only allegation against the petitioner who has been practicing as a lawyer in Kattappana Bar is that he had attested a declaration, copy of the same has been produced as Annexure A1, made by Sri.Jossy Varghese who is arrayed as the 3rd accused and CW1 Sri. Muhammed Iqbal who was alleged to be impersonated by the 5th accused. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, insofar as attestation of the affidavit or declaration is concerned, the KFC prescribed a format and the same was acted upon by the revision petitioner. It is CRL.REV.PET NO. 327 OF 2025 12 2025:KER:66693 submitted further that the revision petitioner believed parties who approached the revision petitioner along with the declaration as bonafide persons and attested the declaration in the format. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as per Section 3 of the Oaths Act 1969 the power to administer oaths have been given to many persons including lawyers. When such power being exercised if wrongly, the same would not attract any offences. It is submitted further that the prosecution alleges that the Advocate who attested the declaration joined hands with the other accused in the matter of processing loan applications which resulted in granting of Rs.44 lakh loan in the name of the 2nd accused and 5th accused who were fictitiously represented CW1 Muhammed Iqbal. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner also placed a statement CRL.REV.PET NO. 327 OF 2025 13 2025:KER:66693 of Sri. Abdul Kadher (CW2) in this case regarding the procedure of getting attestation of the declaration from any Advocate in this regard. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner placed the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2012) 9 SCC 512 Central Bureau of Investigation Hyderabad v. K Narayana Rao and contended when allegation against a panel lawyer who had given false legal opinion to the bank in respect of housing loan in the capacity as a panel Advocate who failed to point out actual ownership of the properties was considered by the Madras High Court the case against him alleging commission of similar offences had been quashed by the Madras High Court and when the CBI challenged the same, the Apex Court confirmed the order of CRL.REV.PET NO. 327 OF 2025 14 2025:KER:66693 quashment as observed in paragraph Nos.24 to 26. Paragraph Nos.24 to 26 read as under:-
24. The ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are that there should be an agreement between the persons who are alleged to conspire and the said agreement should be for doing an illegal act or for doing, by illegal means, an act which by itself may not be illegal. In other words, the essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both and in a matter of common experience that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available. Accordingly, the circumstances proved before and after the occurrence have to be considered to decide about the CRL.REV.PET NO. 327 OF 2025 15 2025:KER:66693 complicity of the accused. Even if some acts are proved to have been committed, it must be clear that they were so committed in pursuance of an agreement made between the accused persons who were parties to the alleged conspiracy. Inferences from such proved circumstances regarding the guilt may be drawn only when such circumstances are incapable of any other reasonable explanation. In other words, an offence of conspiracy cannot be deemed to have been established on mere suspicion and surmises or inference which are not supported by cogent and acceptable evidence.
25. In the earlier part of our order, first we have noted that the respondent was not named in the FIR and then we extracted the relevant portions from the charge-sheet about his alleged CRL.REV.PET NO. 327 OF 2025 16 2025:KER:66693 role. Though statements of several witnesses have been enclosed along with the charge-sheet, they speak volumes about others.
However, there is no specific reference to the role of the present respondent along with the main conspirators.
26. The High Court while quashing the criminal proceedings in respect of the respondent herein has gone into the allegations in the charge-sheet and the materials placed for his scrutiny and arrived at a conclusion that the same do not disclose any criminal offence committed by him. It also concluded that there is no material to show that the respondent herein joined hands with A-1 to A-3 for giving false opinion. In the absence of direct material, he cannot be implicated as one of the conspirators of the offences punishable under Section 420 read CRL.REV.PET NO. 327 OF 2025 17 2025:KER:66693 with Section 109 IPC. The High Court has also opined that even after critically examining the entire material, it does not disclose any criminal offence committed by him. Though as pointed out earlier, a roving enquiry is not needed, however, it is the duty of the Court to find out whether there is any prima facie material available against the person who has been charged with an offence under Section 420 read with Section 109 IPC.
6. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner merely attesting a declaration in the name of a wrong person by itself would not attract any offences, therefore the prosecution as against the revision petitioner is totally unwarranted. He also pointed out that by the common order the 1st accused was CRL.REV.PET NO. 327 OF 2025 18 2025:KER:66693 discharged while disallowing discharge sought for by the 8th accused.
7. The learned Special Public Prosecutor zealously opposed the contentions at the instance of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and submitted that the allegation against the revision petitioner/the 8th accused is that he had attested the declaration in the name of Muhammad Iqbal who is CW1 when he was impersonated by the 5th accused without knowing the identity of Sri.Muhammad Iqbal by stating that "he was personally known to him". Therefore the complicity of the 8th accused as part of conspiracy in between the accused could not be viewed lightly and therefore the prosecution of the petitioner is well made out prima facie warranting trial. In such a case, the special court CRL.REV.PET NO. 327 OF 2025 19 2025:KER:66693 rightly dismissed the discharge plea of the revision petitioner. In paragraph No.15 of the order, the learned special judge discussed the reasons for disallowing the discharge plea filed by the revision petitioner herein, which reads as follows:-
"15.As far as the eighth accused is concerned, the allegation is that as a lawyer, he had attested an affidavit signed by the fifth accused but purporting to be sworn by CW1, wherein the fifth accused personated CW1. The said affidavit has been produced as Ext. G by the prosecution and purports to have been executed on 22 February 2001. The disbursement of the loan to the 4th accused was made thereafter relying on this affidavit also. Attestation of the affidavit by an Advocate sworn by a CRL.REV.PET NO. 327 OF 2025 20 2025:KER:66693 person would not normally make an Advocate criminally liable. But the eighth accused attested the affidavit, declaring that the deponents of the affidavit were personally known to him. This is as if declaring that the fifth accused who personated CW1 was actually CW1. This is prima facie assisting the fifth accused in personating CW1, thereby making the eighth accused a party to the agreement between the fourth and fifth accused in committing the offences of impersonation and cheating. Whether the eighth accused had unintentionally attested the affidavit without properly reading the declaration as was brought before him or not is a matter that can be decided only during trial. In view of the CRL.REV.PET NO. 327 OF 2025 21 2025:KER:66693 declaration made in the affidavit mentioned above, the discharge of the eighth accused is not possible. Under the above circumstances, it is not possible to hold that there is no prima facie case against the eighth accused. On the other hand, evidence on record shows a prima facie case against the eighth accused."
