Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 2236 (KER)

Sabu G. S/o George v. State of Kerala

2025-08-20

A.BADHARUDEEN

body2025
JUDGMENT : A. BADHARUDEEN, J. 1. Second (2nd) accused in C.C.No.1/2009 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram has filed this Criminal Appeal under Section 27 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the PC Act, 1988’ hereinafter) r/w Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.’ hereinafter), challenging conviction and sentence imposed against him in the said case dated 04.07.2013. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/2 nd accused as well as the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Perused the records. 3. The prosecution case is that the 1 st accused, being a public servant, employed as Lower Division Clerk and later Upper Division Clerk in the Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Office, Thiruvananthapuram during the period from 4.1.1997 to 12.4.1999, held additional charge of tapal distribution works and being the custodian of all office seals since 4.1.1997, by corrupt or illegal means or otherwise, abused his official position as such a public servant, he entered into conspiracy with 2 nd and 3 rd accused and in furtherance of the said conspiracy, the 1 st accused forged two Non- Liability Certificates, one in his name and another in the name of one ‘Sajeevkumar.P.D.’, who is a fictitious person falsely stating that ‘Sajeevkumar P.D.’ was working with the 1 st accused, and the 3 rd accused Ajayakumar impersonated as 'Sajeevkumar P.D.' and the 2 nd accused knowingly used those forged Employment Certificates/Non- Liability Certificates as genuine and applied for a loan of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) from the District Co-operative Bank, Nandancode Branch, and subsequently, the 1 st accused prepared forged confirmation letters and the 2 nd accused obtained Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) from the Bank on 9.3.1998 on the surety of the 1 st accused and the 3 rd accused, who had impersonated as 'Sajeevkumar P.D.' and accused Nos.1 to 3 thereby cheated the Bank and obtained undue pecuniary advantage of the said sum. On the above basis, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 468 , 471, 419, 420 and 120B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE as well as Section 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988, by accused Nos.1 to 3. 4. When final report filed before the Special Court, the Special Court took cognizance of the matter and proceeded with trial. 4. When final report filed before the Special Court, the Special Court took cognizance of the matter and proceeded with trial. During trial, PW1 to PW14 were examined and Exts.P1 to P30 were marked on the side of the prosecution. On completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. and opportunity was provided to them to adduce defence evidence, but no defence evidence was adduced 5. After appreciation of evidence, the Special Court found that the appellant/2 nd accused as well as accused Nos.1 and 3 committed offences under Sections 468 , 471, 419, 420 and 120B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE as well as Section 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 and sentenced him as under: “For the offence under Ss.420 I.P.C., 468 I.P.C., the second accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) each. Fine, if not paid, second accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months each. For the offence under S.120-B I.P.C. r/w S.13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988 r/w S.13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988, second accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only). Fine, if not paid, the second accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months. For the offence under Ss.471 IPC, 120-B IPC and S. 120-B I.P.C. r/w S.419 I.P.C., second accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each.” 6. The learned counsel for the 2 nd accused/appellant argued that as far as the 2 nd accused/appellant herein is concerned, he is innocent. According to the learned counsel, the 1 st accused never hatched conspiracy with accused No.2 to commit forgery of the Non-Liability Certificates for the purpose of availing loan, as alleged by the prosecution. According to him, during 1997 - 1998, the 1 st accused was residing in a rented house nearby the house of the 2 nd accused, made acquaintance with him and as a sequel thereof, he requested the 2 nd accused to avail a loan for raising fund for a surgery to the wife of the 1 st accused. According to him, during 1997 - 1998, the 1 st accused was residing in a rented house nearby the house of the 2 nd accused, made acquaintance with him and as a sequel thereof, he requested