Accused in corruption case failed to demonstrate grounds for discharge; sufficient evidence warranted trial regarding conspiracy and fraud in loan sanctioning.

ORDER :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

Crl.R.P.No.729/2022 has been filed by accused No.15 in C.C.No.6/2014 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur, challenging dismissal of her petition seeking discharge by the Special Court. Crl.R.P.No.893/2022 is at the instance of accused No.12 in the above case, who also challenges order refusing discharge. Crl.R.P.No.32/2023 has been filed by accused No.11 in the same case, aggrieved by dismissal of his discharge plea. Similarly, accused No.13 has filed Crl.R.P.No.793/2022, challenging dismissal of her discharge petition by the Special Court.

2. Heard respective counsel for the revision petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau.

3. In this matter, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the PC Act, 1988’ hereinafter) as well as Sections 419 , 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , by the accused.

4. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, accused Nos.1 to 4 and 10 to 17 along with accused Nos.5 to 9, hatched a conspiracy during the period March, 2001 - August, 2001, with an intention to commit criminal misconduct, misappropriation and cheating, sanctioned loans of Rs.50 lakh each (total Rs.1 Crore) from Kerala Financial Corporation (for short, ‘KFC’ hereinafter) to accused Nos.5 to 9 by using and sticking on fake and forged documents in the names of two fake industrial units, named M/s.Geetha Suppliers and M/s.G & J Suppliers, Karoor, Thrissur, which were submitted by accused Nos.5 to 9, causing substantial wrongful loss to KFC and abusing their official position as the officers of KFC, Thrissur and disbursed the loan without properly vetting the documents, conducting site inspections, relying on false documents and false valuation certificates and showing that the property belonged to CW6 and CW7, was conveyed to accused Nos.5, 8 and 9. Accused Nos.5 to 9 forged the signatures and photographs of CW6 and CW7 in the documents submitted before KFC to avail loan and so far, they have not discharged the loan amount accruing the liability of Rs.1 crore and odds besides interest thereon.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused No.12 vehemently canvassed interference of the order refusing discharge of accused No.12 by the Special Court. According to him, as per Annexure A6 in Crl.R.P.No.893/2022, it is emphatically clear that accused No.12, being the Deputy Manager, who is also a member of the District Level Screening Committee (for short, ‘the DLSC’ hereinafter) and as per decision, dated 31.03.2001 where Sri.K.S.V.Nayakan - Regional Manager (A10), Sri.V.M.Vijayan - Deputy Manager (A1), Smt.Elizabeth John - Deputy Manager (A13) and Sri.P.P.Joy - Deputy Manager (A11), were participated in the meeting of DLSC and the Committee decided to accept the proposal and resolved to sanction a T/L of Rs.50 Lakh each subject to conditions a to c mentioned therein. According to the learned counsel for accused No.12, the role of accused No.12 is merely to recommend the loan on verification of the documents produced by the other accused and accused No.12 has no role to interact with the loanees and to verify their title documents etc. According to the learned counsel, Annexure A5 in Crl.R.P.No.893/2022 is the appraisal memorandum for sanction of loan pertaining to the present case to th