Conviction upheld for conspiracy and corruption based on evidence of fraudulent loan acquisition, while sentence modified to one year imprisonment.

JUDGMENT :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

The 2^nd accused in C.C. No.11/2003 on the the Court of the Special Judge (SPE/CBI), Ernakulam, has filed this appeal, under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Judge, against him as per the judgment dated 24.12.2009. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), represented by the Special Public Prosecutor is arrayed as the sole respondent herein.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Special Public Prosecutor, in detail. Perused the verdict under challenge and the records of the Special Court.

3. Parties in this appeal shall be referred as ‘accused’ and ‘prosecution’, hereafter.

4. The prosecution case in a nutshell is that, the 1^st accused, a public servant employed as Branch Manager at Canara Bank, Sultan Battery, Wayanad, Kerala hatched criminal conspiracy during August – September, 1998 at Sultan Battery and other places, with the 2^nd accused and one A.D.Prasad (the 3^rd accused) to misappropriate the funds of the bank which was entrusted with him and controlled by him to obtain undue pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means for himself and the 2^nd accused, by abusing the o of the 1^st accused as Branch Manger. In pursuance of the said conspiracy, accused Nos.1 and 2 obtained the signatures of Miss.Sini A.T., a college student, on a blank Housing Loan Application, dishonestly representing to her and her mother that the Housing loan would be given to her, for the construction of her house and also falsely representing that the home would be constructed by the 2^nd accused for her. The 1^st accused in pursuance of the conspiracy dishonestly filled up the already signed loan application and dishonestly sanctioned Housing Loan No.4/99, in the name of Miss Sini A.T. for Rs.3,00,000/- and obtained six cheque leaves signed in blank from Miss.Sini A.T. after issuing a cheque book in her name. Further, accused Nos.1 and 2 got the signatures of Miss.Sini A.T. on all the loan papers on 1.9.1998, itself, for sanctioning of the said loan. The 3^rd accused in pursuance of the conspiracy had prepared a false income certificate in the name of Sini A.T., showing an Annual Income of Rs.84,000/-, though in fact, she had no income and she was a College student at the Sulthan Battery Taluk Co-operative Arts College, Sultan Battery doing B.Com., and Rs.50,000/- as Annual Income of her father Shri. Thankappan in order to facilitate the 1^st accused to sanction the said loan and handed over the said Income Certificate to accused Nos.1 and 2, to place it in the Loan file, with dishonest intention to facilitate the 1^st accused to disburse the loan and the 2^nd accused, in pursuance of the conspiracy gave the same to the 1^st accused, who kept the same in the loan The entire loan amount was withdrawn by the accused persons by utilising the six blank signed cheque leaves fraudulently obtained from Miss.Sini A.T, without her knowledge and presented through the employees of the 2^nd accused on 2.9.1988 for Rs. 1,25,000/-, on 19.9.1998 for Rs.5,000/-, on 6.10.1998 for Rs.58,000/-, on 17.9.1998 for Rs.34,000/-, on 23.9.1998 for Rs.50,000/- and on 10.10.1998 for Rs.25,000/- respectively. All the cheques were passed for payment by the 1^st accused and the proceeds were enjoyed by accused Nos.1 to 3. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 120B read with 409 of the Indian Penal Code [hereinafter referred as ‘ IPC ’ for short] as well as under Section s 13 (2) read with 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption