The prosecution must prove the duties of the accused to establish criminal liability in misconduct cases.

1. The appellant is the fifth accused in CC Nos. 82, 83, 84, 85 and 86/2007 on the file of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. He was the Inspector attached to District Co - operative Bank, Pathanamthitta. He was prosecuted along with 6 others, by the Deputy Superintendent of Police Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Pathanamthitta, alleging offence under S.13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) and (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as PC Act) and S.409, S.468, S.471 and S.120B IPC. The prosecution case is that the appellant was working as the Inspector attached to District Co - operative Bank, Pathanamthitta. The District Co - operative Bank, Pathanamthitta has a Branch at Adoor, wherein PW 5 was the Manager. Under the Adoor Branch, there is a Service Co - operative Bank (Primary Bank) by name Erath Service Co - operative Bank of which the first accused was the Cashier and Accountant, the second accused was the Secretary, the third accused was the President and accused 4 and 5 were the Sub Committee members and accused No. 7 was the Agricultural Officer. The 1st accused is the brother - in - law of PW 2 Rajan Nair. Late Krishnan Nair and Pankajakshi Amma are the father - in - law and mother - in - law of the 1st accused. Neither PW 2 nor his parents had any rubber plantation. But in their name with wrong address, applications were filed for Long Term Rubber Plantation Loan (LTRP Loan). In the loan applications, some bogus properties were scheduled. Neither PW 2 nor his parents applied. Signatures in the loan applications were also forged. Loan applications were forwarded to the Sub Committee by the 2nd accused as if genuine applications. Accused 3 to 5 endorsed false certificate certifying that they had verified the correctness of the particulars in the loan applications and satisfied its correctness including valuation of the property. Loan applications were placed before the Board of Directors with the recommendation of the Sub Committee and got passed. The 1st accused managed to get a mortgage deed executed by PW 2 and his parents. The appellant, who was bound to verify the records, in pursuance to the conspiracy, didn't point out the irregularities and illegalities. He also recommended the loan. The 7th accused without even inspecting the property falsely certified the feasibility and utility of the loan. Thus got released Rs.1,90,185/- by various occasions by abusing the office, forging documents and using those forged documents as genuine and committed breach of trust and criminal misconduct and that they did so in pursuance to a criminal conspiracy.

2. The offences were disclosed in an enquiry conducted by the Asst. Registrar of Co - operative Societies (vide Ext. P1 report). The matter was reported to the vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Pathanamthitta. After a preliminary enquiry a case was registered. After due investigation, five final reports alleging offences under S.13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) and (d) of PC Act and S.409, S.468, S.471 and S.120B IPC were submitted before the Trial Court. The appellant was the sixth accused. The learned Judge took cognizance and issued process. Despite the coercive steps issued to the second accused he could not be apprehended. Hence, the case against him was split up and proceeded separately. The other accused were re - arrayed as accused one to six. Thus the appellant, who was the 6th accused in the charge sheet, was re - arrayed as the fifth accused. On appearance of the other accused including the appellant, they were furnished with the copies of the final reports and connecte