Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J
K.girishkumar S/o.a.kunjukrishnan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.)
The Special Judge (SPE/CBI)-I, Ernakulam tried accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.5 of 2004 on a charge for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act), and Sections 120B, 420 , 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC ). Separate charges were framed. After trial, the Special Court acquitted the 1st accused and convicted accused Nos.2 to 4 as follows:
| Accused No. | Sentence imposed | Section | |
| 2nd accused | RI for 7 years I/d, 2 years RI RI for 7 years I/d, 2 years RI RI for 2 years | Rs.1,50,000/- Rs.1,50,000/- | Section 120B r/w Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC Section 420 of IPC Section 471 of IPC |
| 3rd accused | RI for 7 years I/d, 2 years RI RI for 7 years I/d, 2 years RI | Rs.1,50,000/- Rs.1,50,000/- | 120B r/w Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC Section 468 of IPC |
| 4th accused | RI for 7 years I/d, 2 years RI RI for 7 years I/d, 2 years RI | Rs.1,50,000/- Rs.1,50,000/- | 120B r/w Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC Section 420 of IPC |
3. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the 4th accused filed Crl.Appeal No.1406 of 2006 and accused Nos.2 and 3 filed Crl.Appeal No.1408 of 2006 under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedur
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in conspiracy and forgery cases, and any reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal.
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 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.
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 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 the efficacy of framing charges relies on the existence of sufficient prima facie evidence, without requiring deep merits assessment at the initial stage.
Intention to cheat must exist from the outset for a conviction under IPC Section 420; absence of deceitful intent and no pecuniary advantage mandated an acquittal.
The court upheld the necessity for prima facie evidence when framing charges, emphasizing that mere allegations are insufficient without supporting documentation.
Conviction upheld for conspiracy and corruption based on evidence of fraudulent loan acquisition, while sentence modified to one year imprisonment.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