the 2 nd accused to avail a loan for raising fund for a surgery to the wife of the 1 st accused. The 2 nd accused was a student at that time and agreed to the request of the 1 st accused, since the 1 st accused agreed to arrange sureties. According to him, the 1 st accused filled up the application form and entrusted the same to the 2 nd accused and in turn, the 2 nd accused presented the loan application and Non-Liability Certificates before the Bank and accordingly, the Bank sanctioned the loan and he put his signature in the records of the Bank. Thereafter, the entire amount was entrusted to the 1 st accused and later, he received notice from the Bank stating that the loan amount was kept in arrears. Meanwhile, the 1 st accused, who is a native of Idukki District transferred from the office, later, the 2 nd accused informed the matter to one of the friends of the 1 st accused and in the meantime, Vigilance police approached the 2 nd accused and gathered knowledge in this regard. Further, the 2 nd accused repaid the loan amount with interest amounting to Rs.70,000/- and cleared the loan. According to the learned counsel, the 2 nd accused is totally innocent and he stated these things when he filed the additional statement during his questioning under Section 313(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. The learned counsel conceded that, even though the defence now argued by him was put forth, no corresponding evidence let in. It is pointed out further that when the allegations that the 1 st accused forged Employment Certificates/Non- Liability Certificates and obtained loan therefrom, none of the PC Act offences would attract against him. According to him, there is no evidence forthcoming to see any element of conspiracy in between accused Nos.1 to 3 and therefore, the 2 nd accused/appellant is entitled to get acquittal. 7. According to him, there is no evidence forthcoming to see any element of conspiracy in between accused Nos.1 to 3 and therefore, the 2 nd accused/appellant is entitled to get acquittal. 7. Whereas, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the said contention and submitted that the 1 st accused did not escape from criminal culpability by merely stating that he was a mute spectator and he did not have any knowledge regarding the forged Employment Certificates after producing the same before the Bank authorities and availing loan thereof. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, PW5, who gave evidence in support of the Bank documents, categorically deposed regarding the role of the 2 nd accused and therefore, the contention now advanced could not sustain, since pecuniary advantage was obtained by the 2 nd accused with the assistance of accused Nos.1 and 3. Mere repayment of the loan amount at a subsequent stage on the pressure of coercive steps by itself, would not efface the offences. 8. Adverting to the rival arguments, the points arise for consideration are; (i) Whether the Special Court is right in holding that the 2 nd accused committed offence punishable under Section 420 r/w 120B of the IPC? (ii) Whether the Special Court is justified in holding that the 2 nd accused committed offence punishable under Section 419 r/w 120B of the IPC? (iii) Whether the Special Court is justified in holding that the 2 nd accused committed offence punishable under Section 468 r/w 120B of the IPC? (iv) Whether the Special Court is justified in holding that the 2 nd accused committed offence punishable under Section 471 r/w 120B of the IPC? (v) Whether the Special Court was right in holding that the 2 nd accused committed offence under Section 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 r/w 120B of the IPC? (vi) Whether the verdict would require interference? (vii) The order to be passed? Point Nos. (i) to (vii) 9. Coming to the gist of the prosecution case, the allegation is that the 2 nd accused applied for a loan before the District Co- operative Bank, Nandancode Branch, Thiruvananthapuram and availed a loan of Rs.30,000/-. (vi) Whether the verdict would require interference? (vii) The order to be passed? Point Nos. (i) to (vii) 9. Coming to the gist of the prosecution case, the allegation is that the 2 nd accused applied for a loan before the District Co- operative Bank, Nandancode Branch, Thiruvananthapuram and availed a loan of Rs.30,000/-. While applying for the loan, the 2 nd accused produced two Employment Certificates in the name of the 1 st accused and in the name of another person, viz., ‘Sajeevkumar.P.D.’, who is a fictitious person, as the outcome of conspiracy hatched between accused Nos.1 to 3 and on the basis of the said forged certificates, loan was obtained and kept in arrears. The Special Court found that the prosecution evidence established that the 1 st accused, Sri.James Sam, while holding charge