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.

JUDGMENT :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

1. Second (2nd) accused in C.C.No.1/2009 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram has filed this Criminal Appeal under Section 27 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the PC Act, 1988’ hereinafter) r/w Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.’ hereinafter), challenging conviction and sentence imposed against him in the said case dated 04.07.2013.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/2^nd accused as well as the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Perused the records.

3. The prosecution case is that the 1^st accused, being a public servant, employed as Lower Division Clerk and later Upper Division Clerk in the Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Office, Thiruvananthapuram during the period from 4.1.1997 to 12.4.1999, held additional charge of tapal distribution works and being the custodian of all office seals since 4.1.1997, by corrupt or illegal means or otherwise, abused his official position as such a public servant, he entered into conspiracy with 2^nd and 3^rd accused and in furtherance of the said conspiracy, the 1^st accused forged two Non- Liability Certificates, one in his name and another in the name of one ‘Sajeevkumar.P.D.’, who is a fictitious person falsely stating that ‘Sajeevkumar P.D.’ was working with the 1^st accused, and the 3^rd accused Ajayakumar impersonated as 'Sajeevkumar P.D.' and the 2^nd accused knowingly used those forged Employment Certificates/Non- Liability Certificates as genuine and applied for a loan of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) from the District Co-operative Bank, Nandancode Branch, and subsequently, the 1^st accused prepared forged confirmation letters and the 2^nd accused obtained Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) from the Bank on 9.3.1998 on the surety of the 1^st accused and the 3^rd accused, who had impersonated as 'Sajeevkumar P.D.' and accused Nos.1 to 3 thereby cheated the Bank and obtained undue pecuniary advantage of the said sum. On the above basis, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 468 , 471, 419, 420 and 120B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE as well as Section 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988, by accused Nos.1 to 3.

4. When final report filed before the Special Court, the Special Court took cognizance of the matter and proceeded with trial. During trial, PW1 to PW14 were examined and Exts.P1 to P30 were marked on the side of the prosecution. On completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. and opportunity was provided to them to adduce defence evidence, but no defence evidence was adduced

5. After appreciation of evidence, the Special Court found that the appellant/2^nd accused as well as accused Nos.1 and 3 committed offences under Sections 468 , 471, 419, 420 and 120B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE as well as Section 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 and sentenced him as under:

“For the offence under Ss.420 I.P.C., 468 I.P.C., the second accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) each. Fine, if not paid, second accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months each. For the offence under S.120-B I.P.C. r/w S.13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988 r/w S.13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988, second accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay