The prosecution must prove the existence of a criminal conspiracy and that the loans were granted based on false loan applications and forged quotations in order to establish the guilt of the accused.

V. Ramakumar, J.

These appeals filed under Section 374 (2) Criminal Procedure Code arise out of the common judgment dated 28-4-2000 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge (SPE/CBI) - 1, Ernakulam (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Court" in C.C. Nos. 9, 10 and 11 of 1993. Two of the accused in two of the aforesaid C.C. Cases are common. In C.C. 9 of 1993 there were three accused persons and in C.C. Nos. 10 and 11 of 1993 there were two accused persons. The first accused in all the three cases namely Joseph Alappatt is a common accused. The appeals filed by the said common first accused in C.C. Nos. 9, 10 and 11 of 1993 are Crl.Appeals 307, 315 and 316 of 2000. Crl. Appeal 304 of 2000 is filed by the 2nd accused (H. Vahab) in C.C. 9 of 1993. Crl.Appeal No. 295 of 2000 is filed by the 3rd accused (Rajeevan) in C.C. 9 of 1993). Crl.A. 305 of 2000 is filed by the 2nd accused (K. Thajudheen @ Thaju) in C.C. 10 of 1993. Crl.A. 296 of 2000 is filed by the 2nd accused (Rajeevan) in C.C. 11 of 1993.

PROSECUTION CASE IN C.C. 9 OF 1993

2. The case of the prosecution in C.C. 9 of 1993 is as follows:-

A1 (Joseph Alappatt) was working as the Manager of the Quilon Branch of the Punjab National Bank ("PNB" for short) during the period 1988-1990 and was competent to sanction term loans. He was responsible for conducting pre-sanction inspection of the units/premises of the applicants for loan for ascertaining the genuineness of the application and eligibility of the applicants before sanctioning the loan. Some time during October 1989 A1 (Joseph Alappatt), A2 (H.Vahab) and A3 (Rajeevan) entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat PNB. In pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy, A2 representing the firm Salim Agencies filed a false loan application before PNB for a term loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- on 7-10-1989 to operate a shop for hiring steel tables and chairs. Along with the loan application A2 had enclosed a quotation from " Distributors Quilon" at Kadappakkada, a non-existing firm purportedly represented by A3 Rajeevan for the supply of folding chairs and folding tables for Rs. 2,04,375/- . On 7-10-1989 itself A1 sanctioned the loan fully knowing that the loan application was false. A1 issued pay orders for Rs. 1,44,375/- dated 7-10-1989 and Rs. 60,000/- dated 16-10-1989 including the margin money of Rs. 54,375/- remitted by the loanee in favour of "Distributors Quilon". In pursuance of the said conspiracy A3 Rajeevan opened an account in the name of "Distributors Quilon" in the Quilon branch of the Dhanalakshmi Bank and credited the said pay orders in the said account and withdrew the credited amounts by means of cheques dated 11-10-1989 for Rs. 70,000/- and Rs. 74,000/- and by cheque dated 17-10-1989 for Rs. 60,000/-. A3 was not doing any steel furniture business at Kadappakkada under the name and style of "Distributors Quilon". He was actually running a Saw Mill at Quilon. He had not supplied any steel table or folding chairs to A2 and A2 had appropriated the loan amount with the assistance of A3. The quotation in the name of "Distributors Quilon", a non-existing firm was forged by A3 on or about 7-10-1989 intending that it shall be used for the purpose of cheating PNB. A1 (Joseph Alappat) being a public servant, in his capacity as the Manager of PNB, on or about 7-10-1989 by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as such public servant, obtained for A2 pecuniary advantage to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/- by sanctioning the said amount as loan from PNB acting on the false loan application submitted by A2 and by issuing the pay orders for Rs. 1,44,375/- and Rs. 60,000/- in favour of "Distributors Quilon", which were encashed by A2 with the assistance of A3. A1 to A3 thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 120 B, 420 and 468 Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ("the P.C. Act" for short).

PROSECUTION CASE IN C.C. 10 OF 1993