[ad_1]
Kerala High Court
P.Prabhakaran & Others vs State Of Kerala on 14 August, 2025
CRL.A NO. 2450 OF 2010
1
2025:KER:61583
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 2450 OF 2010
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.11.2010 IN CC NO.2 OF 2005 OF
ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPELLANTs/ACCUSED:
1 P.PRABHAKARAN & OTHERS
MANAGER, KSFE CHALAI BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2 B.KADAMBARI WO. PRABHAKARAN
KOLLIVILAOM HOUSE, TC 48/157,, AMBALATHARA,
POONTHURA.P.O.,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3 D. MAYADEVI DO. DEVAKI
KOLLIVILAOM HOUSE, TC 48/157, POONTHURA.P.O.,,
MUTTATHARA VILLAGE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR
SRI.JELSON J.EDAMPADAM
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
PROSECUTOR, OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL,, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM(DY.S.P. VIGILANCE, AND ANTI
CORRUPTION BUREAU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.)
OTHER PRESENT:
ADV.RAJESH A SPL PP VACB,ADV.REKHA.S SRPP VACB
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.A NO. 2450 OF 2010
2
2025:KER:61583
CR
A. BADHARUDEEN, J
============================
CrlAppeal No. 2450 of 2010
==============================
Dated 14th day of August 2025
JUDGMENT
Accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C No. 2 of 2005 on the files of
the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge,
Thiruvananthapuram, have preferred this appeal challenging the
verdict in the said case dated 25th November 2010.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/accused
Nos. 1 to 3 as well as the learned Special Public Prosecutor
representing the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau
CRL.A NO. 2450 OF 2010
3
2025:KER:61583
(VACB) in detail. Perused the records of the special court and
the decisions placed by the learned counsel for the
appellants/accused Nos. 1 to 3.
3. The crux of the prosecution allegation is that the 1st
accused who held the post of Manager, Chalai Branch of Kerala
State Financial Enterprises (for short, ‘KSFE’ hereafter) abused
his official position in association with the 2nd accused, his wife
and the 3rd accused, his sister after sharing common intention
to cheat KSFE and to obtain undue pecuniary advantage for
them created forged employment certificates in the name of
fictitious persons and used those forged employment certificates
as genuine in two chitti loans and accordingly the 2nd accused
CRL.A NO. 2450 OF 2010
4
2025:KER:61583
obtained loan of Rs.44,000/- on 20.10.1993 and the 3rd accused
obtained loan of Rs.48,000/- on 24.11.1993.
4. The Special Court took cognizance of the matter and
proceeded with the trial. During trial, PWs 1 to 15 examined
and Exts.P1 to P23 were marked. When opportunity was
provided to the accused to adduce defence evidence, after they
were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, DW1 examined and Ext.D1 marked on the
side of the defence.
5. On analysis of the evidence, the Special Judge found
that accused Nos. 1 to 3 committed offences punishable under
Section 468 and 471 r/w 34 of the IPC as well as under Section
CRL.A NO. 2450 OF 2010
5
2025:KER:61583
13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, accordingly, they were
sentenced as under:-
“Accused Nos. 1 to 3 are sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one year each and in
addition they shall pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five
hundred only) each and in default of payment of fine,
they shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
one month each, for the offence under Ss.468 r/w 34
I.P.C., they are sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one year each and in
addition they shall pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five
hundred only) each and in default of payment of fine,
they shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
one month each, for the offence under Ss.471 r/w 34
I.P.C. they are sentenced to undergo rigorous
CRL.A NO. 2450 OF 20106
2025:KER:61583
imprisonment for a period of one year each and in
addition they shall pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five
hundred only) and in default of payment of fine, they
shall undergo imprisonment for a period of one month
each. The bail bonds executed by them are cancelled. The
substantive sentences shall run concurrently.
6. According to the learned counsel for appellant/accused
Nos. 1 to 3, in this case, based on Ext.P1 series, as well as Ext.P3
series, the allegation of the prosecution is that the accused forged
employment certificates in the name of Smt. P K Sarasamma,
who was working as P.D. Teacher at the Government UP
School, Karavaram, Attingal, as Ext.P3(e) and as per Ext.P3(d),
the employment certificate of Smt.K.Ambikapathy, who was
CRL.A NO. 2450 OF 2010
7
2025:KER:61583
working as P.D. Teacher of the Government Upper Primary
School, Karavaram, Attingal. Similarly, the other allegation is
that as per Ext.P1(c) and P1(d), the accused forged employment
certificates of Sri. Ramachandran Assari, as well as
K.Krishnankutti Nair, to avail loan in the name of the 2nd and
3rd accused. According to the learned counsel for the accused,
as far as grant of loans is concerned, the same is not in dispute.