of the Assessment Section of his office, and from 04.01.1997 onwards also holding charge of the distribution of tapal duty in addition to his normal duties, forged the Employment Certificates with the connivance of the 2 nd and the 3 rd accused, as part of conspiracy hatched between them. In this regard, the Special Court relied on the evidence of PW1, Sri.K.P.Krishna Kumar, who retired as Assistant Commissioner of the Commercial Tax Department in 2005 February. PW1 deposed that the Clerk (A1), who was in charge of distribution of tapal duty was in possession of office seal. PW1 further would state that a recovery notice from District Co-operative Bank Ltd., Nandancode Branch in the name of the 1 st accused Sri.James Sam was received in his office and on the basis of the said recovery notice, he went to the said Bank and examined Ext.P4 file, i.e. file in respect of the Consumer Loan No.82/1997-98 and Ext.P4(a) Non-Liability Certificate in the name of the 1 st accused, Sri.James Sam, Ext.P4(b) Non-Liability Certificate in the name of one ‘Sajeev Kumar P.D.’, and Ext.P4(c) confirmation letter purported to have been issued from the office of PW1, were found to be available. PW1 also stated that in Exts.P4(a), P4(b) and P4(c) one ‘P.Ramachandran Nair’ found affixed his signature in the capacity as the Head of Office. According to him, Officer named 'P.Ramachandran Nair' was not working in this office during that period. PW1 also stated that in Exts.P4(a), P4(b) and P4(c) one ‘P.Ramachandran Nair’ found affixed his signature in the capacity as the Head of Office. According to him, Officer named 'P.Ramachandran Nair' was not working in this office during that period. PW1 further would state that the date seen in Exts.P4(a) and P4(b) is 18 th November 1997 and on that date, the Head of the Office was PW1. PW1 categorically deposed that the description of employee and salary particulars written in Exts.P4(a) and P4(b) were in the handwriting of 1 st accused Sri.James Sam and the seal of his office found affixed in Exts.P4(a) and P4(b). PW1 further would state that no employee in the name 'Sajeevkumar P.D.' was working in his office at that time. A perusal of Ext.P3 attendance register also would make the same clear that no employee by name 'Sajeevkumar P.D.’ or ‘P.Ramachandran Nair’ was working in the office of PW1 at that time. PW1 further deposed that in Ext.P4(c) the portion written as 'confirmed' was in the handwriting of the 1 st accused Sri.James Sam. PW1 unequivocally deposed that Exts.P4(a) and P4(b) Non-Liability Certificates and Ext.P4(c) confirmation letter were not issued from his office. PW1 further testified that handwritings of the 1 st accused Sri.James Sam were in the assessment files, distribution register of his office and he was familiar with the handwriting of the 1 st accused Sri.James Sam. PW1 further testified that Ext.P5(a) was a leave application submitted by the 1 st accused Sri.James Sam and the same is in the handwriting of the 1 st accused. PW1 further testified that in Ext.P5(a) leave application, leave was sanctioned by him. According to PW1, in Exts.P6, P6(a) and in Ext.P7 also, the handwritings of the 1 st accused Sri.James Sam were available. During cross-examination, PW1 would state that in Ext.P2 as per order No.18 dated 4.12.1996 in page No.49, it was noted that the 1 st accused Sri.James Sam joined on 4.12.1996. According to him, the Head Clerk of the office usually drafts office orders; however, in this case, in Ext.P2, the initial of the Head Clerk was not put. 10. PW1 deposed further that the assessment filing section was known as 'A2-seat' in his office and as per Ext.P2 'A2-seat (Assessment filing section) was given to the 1 st accused. According to him, the Head Clerk of the office usually drafts office orders; however, in this case, in Ext.P2, the initial of the Head Clerk was not put. 10. PW1 deposed further that the assessment filing section was known as 'A2-seat' in his office and as per Ext.P2 'A2-seat (Assessment filing section) was given to the 1 st accused. During cross-examination, PW1 further would state that, as per Ext.P2(a) office order, Smt.G.Geetha (PW2) was directed to hand over distribution register to the 1 st accused Sri.James Sam. According to PW1, the handwriting seen in Ext.P2(a) was the handwriting of the Head Clerk Jayakumar and he could not say the handwriting seen in Ext.P2(a) without referring the attendance register. During cross- examination, PW1 further would admit that, as per Kerala Service Manual, Head Clerk was the custodian of office seal, but the same time according to PWI, normally it would entrust to the Clerk, who was in charge of distribution. PW1 also admitted during cross- examination that the entrustment of the office seal to the distribution Clerk was not specifically noted in Ext.P2(a) Office