SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ker) 2825

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
T.P. Mathew S/o Poulose – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 327 of 2025
Decided On : 09-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : M.A. Vaheeda Babu, Babu Karukapadath, Arya Raghunath, Karukapadath Wazim Babu, P. Lakshmi, Aysha E.M., Abuasil A.K., Hashim K.M., Haniya Nafiza V.S., M.I. Insaf Mooppan, Rishi Vincent
For the Respondents: A. Rajesh, Rekha S.

Attesting a declaration under false pretenses can implicate a lawyer in a conspiracy, highlighting the necessity for due diligence in validating identities in legal documentation.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 419, 468, 471, 120B - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) - The 8th accused, an advocate, is charged with complicity in a loan fraud involving forged documents and impersonation. The court found sufficient grounds for the rejection of the discharge plea stating that the attestation of a false declaration poses potential complicity in a conspiracy to cheat. (Paras 4, 15, 12)

(B) Criminal Conspiracy - Definition of criminal conspiracy and the necessity of establishing common intent and action among conspirators is significant in determining the culpability of the accused. (Paras 24-26)

Facts of the case:
The allegations involve an extensive fraud by multiple parties who, through forgery and impersonation, obtained a loan from a financial institution under false pretenses. The role of the 8th accused as an attester to a declaration allegedly signed by an impersonator raised concerns about his knowledge and complicity in the scheme.

Findings of Court:
The 8th accused was found to have insufficient evidence presented to support his discharge when he attested a declaration purportedly executed by a person he claimed to know, creating a prima facie case for conspiracy and fraudulent acts.

Issues: The core issues revolved around whether the 8th accused acted in good faith while attesting the declaration and whether such an action amounted to criminal conspiracy.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that simply acting as an attestor does not absolve the accused of responsibility if he knowingly assists in a fraudulent scheme, as his actions may facilitate the commission of the crime. The court asserted that the essence of conspiracy is an agreement that can be deduced from the actions of the accused.

Result: The revision petition is dismissed.

Table of Content
1. allegations of fraud and conspiracy against multiple accused. (Para 1 , 4)
2. court’s scrutiny of evidence regarding the accused's role and culpability. (Para 3 , 6 , 8 , 11)
3. defenses raised by the accused to refute involvement in fraud. (Para 5 , 7)
4. court's decision to dismiss the discharge plea based on the outlined facts. (Para 9 , 12)

ORDER :

1. The 8th accused in C.C. No. 5 of 2016, pending on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, assails the order in C.M.P. No. 330 of 2016 dated 07.01.2025, whereby the discharge plea filed by the 8th accused along with the 1st accused was considered and rejected by the Special Judge as per the common order in C.M.P. Nos. 330 of 2016 and 2335 of 2016. The respondent is the State of Kerala, represented by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB).

2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/8th accused and the learned special Public Prosecutor. Perused the order impugned and the decision placed by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner

3. Here the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 419, 468, 471, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the PC Act’ hereafter) by the accused.

4. The prosecution allegation as per the final report is that the 1st accused Sri.K.G.George, S/o A.D.George, Kallickal House, Konnathady.P.O., Idukki District, Formerly Assistant Manager (Legal) Kerala Financial Corporation (for short, ‘KFC’), District Office Kattappana, the 2nd accused Sri.P.Mohandas, s/o Parameswaran, Pournami House, NCC Road, Peroorkkada.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-5, formerly Assistant Manager (A&D) KFC, District Office Kattappana (A3) Sri.Jossy Varghese, s/o T J Varghese, Thoppil House, Kurisummoodu.P.O Changanassery, the 4th accused Sri.Joji Varghese s/o T.J. Varghese, Thoppil house, Kurisummoodu P/O, Changanassery, 5th accused Sri.M.J. Jose @ Josemon Joseph, s/o M.D. Joseph, Mylapparambil house, Anakkailu P.O, Kanjirappally, 6th accused Sri.P.S. Thampi, s/o C.M.Samuel, PF Quarter No. 12, Pattom Thiruvananthapuram formerly District Manager, KFC, District Office, Kattappana, 7th accused Sri.Ashok Kumar. N, s/o K. Narayanan, Flat No 3D, J.M. residency, Male Thampanoor, Thiruvananthapuram – I, formerly regional manager KFC, Kottayam and the 8th accused Sri.T.P.Mathew Advocate Kattappana Bar Association s/o Poulose, Thonakkara House, Kochuthovala PO, Kattappana of which 1st, 2nd, 6th and 7th accused being public servants while holding their respective offices have entered into criminal conspiracy mutually and with the 3rd to 5th accused and the 8th accused being the private persons and in furtherance of that criminal conspiracy. The 1st accused fraudulently and willfully omitted to verify the correctness of bio- data of the co-obligent, certificate containing attested photograph of the co-obligent, photocopy of passport No H-273618, thus he illegally assisted the 5th accused to impersonate as co-obligent and thereby assisted to sign the loan agreement dated 15.02.2001, letter of deposit of documents dated 17.02.2001 and deed of hypothecation and has also illegally fabricated land valuation report dated 07.01.2001. The 2nd accused fraudulently and willfully omitted to verify the correctness of provisional SSI Registration certificate, Trading Profit and Loss account of M/s.Revathy Gold Cutting, rent deed related with room No.3 in building No.1/139/A of Peruvanthanam, affidavit dated 20.02.2001, bio-data of co-obligent, certificate containing attested signature and photograph of the -co-obligent, sales vouchers of Thops Jewellery Kanjirappally and also illegally assisted the 4th accused by fabricating the performa for disbursing the loan amount and he was a member of the RMLSC held on 19.01.2001 which illegally sanctioned the alleged loan. The 3rd accused fraudulently and willfully obtained original deed of document Nos

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top