The case advanced by learned counsel for the appellant/accused
Nos 1 to 3 is that when it was decided to run a self-employment
unit for the benefit of the wife and children of the 1st accused,
during October 1993, two loans were applied in the name of
accused Nos.2 and 3, who are the wife and sister of the 1st
CRL.A NO. 2450 OF 2010
8
2025:KER:61583
accused. In this regard one Vijayan who was a drawing teacher in
a private school closely related to the wife of the 1st accused
arranged sureties. Accordingly sureties reached KSFE Chalai
along with employment certificates and signed. Thereafter the
loan was sanctioned after confirming the genuineness of the
same by the 1st accused. The repayment of the loan was
defaulted, and there was internal audit. According to learned
counsel for the appellant/accused Nos. 1 to 3, anyhow when
revenue recovery proceedings were initiated during 1997 the
loans were repaid as deposed by DW1.
7. According to the learned counsel for the
appellant/accused Nos. 1 to 3, in order to substantiate the
CRL.A NO. 2450 OF 2010
9
2025:KER:61583
offence of forgery, mere creation of false document is insufficient
and there must be proof that the accused persons are the makers
of the alleged forged documents. In this connection, the learned
counsel for the appellant/accused Nos.1 to 3 placed decision of
this court reported in Manu/KE/4345/2024 K Mohammed
Ali and Ors. v. Chinnamma K M and Ors. with reference
to paragraphs 19 and 20, where this court held as under:
“19. Further, it is the settled law that every false or
fabricated document is not a forged document. There
must be acts that constitute the document as a false or
fabricated one, that is to say, the case must fall within the
definition of making false document under Section 464
CRL.A NO. 2450 OF 201010
2025:KER:61583
of the IPC, and such false document must also possess the
character of tendency described under Section 463 of
IPC. It is not necessary that the document should be
published or made in the name of a really existing person
(vide explanation 2). But it must either appear on its face
to be, in fact, on which, if true, would possess some legal
validity. Or in other words, must be legally capable of
effecting the fraudulent intent. Until a false document is
made either in whole or in part, there cannot be any
forgery. Mere preparation for the commission of a
possible crime of forgery without a false document in part
or in whole cannot itself be either forgery or abetment of
CRL.A NO. 2450 OF 201011
2025:KER:61583
forgery. To put it otherwise, it is not correct to say that an
offence of forgery in terms of Section 464 of IPC comes
into being when a person makes a false document and
not when a person causes to be made a false document.
No word in an enactment is surplusage. The
law-making authority, in its wisdom, has used the word
“makes” in addition to the other words, such as “signs,
seals and executes”. The said word has, therefore, to be
interpreted independently of the other words referred
above. Making a document is different from causing it
to be made. As per explanation 2 to Section 464 of IPC, it
is clarified that for constituting offence under Section
CRL.A NO. 2450 OF 201012
2025:KER:61583
464 of IPC, it is imperative that a false document is
made and the accused person is the maker of the same.
20. An intent to cause injury is not an essential
ingredient in the offence of forgery. The intents, as
recited in section 463 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
include among various alternatives, an intent to cause
damage or injury, but this phrase does not govern the
other intents mentioned in the section. It is an intent
complete in itself. The definition in section 463 is itself
subject to the definition in section 464 IPC, in which the
other two essential elements are that the act should be
done “dishonestly or fraudulently.” In other words,
CRL.A NO. 2450 OF 201013
2025:KER:61583
whichever of the intents given in section 464 may be
applicable, the act itself must be done dishonestly or
fraudulently to sustain a conviction for forgery. The use
by the Legislature of words “dishonestly or fraudulently”
in the alternative obviously means that they are not
tautological but must be given different meanings. The
intention to defraud is something other than the
intention to cause wrongful gain or loss.”
8. Similarly decision of this Court in Crl.Appeal Nos.
359-360 of 2010 with reference to paragraph No.26 also has
been given emphasis to substantiate this argument, and the same
is extracted as under:-
CRL.A NO. 2450 OF 2010
14
2025:KER:61583
“26. The definition of “false document” is a part of the
definition of “forgery”. Both must be read together.
‘Forgery’ and ‘Fraud’ are essentially matters of evidence
which could be proved as a fact by direct evidence or by
inferences drawn from proved facts. In the case in hand,
there is no finding recorded by the trial Court that the
respondents have made any false document or part of the
document/record to execute mortgage deed under the
guise of that false document’. Hence, neither respondent
no.1 nor respondent no.2 can be held as makers of the
forged documents. It is the imposter who can be said to
have made the false document by committing forgery. In
CRL.A NO. 2450 OF 2010
15
2025:KER:61583
such an event, the trial court as well as the appellate court
misguided themselves by convicting the accused.
