Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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 Section 2(c) of the PC Act. The Bank had scheme for  Agricultural Cash Credit (in short 'ACC') loans for raising crops in Thiruvarp 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 C.C.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 C.C.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 C.C.Nos.7/1998 to 19/1998 are impersonated applicants. 

10. In C.C.No.5/1998, the third accused is the father of the 2nd accused. In C.C.No.5/1998 and C.C.No.6/1998, there is no impersonation, but, the third accused had no paddy field to avail loan for the agricultural purposes. But loan was applied and availed as if they had agricultural land. To support the claim, Tax Receipts, Possession Certificates and No Due Certificates were forged. In all the other cases the  third accused impersonated as fictitious persons and availed loan. The third accused Raghavan in C.C.No.7/1988 was impersonated as Raman, S/o.Ayyappan, Vadakkepparambil House. In C.C.No.8/1988, the third accused Gopi, S/o.Krishnan was impersonated as G.Rajappan, S/o.Gopalan. In C.C.No.9/1998, the third accused Rajamma Babu was impersonated as Rajamma Raju. In C.C.No.10/1998, the third accused E.R.Shaji was impersonated as C.Raju, S/o.Chellappan, Puthanparambil, Thiruvarpu. In C.C.11/1998, the third accused Prabhakaran, S/o.Sivaraman was impersonated as Divakaran, S/o.Velayudhan, Arakkal Veedu, Thiruvarpu, Kottayam. In C.C.No.12/1998, the third accused M.K.Raju, S/o.Kumaran was impersonated as Madhavan Soman S/o. Madhavan, Kizhakkedath House, Thiruvarpu. In C.C.No13/1998, the third accused K.V.Gopalan, S/o.Raghavan, Nedumparambil was impersonated as P.R.Raju, S/o.Kesavan, Puthiyachirayil veedu, Thiruvarpu. In C.C.No.14/1998, third accused M.P.Sarada, W/o.Somarajan, Annai, Velloor.P.O was impersonated as K.M.Indira,  D/o.Madhavan Kochuparambil House, Thiruvarpu. In C.C.No.15/1998, the third accused E.R.Shaila, W/o.Gopalan, Neduparambil veedu, Velloor.P.O., Pampady was impersonated as Anila Shajimon, W/o.Shajimon, Pathinanchilchira veedu, Thiruvarp. In C.C.No.16/1998, the third accused M.K.Rajan, S/o.Kesavan was impersonated as Vasudevan, S/o.Kuttappan, Pazhachirayil house, Thiruvarp. In C.C.17/1998, third accused N.Ponnappan was impersonated as A.Hamsa, S/o.Aboobecker, Amarathu House, Thiruvarpu. In C.C.No.18/1998, the third accused N.K.Raju, S/o.Kuttappan, Neduparambil veedu, Velloor, Pampady was impersonated as Shajan Varghese, S/o.Yohannan Itty, Ezhacheriyil veedu, Thiruvarp. In C.C.No.19/1998, the third accused A.K.Ponnappan, S/o.Narayanan, Thalakkulam, Pathaputtam P.O, was impersonated as E.T.Sunny Thomas, S/o.Thomas, Anpathil veedu, Thiruvarp.

23. PW27 would depose that he was working as Extra  Departmental Delivery Agent at Velloor, Pambadi Post Office and that the photograph contained in Ext.P75, the control card/ledger sheet in C.C.13/1998 is that of the third accused Gopalan, Neduparambil, Velloor, Pambadi. Ext.P75 would show that he was impersonated as one P.K.Raju and applied for loan. PW27 would further depose that the third accused in C.C.No.13/1998 is the husband of Shaila who is the third accused in CC.No.15/1998. PW27 would further depose that the photograph in Ext.P91 control card/ledger sheet in C.C.15/1998 is that of Shaila who is the wife of Gopalan, the 3rd accused in C.C.No.13/1998. Whereas Ext.P91 would show that Shaila, the third accused in C.C.15/1998 was impersonated as Anila Raju and applied for loan. PW27 would further depose that the photograph shown in Ext.P83, the control card/ledger sheet in C.C.14/1998 is that of the third accused Sarada W/o. Somarajan. But Ext.P83 with connected loan application would show that the third accused Sarada in C.C.No.14/1998 was impersonated as Indira and applied for loan. The further evidence of PW27  would show that the photographs shown in Exts.P117 and P127, the control card/ledger sheets in C.C.Nos.18 and 19/1998 are that of the third accused N.K.Raju and A.K.Ponnappan respectively. The control card/ledger sheet along with the loan application would show that the third accused in C.C.Nos.18 and 19/1998 were impersonated as Shajan Varghese and Sanny Thomas. The evidence of PW27 also would show that the third accused in C.C.Nos.13, 15, 18,and 19/1998 are his neighbours and he is well acquainted with the third accused. There is no reason to disbelieve PW27. Exts.P75, 83, 91, 117 and 127 would show that third accused were impersonated in different names as alleged by the prosecution. The finding of the trial court on that aspect is absolutely correct.