Order. PWI would further state that the letter, in respect of confirmation of Non-Liability Certificates would send in registered post in the name of the office head. But in the case at hand, Ext.P4(c) confirmation letter was reached in nearby Sales Tax Office and they received the same. According to him, no confirmation letter was received in his office in the name ‘P.Ramachandran Nair’, Sales Tax Officer, Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Office, Thiruvananthapuram. During cross-examination, PW1 further would state that Non-Liability Certificate Issue Register was maintained in his office during 1997-98. PW1 denied the suggestion put forward by the learned defence counsel that due to the irresponsible act of the office, the office seal which was to be kept by the Head Clerk was misused by somebody, but this suggestion was denied by PW1. 11. When PW1 was further cross-examined, he testified that in Ext.P4(a) Non-Liability Certificate, photograph of the employee was affixed, whereas, in Ext.P4(b) Non-Liability Certificate, no photograph seen affixed. PW1 also admitted during cross- examination that he filed report to his higher authorities, i.e. report No.A1-397/1999 dated 6.8.1999 though the same was not filed before the court. During re-examination, PW1 stated that he had knowledge regarding the loan transaction mentioned in Ext.P4 on getting recovery notice of the same. 12. PW1 also admitted during cross- examination that he filed report to his higher authorities, i.e. report No.A1-397/1999 dated 6.8.1999 though the same was not filed before the court. During re-examination, PW1 stated that he had knowledge regarding the loan transaction mentioned in Ext.P4 on getting recovery notice of the same. 12. Apart from the evidence of PW1, PW2, who was working as UD Clerk in Thiruvananthapuram Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Office in between 26.5.1997 till 13.4.1998, was examined and according to PW2, the 1 st accused Sri.James Sam worked along with him in the same office. PW2 supported that pursuant to Ext.P2(a) proceedings, she handed over charge of Distribution section to the 1 st accused Sri.James Sam and during this period, PW1, Sri.K.P.Krishnakumar was the head of the office. He identified the hand writing of the 1 st accused in Exts.P4(a), P4(b) and P4(c) and identified the same as that of the 1 st accused Sri.James Sam. PW2 also stated that one “P.Ramachandran Nair” noted in Exts.P4(a), P4(b) and P4(c) never worked in the office when she worked therein. The Special Court relied on this evidence to hold that Exts.P4(a), P4(b) and P4(c) were forged. 13. Now, the question then arises is; who committed forgery? PW11 examined in this case is the handwriting expert and he produced Ext.P24 report prepared by him after examining the disputed portions of handwriting seen in Exts.P4(a), P4(b) and P4(c) and reported that the person, who wrote the blue enclosed standard writings and signatures, stamped and marked as S1 to S6 and A1 to A6 also wrote the red enclosed questioned writings similarly stamped and marked as Q1 to Q7 and Q9 to Q17. PW11 also opined that he could not express any opinion about the authorship of the red enclosed questioned standard writings stamped and marked Q8, in comparison with blue enclosed standard writings and signatures similarly stamped and marked as S1 to S6 and A1 to A6. 14. In fact, S1 to S6 are the specimen standard writings of the1 st accused. Q1 to Q7 questioned documents in Ext.P4 file, i.e. in Exts.P4(a) and P4(b) Non-Liability Certificates. Q1 to Q4 are marked in Ext.P4(a) and Q5 to Q7 are marked in Ext.P4(b). 14. In fact, S1 to S6 are the specimen standard writings of the1 st accused. Q1 to Q7 questioned documents in Ext.P4 file, i.e. in Exts.P4(a) and P4(b) Non-Liability Certificates. Q1 to Q4 are marked in Ext.P4(a) and Q5 to Q7 are marked in Ext.P4(b). In Ext.P24 report prepared by PW11 expert, it is specifically reported that the person who wrote the blue enclosed standards writings and signatures, stamped and marked S1 to S6 (Exts.P25(a) to P25(e)) and A1 to A6 (Exts.P5(a), P?, P6(a) and P7) also wrote the red enclosed questioned writings similarly stamped and marked Q1 to Q7 and Q9 to Q17. Q1 to Q7 in Exts.P4(a) and P4(b) disputed Non- Liability Certificates. That means, from the evidence of PW11 expert and from Ext.P24 report prepared by him it is clear that Exts.P4(a) and P4(b) Non-Liability Certificates were prepared in the handwriting of the 1 st accused Sri.James Sam. From Ext.P24 report prepared by the handwriting expert and from the evidence of PW11 expert, it is well discernible that Q9 to Q17 reported in Ext.P24 would tally with S1 to S6 and A1 to A6, i.e. specimen and admitted writings of the 1 st accused. Q9 and Q10 are seen in Ext.P4(e) and Q11 seen in Ext.P4(d). Q12 to Q17 seen in Ext.P12. Ext.P4(d) is a 4 th sheet of Ext.P4 file in respect of the loan application of the 2 nd accused Sri.Sabu.G. In Ext.P4(d), the 1 st accused Sri.James Sam and 'Sajeevkumar P.D.' are noted as surety No.1 and surety No.2, respectively. Q11 noted in Ext.P4(d) is the name of surety No.1, i.e. 