Therefore, the High Court has rightly acquitted the
accused based on the settled legal position, and we find no
reason to interfere with the same.”
9. In addition to that another decision of this Court in
Crl.Revision.Petition No. 1237 of 2023 Indrabalan
Pillai v. State of Kerala 2025 KER 55575 also has been
placed to buttress this point.
10. Whereas it is submitted by the learned Special Public
Prosecutor that on a perusal of Exts. P1(c), P1(d) as well as
P3(c)and P3(d), on the top of the certificates, the accused
CRL.A NO. 2450 OF 2010
16
2025:KER:61583
himself certified that he knew the persons who produced the
employment certificates personally and the particulars given in
the employment certificate were correct. It is pointed out by the
the learned Special Public Prosecutor further that in the instant
case it is evident from Ext.P19, the list of schools during the
relevant period that Government Upper Primary School,
Karavaram, Attingal under its forged seal the forged
employment certificates were issued, is not in existence and
therefore the certificates alleged to be forged is the creation of
the 1st accused who had domain over the file being the manager
and the higher official in the officer of KSFE, Chalai Branch,
who in fact wanted to avail the loan for running self
CRL.A NO. 2450 OF 2010
17
2025:KER:61583
employment unit for his wife and sister. Therefore the
prosecution succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt as rightly found by the special court.
Thus the finding of the trial court need not require any
interference.
11. Adverting to the rival submissions, the following
questions arise for consideration:–
1.Whether the trial court is justified in holding that the
accused Nos. 1 to 3 committed offence punishable
under Section 468 r/w 34 of the IPC?
CRL.A NO. 2450 OF 2010
18
2025:KER:61583
2. Whether the trial court is justified in holding the
accused Nos. 1 to 3 committed offence punishable
under Section 471 r/w 34 of the IPC?
3.Whether the trial court is justified in holding the
accused Nos. 1 to 3 committed offence punishable
under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act?
4.Whether the verdict under challenge would require
interference?
5.The order to be passed?
Point Nos.1 to 5:-
12. In the instant case, PW5 and PW13 are the
internal auditors of the KSFE, who conducted audits in Chalai
CRL.A NO. 2450 OF 201019
2025:KER:61583
Branch during 1994. PW5 was the Inspector of the Internal
Audit Wing of the KSFE and PW13 was the Chief of the
Internal Audit Wing of the KSFE. Regarding the conduct of
audit in Chalai Branch of KSFE and preparation of Ext.P8
Confidential Report they supported the prosecution case.
Similarly PW13 supported Ext.P9 audit report. PW13 identified
his signatures in Exts.P8 and P9. The evidence of PWs 5 and 13
supported by Exts.P8 and P9 is that on verification of the files
regarding the chitti loans applied by the 2nd and 3rd accused, it
was found that the 2nd accused is the wife of the 1st accused,
and the 3rd accused is the sister of the 1st accused. They also
found as per Ext.P5 cheque on 20.10.1993, the amount was
CRL.A NO. 2450 OF 201020
2025:KER:61583
encashed by A2. Ext.P10 is the cheque book and counterfoil of
received slip. Ext.P10(a) is the details of Ext.P5 cheque. The same
were not properly acknowledged, and the same also reported by
PW5. According to PW5, usually when the amounts are
disbursed under the chitty loans account payee cheque would be
issued. But Ext.P10(a) would show that bearer cheque was issued
in this case. Likewise, in the 4th page of Ext.P8, the details of the
chitty loan transaction of A3 as deposed by PW13. Ext.P6
cheque was issued for an amount of Rs.48,000/- and on the
backside of Ext. P6, the signature of A2 is available which was
identified by PW5. PW5 stated that he had reported that A3 is
the sister of A1. This loan transaction was also not repaid and it
CRL.A NO. 2450 OF 201021
2025:KER:61583
was noted that the same was defaulted. It is further stated by
PW5 that the previous chitty transactions of A3 were also in
arrears. In Ext.P10 it is noted that the cheque in the name of A3
was issued but according to PW5 the same was not properly
acknowledged. PW5 testified further that bearer cheque was
issued in the name of the 3rd accused also. PW5 stated that the
genuineness of the employment certificates and the sureties were
not properly verified by the 1st accused. According to him there
were no witnesses in the agreement. The confirmation was given
by A1 – Manager though PW5 could not found any records to
show that Ext. Pl(a) and P3(b) confirmation letters were sent by
registered post to the Head of Office, who issued the same. PW5
CRL.A NO. 2450 OF 201022
2025:KER:61583
added that they made enquiries regarding the Govt. Upper
Primary School, Karavaram, Attingal with the A.E. Attingal,
Kilimanoor and Varkkala. They found that there was no such
school in existence. So according to PW5 the sureties and the
employment certificates produced are bogus and forged and the
same were the overt acts of A1 to A3. He further stated during
cross-examination that the ledger extract was taken and
submitted with audit report to show that A2 and A3 were
defaulters in other chitty transactions and the same not seen
produced in Court. According to PW13 Exts. P8 and P9 reports
were prepared by him as he was the chief of the said audit team.