47. The evidence, which I discussed earlier, would show that the documents were forged by the 2nd and 3rd accused with intent to deceive the State Bank of India and to obtain ACC loans for which the 3rd accused are not entitled. The circumstances stated earlier clinchingly establish that there is conspiracy between the 2nd and 3rd accused. The question then remains is whether the 1st accused had also  involved with the conspiracy. According to the learned counsel for the 1st accused, the 1st accused belongs to Palakkad District and he was no way connected with the 2nd and 3rd accused. The 2nd and 3rd accused were totally strangers and that the 2nd accused was seen only when he came to the bank for availing loan and that at the request of the 1st accused, the 2nd accused identified certain agriculturalists and applications were made. It was also submitted that more than 200 applications were disposed by the 1st accused out of which, only in 15 cases there is impersonation and forgery. According to the learned counsel, the pre-sanction field inspection was not possible because of the vast extent of the paddy field, which was almost waterlogged and since the bank had given a target he was constrained to recommend for loan without a local inspection and that it was done so without knowing the fact that the Tax Receipts, Possession Certificates and No Dues Certificates produced were forged and that the 3rd accused in CC 7/98 to 19/98 were impersonated applicants. On the  other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would rely upon the testimony of PWs 3 and 22, the employees of the bank. They had given evidence to the effect that they had seen the 1st accused talking with and the 2nd accused in the bank. A careful scrutiny of the evidence of PW22 would show that PW22 was sitting at the next table and he could even hear the conversation between the 2nd and 1st accused. That being the place for the alleged conspiracy the evidence of PW22 cannot be taken in its face value to arrive at a conclusion that the 1st accused was also involved in the conspiracy. The evidence of PW3 also didn't suggest that there was anything to doubt about the transaction between the 1st and 2nd accused. Adding to the above, the evidence on record would show that the 1st accused was only a recommending authority and the loan sanctioning authority was the Manager of the Bank. So, it is rather impossible for the 1st accused to sanction the loan. There is no case that the 1st accused had anyway influenced the sanctioning authority in granting the loan. According to the learned  counsel for the 1st accused, if at all there is any abuse of the office, the Manager of the Bank also should have been arrayed as an accused. On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor would argue that it is believing the recommendation of the 1st accused the loan was granted by the Manager. Sometimes, if the Manager was cautious enough to have a random checking regarding the identity of the lonees or the genuineness of the documents, the forgery and impersonation should have been revealed out then and there. In this way, on the side of the Manager there is omission. The omission by the 1st accused is nothing more. There is no good reason to place the 1st accused on a different footing. In the peculiar facts of the case, since there is vast extent of paddy field and having no individual marks of identification, there is least possibility for detecting the fraud, even if a pre-loan personal inspection was made by the 1st accused. On a careful analysis of the evidence on record, the possibility of the 1st accused not knowing the forgery or impersonation made by the 2nd and  3rd accused cannot be ruled out. There is possibility for having conspiracy, forgery and impersonation by the 2nd and 3rd accused even without the knowledge of the 1st accused. Unless there is forgery and impersonation and if the loans were granted in favour of the persons who are entitled to avail ACC loans it cannot be said that there was abuse of the office by the 1st accused. In the above circumstance, I find that the 1st accused can be given the benefit of reasonable doubt.