'James Sam'. Ext.P4(e) is the loan application submitted by the 2 nd accused Sri.Sabu.G. Q9 noted in Ext.P4(e) is address of surety No.1 and Q10 noted in Ext.P4(e) is address of surety No.2 ‘Sajeevkumar P.D.’. Ext.P12 is account opening form of the 1 st accused Sri.James Sam submitted before Thiruvananthapuram District Co-operative Bank Ltd., Nandancode Branch. The name, occupation, address of Sri.James Sam and the address of the nominee of Sri.James Sam written in Ext.P12 are noted as Q12 to Q17. In Ext.P24 report of the handwriting expert, it is specifically reported that Q9 to Q17 were tallying with S1 to S6 and A1 to A6, i.e. standard writings and admitted writings of the 1 st accused Sri.James Sam. In Ext.P24 report of the handwriting expert, it is specifically reported that Q9 to Q17 were tallying with S1 to S6 and A1 to A6, i.e. standard writings and admitted writings of the 1 st accused Sri.James Sam. Based on this evidence, the Special Court found that from Exts.P4(d) and P4(e), it was clear that the 1 st accused Sri.James Sam stood as surety No.1 in Ext.P4 loan transaction, which was in the name of the 2 nd accused Sri.Sabu.G. That apart, based on Ext.P4(e), the Special Court found that the so called ‘Sajeevkumar P.D.’ shown as surety No.2, in respect of the loan transaction was no person other than the 3 rd accused. Thus, finding of the Special Court above to be justified on re-appreciation of evidence. 15. It is evident from Ext.P4(c) confirmation letter that the same was forwarded in the name of Sri.P.Ramachandran Nair. However, the evidence available would show that no officer by name Sri.P.Ramachandran Nair was worked in the office of the 1 st accused and PW2 during the relevant time. 16. In this case, Charge witness No.7 Smt.Suseela, who was cited as the Manager of the District Co-operative Bank, could not be examined since she left abroad for a long period and her presence could not be secured reasonably. From the evidence of PW5, PW6 and PW9, Officers of the Bank, it could be seen that Ext.P4 loan file kept at the Nandancode Branch of the Bank and the same was seized from the Bank by the Investigating Agency after preparing inventories. The guarantee executed by the 1 st accused Sri.James Sam and so called 'Sajeevkumar P.D. are also part of Ext.P14. In Ext.P14, the signature of the then Branch Manager, i.e. CW9, Smt.Suseela was present. Exts.P14 and Ext.P14(a) were marked and proved through PW5, Chief Accountant of the Bank. PW5 identified the signature of CW9, Smt.Suseela present in Ext.P14. The account opening form submitted by the 1 st accused Sri.James Sam before the Bank, i.e. Ext.P12 is also marked through PW5, Chief Accountant of the Bank. Ext.P16 i.e. account opening form submitted by the 2 nd accused Sri.Sabu.G. and Ext.P17 Ledger sheet in respect of the account of the 2 nd accused Sri.Sabu.G. were marked and proved through PW6, Senior Accountant of the Bank. Ext.P16 i.e. account opening form submitted by the 2 nd accused Sri.Sabu.G. and Ext.P17 Ledger sheet in respect of the account of the 2 nd accused Sri.Sabu.G. were marked and proved through PW6, Senior Accountant of the Bank. From Ext.P17, it could be seen that the 2 nd accused Sri.Sabu.G. withdrawn Rs.30,000/- from his account on 9.3.1998 i.e. the loan amount mentioned in this case. That means, even though there is no direct evidence regarding Ext.P4 loan transaction, the documentary evidence produced in this case in respect of Ext.P4 loan transaction from the Bank concerned is sufficient to infer that the 2 nd accused availed a loan on the basis of Exts.P4(a) and P4(b) Non- Liability Certificates and Ext.P4(c) confirmation letter. From the above discussion, it could be found that the 1 st accused by corrupt or illegal means abused his position as such a public servant for the purpose of deriving undue pecuniary advantage to the 2 nd accused and forged Exts.P4(a) and P4(b) Non- Liability Certificates and Ext.P4(c) confirmation letter intending the same for the purpose of cheating and thereafter, used the same as genuine. 