Judgment :

All these appeals involve similar and connected facts. Since, the legal issues that arise for our consideration are also similar, we proceed to dispose of all these appeals by this common judgment and order.

2. Before we delve into the facts of the case, it would be appropriate for us to deal with the miscellaneous applications that have been filed in this Court and also the statement of the learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal Nos. 805-806 of 2003.

3. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 6391 to 6394 of 2010 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1515-1516 of 2003 and Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 6396-6399 of 2010 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1527-1528 of 2003 are applications filed by the legal representatives of the accused No. 1 namely, Kumaraguru seeking for substitution of their names in place of the deceased appellant-accused No. 1. During the pendency of the appeals in this Court, appellant-accused No. 1 died on 9th April, 2007. The present applications have therefore been filed by his legal representatives seeking for substitution of their names in place of the deceased appellant accused No. 1. In support of the aforesaid prayer, the legal representatives of the deceased appellant-accused No. 1 have relied upon the provisions of Section 394 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. For the reasons stated in the said applications, the applications are allowed. The names of the applicants who are the legal representatives of the deceased-appellant accused No. 1 are, thus, allowed to be brought on record. The said applications stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

4. It is pointed out that during the pendency of the appeals in this Court, accused No. 3 namely, Tamizhselvan who was the owner of shop No. 18 had died. In that view of the matter, so far as the appeals against accused No. 3 are concerned, i.e. Criminal Appeal Nos. 805-806 of 2003, they stand abated. The same are dismissed, accordingly. The owner of shop No. 30, Kandasamy, accused No. 3 in the first appeal has not filed any appeal in this Court against the order of conviction and sentence passed against him. It has been stated that he has served out the sentence awarded to him.

5. Brief facts, which are necessary to dispose of the present appeals, are that the appellants herein were charged under the provisions of Section 120-B, Section 420 read with Section 120B, Section 477A read with Section 120B IPC and under Section 5 (1) (d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 in SLP. C.C. No. 1 of 1985. In C.C. No. 3 of 1985, charges were framed against the appellants herein under clause 4 (a) of the Pondicherry Essential Commodities (Display of Stocks, Price and Maintenance of Accounts) Order, 1975 read with Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The case of the prosecution is that the appellants herein, i.e., accused Nos. 1 and 2 prepared the permit for issuance of palmolein oil and the counter foil thereof was retained in the office. Both the aforesaid permits and the counter foil were in the handwriting of accused No. 2 which are also initialed and signed by A1 and A2. Subsequently, however, in the permit it was detected that there was interpolation and forgery in respect of shop No. 30. One of such permits indicates that the palmolein oil was meant to be issued in favour of Shop No. 38. The counter foil retained in the office indicates that it was meant to be issued and was in fact issued in favour of shop No. 38 but in the permit, it was detected later on that the same was converted and interpolated as shop No. 30. Delivery of the palmolein oil was also taken on behalf of shop No. 30.

6. In view of the aforesaid interpolation and forgery in the said documents, two separate cases were registered under the aforesaid provisions. After submission of the charge-sheet, trial was conducted and a number of witnesses i.e. P.W. 1 to P.W. 19 were examined and several documents were also placed on record which were ma