8. To be on the crux of the matter as per Annexure -A1 declaration two deponents were shown. They are (1) - Sri.Jogy Varghese and (2) - Sri.Muhammed Iqbal. Both of them signed in all the four pages of the declaration. But the investigation revealed that Sri.Muhammed Iqbal named in the declaration, in fact, did not sign in the declaration or he did not apply for the loan or he did not provide his property as collateral security for the same. On CRL.REV.PET NO. 327 OF 2025 22 2025:KER:66693 reading the attestation made by the revision petitioner the same would recite that 'solemnly affirmed and signed this before me by the deponents who are personally known to me this the 22nd day of February 2007 at my office at Kattappana' .
9. Regarding the contention raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that as per the observations in Paragraph No.14 the learned special judge discharged the 1st accused and for the same reasons as a parity approach the 8th accused also would deserve discharge, it is relevant to note that this court could not address the said finding without challenging the same. The learned Special Public Prosecutor not in a position to submit that whether any challenge raised against the said finding. In fact the finding of the special court for discharging one among the accused could not CRL.REV.PET NO. 327 OF 2025 23 2025:KER:66693 be blindly relied on by this court without addressing the challenge thereof. Therefore I am not inclined to accept the argument that the reasons for discharging the 1st accused would apply in the case of the 2nd accused on parity basis. Moreover here the allegation against the 8th accused is totally different from that of the 1st accused and it had been specifically alleged by the prosecution that the 8th accused had falsely attested the declaration in the name of a person impersonated by the 5th accused without enquiry and identifying the said person properly though the declaration was pertaining to grant of loan to the tune of Rs.44 lakh in favour of the 4th and 5th accused. The prosecution has a specific case that there was conspiracy between all the accused in this case to obtain loan from KFC by impersonating Sri.Muhammed Iqbal CRL.REV.PET NO. 327 OF 2025 24 2025:KER:66693 (CW1) and offering his property as collateral security by pledging the same without his knowledge.
10. In the case dealt by the Apex Court for which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner viz. K Narayana Rao (Supra) the Apex Court confirmed the quashment of a case against a Panel Lawyer who had given false legal opinion to the bank in respect of a housing loan. Giving legal opinion on misunderstanding law and facts would operate on a different footing than certifying a false declaration after identifying a fictitious person as a person "personally known" to the Advocate. To put it otherwise there is no compulsion for a lawyer to attest a declaration or an affidavit unless he would be satisfied that the person making the declaration is the real person with specific CRL.REV.PET NO. 327 OF 2025 25 2025:KER:66693 identity to rule out the possibility of issuing such declaration or affidavit under the name of a fictitious person. When an Advocate who is empowered to attest a declaration or an affidavit, without properly identifying the person, attesting the same certifying that the declaration was made by the person "who was personally known to him" and the said declaration was also acted upon by the banking institution to grant a huge sum of loan, conspiracy in these circumstances is to be inferred. In such a case, the reasons stated by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner to discharge the petitioner herein in the said case could not succeed.
11. In this matter the prosecution alleges commission of the above offences by the accused as part of the conspiracy hatched in between them. It is difficult to hold at the pre-trial stage that the CRL.REV.PET NO. 327 OF 2025 26 2025:KER:66693 petitioner is innocent and he had no role in certifying a false declaration in the name of a fictitious person since the same was used for availing a huge sum of loan in the name of a fictitious person, that too by offering property of the said fictitious person as the security for the loan. Therefore prima facie the allegation against the petitioner are made out from the prosecution records warranting framing of charge and consequential trial.
12. In view of the above discussion the revision petition is liable to fail and is accordingly dismissed.
13. The interim order of stay stands vacated.
It is specifically made clear that the observations in this order have no binding effect while deciding the case on merits, and the CRL.REV.PET NO. 327 OF 2025 27 2025:KER:66693 same are intended to address the plea of discharge alone. Further the special court shall decide the case on merits on evaluation of the evidence to be adduced.
Sd/-
A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE
RMV
CRL.REV.PET NO. 327 OF 2025
28
2025:KER:66693
APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 327/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE DECLARATION, PURPORTED TO
HAVE BEEN ATTESTED BY THE PETITIONER/ 8TH
ACCUSED ON 22/02/2001 AND PRODUCED AS EXT. G
BY THE PROSECUTION
Annexure A2 THE RELEVANT PART OF THE DRAFT CHARGE
SUBMITTED BY THE PROSECUTION FORMS THE PART
OF FINAL REPORT