Point of law: Contents of the documents must be proved by primary evidence by producing original documents itself for the inspection of the court.

JUDGMENT :

Crl.A Nos.692, 693, 694, 695, 700, 701, 702, 703, 704, 705, 706, 707, 708, 709, 712, 713 & 714 of 2007

1. The above appeals have been filed challenging the common judgment passed by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram (for short 'the court below') in C.C.No.16/2003 to C.C.No.32/2003 dated 28.3.2007.

2. The appellant, in all the cases, is one and the same person. He faced the trial of 17 cases altogether with a similar set of allegations. The offences alleged in all the cases are under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the PC Act') and Sections 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC'). The court below tried all 17 cases jointly. The evidence was recorded in C.C.No.16/2003. All the cases were disposed of by a common judgment. Since all the appeals are connected, I am also disposing of all the appeals together.

3. The appellant was working as Junior Superintendent in the office of the District Registrar (GL), Alappuzha, during the period from March 1992 to November 1993. The prosecution case is that, while the accused was working in the above capacity during the aforesaid period, he abused his official position as a public servant, committed criminal misconduct by forging Essentiality Certificates (47 in Numbers), used the same as genuine and obtained medical reimbursement amount of Rs.23,381/-, unauthorisedly, causing corresponding loss to the Government.

4. After trial, the court below found the accused guilty in all the cases and he was convicted and sentenced in CC.No.16/2003 to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the PC Act, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years under Sections 468 of the IPC and simple imprisonment for a period of one year each under Sections 465 and 471 of the IPC. In CC.Nos. 17/2003 to 32/2003, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years each under Section 13(1) (d) read with 13(2) of the PC Act, simple imprisonment for a period of three years each under Section 468 of the IPC, simple imprisonment for one year each under Section 465 of the IPC and simple imprisonment for one year each under Section 471 of the IPC. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the accused preferred all these appeals.

5. I have heard Sri. S. Sreedev, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. A. Rajesh, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for VACB.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant impeached the finding of the court below on appreciation of evidence and resultant finding as to the guilt. The learned counsel submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the photocopies of the Essentiality Certificates, which were alleged to have been forged, in accordance with the law. He further submitted that there is no satisfactory evidence to prove that the Essentiality Certificates produced by the appellant were forged. In the absence of legal evidence to prove the criminal misconduct on the part of the appellant, the court below ought to have acquitted the accused, submitted the counsel. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor supported the findings and verdict of the court below and submitted that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the case beyond reasonable doubt.

7. It is not in dispute that the appellant was working as Junior Superintendent in the office of the District Registrar (GL), Alappuzha, during the period from March 1992 to November 1993. It is also not in dispute that the appellant had submitted medical reimbursement claims covered by Exts. P2 to P9, P11, P12, P14 to P44 and P47 to P50 and obtained claim amount of Rs.23,381/-. According to the prosecution, the appellant produced forged Essentiality Certificates along with medical reimbursement claims and, using the said Certificates as genuine, obtained the claim amount. The defence set up by the appellant