The details of the loan application etc. are mentioned in pages 3
CRL.A NO. 2450 OF 201023
2025:KER:61583
and 4 of Ext.P8. PW13 added that forged documents viz
employment certificates and sureties were produced for availing
chitty loans by A1 to A3. According to him, as per Ext.P9, it is
clear that the loanees were defaulters. He added during
cross-examination that at the first instance he personally
inspected and conducted audit for three days along with the
audit team and submitted Ext.P8 report and he requested for a
detailed audit enquiry. Later, again detailed audit was conducted
and he submitted Ext.P9 report. He added that the sureties were
bogus and the bogus sureties were described as genuine by
Al-Manager.
CRL.A NO. 2450 OF 2010
24
2025:KER:61583
13. In this case, PWs 7, 8, and 9 were examined by the
prosecution to prove that there was no school by name
‘Government Upper Primary School, Karavaram, Attingal’
under its name Exts.P1(c), P1(d), P3(e), and P3(d) employment
certificates were issued. PW7, the Post Master of Attingal Head
Post Office during June 1999 deposed that Ext.P15 letter
addressed to Smt. P K Sarasamma at the instance of the Vigilance
Inspector, was returned with endorsement ‘addressee not
known’ and Smt. P K Sarasamma is relating to Ext.P3(c)
employment certificate. Similarly, he deposed that as per Ext.P16
letter to Sri.N Ramachandran Assari, in whose name Ext.P1(c)
employment certificate was issued also returned with
CRL.A NO. 2450 OF 201025
2025:KER:61583
endorsement ‘addressee not known’. He deposed about the
procedure in case when the addressee is not known, on testifying
that such letters would be kept for seven days, and thereafter the
Postman would entrust the same to the Postmaster and would be
returned to the sender after seven days. Similarly, in regard to
Ext.P3(d) and P(1)(d) in the name of Smt.K.Ambikapathy and
K.Krishnankutti letters issued by the Vigilance Inspector as
Ext.P17 and P18 were also returned with endorsement ‘addressee
not known’. Ext.P19 is the list of upper Primary Schools
1992-1993 published by the Department of Education from the
office of the Director of Public Instruction,
Thiruvananthapuram tendered in evidence through PW9 who
CRL.A NO. 2450 OF 201026
2025:KER:61583
was the Research Officer of the Directorate of Public Instruction
from 1998 to 06.2001 and according to PW9 she worked in the
Statistic Wing which was entrusted with the work of preparation
of the list of Schools and Ext.P19 is the list so prepared.
According to PW9, the list was prepared for five years and in
pages 16 and 17 of Ext.P19, the lists of schools in Attingal are
mentioned. But no school by the name ‘Government Upper
Primary School, Karavarm, Attingal’, could be found in Ext.P19.
14. Here, availing of loan by putting applications by the 2nd
and 3rd accused from the chitti they had subscribed is proved by
the prosecution, rather the said fact is admitted, since the said
fact is not disputed by the accused as already stated.
CRL.A NO. 2450 OF 2010
27
2025:KER:61583
Subsequently the loans were repaid as stated by DW1 based on
Ext.D1, though after initiation of coercive steps in the form of
revenue recovery proceedings.
15. As far as the legal position regarding forgery is
concerned, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the
appellant/accused Nos. 1 to 3 would hold the field, and the same
is not in dispute. The question arises for consideration is when
employment certificates in the name of a school, which is not in
existence in the names of four persons who were not in existence
would find a place in the loan file pertaining to the 2nd and 3rd
accused in the custody of the 1st accused, and in the said
employment certificates the 1st accused certified that “the teacher
CRL.A NO. 2450 OF 2010
28
2025:KER:61583
working in the school is a person personally known to him and
the particulars given in the employment certificates are correct”
whether the same is sufficient to hold that 1st accused himself
forged the employment certificates for the purpose of availing
loan and thereafter the loan kept in arrears, though the same
were repaid at subsequent stage on coercive process of recovery.
