IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.
K.S. Ramankutty - Appellant
Versus
CBI/SPE/Kochi, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala - Respondent
Crl. Appeal Nos. 2544, 2545, 2581 of 2009
Decided On : 04-04-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120B, 467, 468, 471 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) - Conspiracy and forgery in bank transactions - Accused Nos.2 to 5 involved in a conspiracy to misappropriate funds from State Bank of India through forged documents, resulting in a loss of Rs.30,60,855/- to the bank. Accused Nos.2 to 4 were convicted, while accused No.5 was acquitted due to insufficient evidence. (Paras 2 , 26 , 27 )
(B) Evidence - The prosecution established the conspiracy through overwhelming evidence, including admissions by accused and expert testimony on handwriting. The court affirmed the findings of the Special Court regarding the involvement of accused Nos.2 to 4. (Paras 7 , 14 , 23 )
(C) Sentencing - The court considered the age and health of accused Nos.2 and 3, leading to a lenient sentence of six months imprisonment and fines. (Paras 27 , 29 )
Facts of the case:
The case involved a conspiracy among bank officials and business proprietors to defraud the State Bank of India by submitting forged documents for discounting bills, resulting in significant financial loss.
Findings of Court:
The Special Court's conviction of accused Nos.2 to 4 was upheld, while accused No.5's conviction was overturned due to lack of evidence.
Issues: The main issues included the sufficiency of evidence against accused No.5 and the nature of the conspiracy among the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the evidence presented, including admissions and expert testimony, sufficiently established the conspiracy and forgery, justifying the convictions of accused Nos.2 to 4.
Result: Conviction of accused Nos.2 to 4 confirmed; accused No.5 acquitted.
JUDGMENT :
These appeals arose on the judgment dated 06.11.2009 of the Court of Special Judge (SPE/CBI)-I, Ernakulam. Out of the six accused, who faced trial, accused Nos.2 to 5 were convicted; while accused Nos.1 and 6 were acquitted. Accused Nos.2 and 3 together filed Crl.Appeal No.2545 of 2009, accused No.4 filed Crl.Appeal No.2544 of 2009 and accused No.5 filed Crl.Appeal No.2581 of 2009. Since the issues involved in these appeals are common, these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.
2. There were two sets of allegations. The first set pertaining to accused No.6 and owing to his acquittal, the facts concerning that matter need not require mention. The accusation against accused Nos.2 to 5, which requires mention are the following:
Accused No.1 was the Manager of Kottayam Branch of State Bank of India (SBI) and as such a public servant. He together with accused Nos.2 to 5 hatched a conspiracy for misappropriating money by cheating the SBI. In furtherance of that conspiracy, accused No.3 presented six discounting draft bills (DD bills) together with forged lorry receipts and other documents on 23.03.1998 in the Bank. He submitted three more such discount draft bills along with forged lorry receipts and connected documents on 26.03.1998 in the Bank. The consignments were centrifugal latex. The consignees were M/s Mattress House and M/s Premier Foam Industries, New Delhi, of which accused No.5 was the proprietor. M/s Kerala Trading Corporation to which accused No.2 is the proprietrix had sent the consignments. Her husband is accused No.3. The lorry receipts were fabricated and corresponding invoices were drawn falsely. Accused No.1 allowed to discount the fake bills so submitted and paid an amount of Rs.30,60,855/- to accused Nos.2 and 3 causing loss of that amount to the bank. The offences thereby committed by the accused are punishable under Sections120B, 467 , 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC ), and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).
3. At the trial of the case, PWs.1 to 32 were examined and Exts.P1 to P284 were marked. On the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code). All of them maintained that they were innocent. Their respective defences were also mentioned in their statements. DW1 was examined and Exts.D1 to D10 were marked on the side of the accused. The Special Court, after appreciating the evidence, convicted accused Nos.2 to 5 for the offences under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 467 , 468 and 471 of the IPC . They were sentenced accordingly as well.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective accused and the learned Standing Counsel for the CBI.
5. Accused No.2 was the proprietrix of M/s Kerala Trading Corporation. Accused No.3 is her husband. He had another proprietorship concern named M/s Amba Rubber Industries. They were dealing with centrifuged latex. The said concerns used to sell centrifugal latex to accused No.5, who carries on business in New Delhi. Accused Nos.2 and 3 have accounts with Kottayam Branch of SBI in the name of M/s Kerala Trading Corporation. They had a discounting limit of Rs.50 lakhs and a cash credit facility of Rs.10 lakhs. These facts are not under challenge.
6. The case of the prosecution is that nine DD bills each accompanied by request for discounting and consignee copy of the lorry receipts evidencing sending of consignments to the consignees at New Delhi were submitted in the Kottayam branch of the SBI. It was stated that each consignment was insured, which was later turned out to be untrue. The documents were signed by accused No.2 for M/s Kerala Trading Corporation. On the request of accused Nos.2 and 3, all the nine requests for discounting were sanctioned by accused No.1 and a total amount of Rs.30,60,855/- was paid. The said amount was credited to the account maintained by M/s Kerala Tradi




Vijayachandran K.K. and others v. Superintendent of Police and others
The court affirmed the convictions of accused Nos.2 to 4 for conspiracy and forgery, while acquitting accused No.5 due to insufficient evidence linking him to the fraudulent activities.
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in conspiracy and forgery cases, and any reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal.
The judgment establishes the difficulty in proving conspiracy and the importance of inferring conspiracy from surrounding circumstances. It also emphasizes the severe consequences of corruption and t....
Public servants convicted of misappropriation and forgery through forged loan applications must be proven to have made false documents and abused their positions, affirming the importance of direct e....
The prosecution failed to prove the charges of forgery and conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt due to irregularities in evidence collection.
The prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the offences of conspiracy and forgery against the appellants, with mere suspicion not serving as a substitute for valid evidence.
The court affirmed that conspiracy and forgery can be inferred from circumstantial evidence, establishing the appellant's involvement in obtaining a loan through deceitful means.
The prosecution could not establish the case against the appellant under Section 120(B)/468 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2) & Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 19....
Prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence to uphold charges of forgery and conspiracy, relying instead on mere suspicion, resulting in the acquittal of the accused.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.