17. The prosecution case that the 3 rd accused Sri.Ajayakumar impersonated as ‘Sajeevkumar.P.D.' as a fictitious person and acted as surety for the 2 nd accused for availing loan as per Ext.P4 proceedings, the prosecution relied on Ext.P24, the handwriting expert’s report and the evidence of PW8, the then Commanding Officer of ‘D’ Company, SAP, Thiruvananthapuram to prove this allegation. The 3 rd accused is a person working as a police constable in SAP ‘D’ company. During the course of investigation, PW14, Investigating Officer obtained the specimen handwriting of the 3 rd accused Sri.Ajayakumar on 27 th December 2006. The same were marked as Exts.P25(f) to P25(u) through PW14, Investigating Officer. On 28.12.2006, PW14 seized Ext.P20, Deployment Statement of SAP 'D' company. PW14, Investigating Officer deposed the said aspects. The prosecution version is that Ext.P20 Deployment Statement was written in the handwriting of the 3 rd accused Sri.Ajayakumar, while he was working in SAP 'D' Company under PW8, the Commanding Officer. Exts.P20 and P25(f) to P25(u) were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for the purpose of comparing with Ext.P19, i.e. account opening form submitted by the so called ‘Sajeevkumar P.D’ and Ext.P14 which would include the guarantee agreement executed by the so called 'P.D.Sajeevkumar'. Exts.P20 and P25(f) to P25(u) were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for the purpose of comparing with Ext.P19, i.e. account opening form submitted by the so called ‘Sajeevkumar P.D’ and Ext.P14 which would include the guarantee agreement executed by the so called 'P.D.Sajeevkumar'. Q28 to Q30 are the signature seen in Ext.P14 file purported to have been affixed by 'Sajeevkumar P.D'. Q18 to Q27 appears in Ext.P19. The entries seen in Ext.P19 account opening form purported to have been submitted by the so called ‘P.D.Sajeevkumar’ before the Bank includes his name, occupation and signatures. From Ext.P24 report prepared by the handwriting expert and from the evidence of PW11 handwriting expert, it could be seen that the person who wrote the blue enclosed standard writings and signatures stamped and marked S7 to S22 and A7 to A21 also wrote the red enclosed questioned writings and signatures similarly stamped and marked Q18 to Q31. S7 to S22 are the specimen writings of the 3 rd accused Sri.Ajayakumar, i.e. Exts.P25(f) to P25(u). A7 to A21 are the portions of Ext.P20 Deployment Statement alleged to have been written by the 3 rd accused Sri.Ajayakumar while he was working as a police constable in SAP 'D' Company. Apart from that, PW8, the Commanding Officer of ‘D’ Company, SAP deposed that during2007, he had retired from SAP as Armed Police Inspector and during December 2006, he was working as SAP ‘D’ Company, Thiruvananthapuram as Officer, Commanding and he had acquaintance with Police Constable 8785 Sri.Ajayakumar, who was working in ‘D’ Company. According to PW8, every day, the duty details of the Officers were noted in the Deployment Statements and the same were prepared by the police officers working under him and the 3 rd accused also one among the Police Constables worked among him, who used to prepare Deployment Statements. Ext.P20 is the Deployment Statement marked through PW8. Regarding the handwriting in Ext.P20, PW8 turned hostile in the matter of identification of the handwriting of Sri.Ajayakumar and in Ext.P21, contradiction in this regard got marked. From Ext.P24 report prepared by the handwriting expert, it is clear that Exts.P25(f) to P25(u) i.e. S7 to S20 and Ext.P20 i.e. A7 to A21 were similarly written. Regarding the handwriting in Ext.P20, PW8 turned hostile in the matter of identification of the handwriting of Sri.Ajayakumar and in Ext.P21, contradiction in this regard got marked. From Ext.P24 report prepared by the handwriting expert, it is clear that Exts.P25(f) to P25(u) i.e. S7 to S20 and Ext.P20 i.e. A7 to A21 were similarly written. Based on the said report, it could be safely concluded that the handwriting seen in Ext.P20 deployment statement is the handwriting of the 3 rd accused Sri.Ajayakumar and in Ext.P19 account opening form purported to have been submitted by the fictitious person ‘Sajeevkumar.P.D.’, the photograph of the 3 rd accused Sri.Ajayakumar was fixed. The Special Court found that the 3 rd accused did not offer any explanation how his photograph reached in the file of Thiruvananthapuram District Co-operative Bank, Nandancode Branch. From the evidence discussed in detail as aforesaid, it could be gathered that regarding forgery of Employment Certificate in the name of ‘Sajeevkumar.P.D.’ is concerned, it was done by Sri.Ajayakumar and accused Nos.1 and 2, as part of conspiracy hatched between them, as rightly found by the Special Court. 