16. Here Ext.P1(c), P1(d), P3(e) and P3(d) employment
certificates would show that the same were issued to teachers
working in Government UP School Karavaram, Attingal. As per
Ext.P19, the list of Upper Primary Schools during the year
1992-1993 published by the Department of Education from the
office of the Director of Public Instruction tendered in evidence
CRL.A NO. 2450 OF 2010
29
2025:KER:61583
through PW9 would show that no school as “Government
Upper Primary School, Karavaram, Attingal” is in existence
during the relevant period. Thus Ext.P19 would indicate that
there is no scope for issuance of original employment certificates
from a school which in fact not in existence. In this connection,
it is relevant to note that when Exts.P3(d) and P1(d), Exts. P17
and P18 the letters issued by the Investigating Officer in the
address as that of the persons who are alleged to have issued
employment certificates were returned with endorsement
‘addressee not known’. PW7 the Postmaster, Attingal Head Post
Office during June 1999 deposed this fact. Most importantly in
Exts.P1(c), P1(d), P3(e) and P3(d) it was certified by the 1st
CRL.A NO. 2450 OF 2010
30
2025:KER:61583
accused that “the teachers in whose name the above employment
certificates were issued were personally known to him and the
particulars given in the respective employment certificates are
correct”. Thus, the evidence discussed would establish the fact
that loans were availed in the names of the 2nd and 3rd accused,
who are the wife and sister of the 1st accused, by forging
employment certificates. It is relevant to note further that PW5
the auditor given evidence that the cheques in favour of the 2nd
and 3rd accused towards the loan amounts were issued by bearer
cheques in deviation from the normal practice of giving account
payee cheques. Moreover, PW5 gave evidence that Exts.P1(a)
and P3(b) confirmation letters not issued by registered post to
CRL.A NO. 2450 OF 2010
31
2025:KER:61583
the head office instead the same were confirmed by the 1st
accused himself as already discussed. When an officer in the
status of the 1st accused who is having domain over the official
records places employment certificates in a file and grants loan to
his wife and sister and later those employment certificates were
found as bogus that too issued from an institution which is not
in existence, the said overt acts is nothing but forging
employment certificates and using the same as genuine for the
purpose of availing these loans particularly when the 1st accused
certified its genuineness stating that he was familiar with the
employees mentioned in the employment certificates. Therefore
the prosecution succeeded in establishing that the 1st accused
CRL.A NO. 2450 OF 2010
32
2025:KER:61583
forged Ext.P1(c), P1(d), P3(e) and P3(d) employment certificates
and used the same as genuine and thereby granted loans to the
2nd and 3rd accused. On scrutiny of the evidence it appears that
the 2nd accused wife and the 3rd accused, the sister though
signed in the applications for loans and received the loans, the
fact that whether they are aware about the creation of these
forged employment certificates by the 1st accused is not fully
established. The 2nd and the 3rd accused being the wife and
sister of the 1st accused would very well trust upon the 1st
accused for getting loan, deeming that the same would be granted
as per law by the 1st accused, who is fully competent to do the
said exercise. In view of the matter, it has to be held that by
CRL.A NO. 2450 OF 2010
33
2025:KER:61583
giving benefit of doubt as to the involvement of the 2nd and the
3rd accused in the matter of forgery of employment cetificates,
the conviction and sentence against them are liable to be set aside
while confirming the conviction imposed against the 1st accused.
17. Regarding the sentence imposed against the 1st accused,
the special court imposed minimum sentence for the offence
punishable under section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act for a
period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-. Since there is no
scope for reduction in the substantive sentence imposed by the
special court for the offence punishable under section 13(1) of
the PC Act, the sentence imposed by the special court for the
other offences for one year and less also is liable to be confirmed.
CRL.A NO. 2450 OF 2010
34
2025:KER:61583
In the result the sentence imposed against the 1st accused is
confirmed.
18. In the result, the appeal allowed in part. The conviction
and sentence imposed against the 1st accused for the offences
punishable under section 468, 471 of the IPC as well as under
Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act are confirmed.
Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are acquitted for the said offences and they
are set at liberty forthwith. Their bail bonds stands cancelled.
19. The order suspending sentence and granting bail to the
1st accused is cancelled and his bail bond also is cancelled.
Accordingly, the 1st accused is directed to surrender before the
special court forthwith to undergo the sentence. If the 1st
CRL.A NO. 2450 OF 2010
35
2025:KER:61583
accused fails to surrender as directed, the special court is directed
to execute the modified sentence without fail.
The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this
judgment to the special court forthwith for information and
compliance.
Sd/-
A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE
RMV
[ad_2]
Source link