18. In this matter, even if the 2 nd accused discharged the liability after coercive steps were taken, that by itself would not efface the liability. The evidence would suggest that accused Nos.1 and 2 were familiar with each other, being nearby residents and at the instance of the 2 nd accused, loan was applied and forged Non-Liability Certificates in the name of Sri.James Sam, the 1 st accused and a fictitious person, by name ‘Sajeevkumar.P.D.’ authorized by the 3 rd accused at the connivance of the1 st accused were produced before the Bank. Pursuant to that, loan was availed and kept in arrears. Thus, it can be seen that, even though it is argued by the learned counsel for the 2 nd accused that there is no evidence to establish any conspiracy, it is well-settled law that conspiracy, by its very nature, is hatched in secrecy, and it is therefore extremely rare that direct evidence of conspiracy could be forthcoming from wholly disinterested persons or from strangers. Therefore, in order to prove conspiracy, the circumstantial evidence would have to be relied on. Meeting of minds and doing of certain acts may lead to conspiracy when the other circumstances would show achievement of something on the basis of meeting of minds and subsequent actions. Therefore, in order to prove conspiracy, the circumstantial evidence would have to be relied on. Meeting of minds and doing of certain acts may lead to conspiracy when the other circumstances would show achievement of something on the basis of meeting of minds and subsequent actions. Therefore, while analyzing a case where conspiracy is alleged, if there are materials to show circumstances indicating that the parties knew each other and acted with a common purpose to commit an illegal act and accomplish the same, meeting of minds for the purpose of forgery after hatching conspiracy could be inferred from the said circumstances. 19. Since the evidence discussed in detail would suggest hatching of conspiracy in between accused Nos.1 to 3, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the 2 nd accused/appellant that the 2 nd accused should not be punished for the offence under the PC Act also would not succeed. 20. On analysis of the entire prosecution evidence discussed at length, as extracted hereinabove, it is emphatically clear that the 2 nd accused applied for a loan of Rs.30,000/- from the District Co-operative Bank, Nandancode Branch along with forged Non-Liability Certificates in the name of the 1 st accused Sri.James Sam and in the name of Sri.‘Sajeevkumar.P.D.' impersonated by the 3 rd accused. Even though the 2 nd accused contended that he had no role in applying for the loan or in producing the forged Employment Certificates, the evidence suggests otherwise, and not even a remote piece of evidence is forthcoming to substantiate the contention raised by him. Thus, it could be gathered that the Special Court rightly found that accused Nos.1 to 3 committed offences punishable under Sections 468 , 471, 419, 420 and 120B of the IPC as well as Section 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988. Therefore, the conviction does not require any interference. 21. Coming to the sentence, where the Special Court sentenced the 2 nd accused as under: “For the offence under Ss.420 I.P.C., 468 I.P.C., the second accused is sentenced to undergo RI for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) each. Fine, if not paid, second accused shall undergo RI for a further period of three months each. Fine, if not paid, second accused shall undergo RI for a further period of three months each. For the offence under S.120-B I.P.C. r/w S.13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988 r/w S.13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988, second accused is sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only). Fine, if not paid, the second accused shall undergo RI for a further period of three months. For the offence under Ss.471 IPC, 120-B IPC and S. 120-B I.P.C. r/w S.419 I.P.C., second accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each.” 22. As per Section 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988, the minimum punishment prescribed for the offence under Section 13 (1)(d) r/w Section 13 (2) is imprisonment for a term not less than one year, in addition to fine. Since the Special Court imposed imprisonment for one year alone for other offences and directed that the sentences shall run concurrently, there is no meaning in reducing the sentence for the other offences as well. In the light of the findings recorded above, it is evident that the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Court are strictly in accordance with law. Since the minimum sentence has already been awarded and the sentences have been directed to run concurrently, no interference is called for. Hence, the appeal fails and is dismissed by confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Court. Consequently, the order suspending sentence and granting bail to the 2 nd accused/appellant stands cancelled and his bail bond also stands cancelled. The 2 nd accused/appellant is directed to surrender before the Special Court to undergo the sentence, forthwith, failing which, the Special Court is directed to execute the sentence, without fail. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Special Court, for information and compliance.