JUDGMENT : A. BADHARUDEEN, J. 1. Accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C. No.29 of 2009 on the files of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, have filed these appeals under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Judge, against them as per the judgment dated 31.12.2013. The State of Kerala, represented by the learned Public Prosecutor is arrayed as the respondent herein. 2. Heard the learned State Brief appearing for accused No.1, since the counsel for the 1 st accused relinquished his engagement. Also heard the learned counsel for the 2 nd accused and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have gone through the verdict impugned and the records of the Special Court. 3. Parties in these appeals shall be referred as ‘accused’ and ‘prosecution’ hereafter. 4. The prosecution case is that, first and second accused being public servants, employed as Secretary and Senior Clerk respectively at Thiruvananthapuram Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No. 131, Head Office Branch, Thiruvananthapuram, during the period between 16th November, 1994 and 2nd December, 1994, along with deceased P.K.Manoharan and G. Sreekumari who were working as Clerk and Assistant Secretary respectively at the aforesaid Co-operative Bank, during the same period, conspired together to misappropriate amounts from the Bank and in pursuance of the said conspiracy dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriated an amount of Rs. 50,000/- i.e. Rs. 30,000/- on 16.11.1994 in respect of secured loan No.261 and Rs. 10,000/- each on 2.12.1994 in respect of secured loan No.273 and secured loan No. 274 by availing three secured loans on the security of FD No. 173/94-95 deposited in the name of Sri.S.R. Anilkumar by forging the signatures of the above said depositor in the loan application forms, loan bonds, loan vouchers etc. without his knowledge or consent, and using such forged documents as genuine for availing the said loans and after that released the total amount covered by the above referred fixed deposit to the depositor with interest without realizing the loan dues which resulted the loan amount to be outstanding forever and thereby cheated the Bank and obtained undue pecuniary advantage to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-. 50,000/-. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 13 (1)(c) and 13(1)(d) r/w S.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred as ‘P.C Act, 1988’ for short] and Sections 420 , 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (`I.P.C’ for short), by the accused. 5. After registering Crime No.VC 10/99/SIU/Tvmp alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 13 (1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the P.C Act, 1988 and under Sections 420 , 468, 471 read with 120-B of I.P.C, final report was filed before the Special Court alleging commission of the said offences. 6. The Special Court took cognizance of the said offences and proceeded with the trial. During trial, PW1 to PW9 were examined and Exts.P1 to P36 were marked on the side of prosecution. Exts.D1 and D2 two contradictions of PW1 and PW2 were marked on the side of the accused during prosecution evidence. Apart from that, on the side of defendants DW1 was examined and Exts.D3 to D7 were marked. 7. On analysis of evidence, the Special Court found that the accused persons committed offences punishable under Sections 13 (1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of PC Act, 1988 as well as under Sections 463, 465, 471 and 120-B of I.P.C. Accordingly, 1 st and 2 nd accused were convicted for the said offences and sentenced as under: “Therefore, for the offences under S.13(1)(c) and S.13(1)(d) r/w S.13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988, the first and second accused are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) each. Fine, if not paid, they shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months each. For the offence under Ss.465, 471 and 120-B of I.P.C. both the accused are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each. The substantive sentences awarded to first and second accused shall run concurrently.” 8. While impeaching the veracity of the verdict under challenge, Adv.Ananth Krishna K.S., the learned State Brief, appearing for the 1 st accused raised multiple contentions. The substantive sentences awarded to first and second accused shall run concurrently.” 8. While impeaching the veracity of the verdict under challenge, Adv.Ananth Krishna K.S., the learned State Brief, appearing for the 1 st accused raised multiple contentions. It is pointed out by the learned State Brief that, Ext.P3 series, Ext.P7 series and Ext.P10 series are the records relied by the prosecution to find that the 1 st and 2 nd accused forged the loan applications and connected documents to avail loan to the tune of Rs.30,000/- on 16.11.1994 in respect of secured loan No.261 and Rs.10,000/- each on 02.12.1994 in respect of secured loans no.273 and no.274 by availing three secured loans on the security of F.D. No.173/94-95 deposited in the name of Sri.S.R.Anilkumar by forging signatures of the above said Sri.S.R.Anilkumar in the loan application forms, loan bonds, loan vouchers etc. 9. According to the learned State Brief for the 1 st accused, even though allegation of the prosecution is that, forgery was committed impersonating S.R.Anilkumar, without his knowledge, the prosecution did not record the statement of S.R.Anilkumar and also failed to cite him as a witness or examine him before the Special Court to prove the said allegations. The non- examination of the said Anilkumar is fatal to the prosecution is the submission of the learned State Brief. It is pointed out that even though as per the FSL report, the signature and handwriting in Ext.P3 series, Ext.P7 series and Ext.P10 series were found to be not that of Sri.S.R.Anilkumar, no expert opinion obtained to see that the entries therein were made by the 1 st accused as well as the 2 nd accused, though prosecution relied on the evidence of the witnesses who are familiar with the handwriting and signatures of the 1 st and 2 nd accused. The learned State Brief pointed out that as per Ext.P1 audit report, eight loans were alleged to be granted on the basis of forged certificates, but when Ext.P18 F.I.R. was registered, loan number was increased to ten and finally only eight fake loans were found during investigation. 10. According to the learned State Brief appearing for the 1 st accused, in this regard the evidence of PW1 is relevant. 10. According to the learned State Brief appearing for the 1 st accused, in this regard the evidence of PW1 is relevant. PW1 had categorically deposed in support of the case of the accused that Ext.D4, FD receipt and Ext.D4(a) voucher, thereof were passed by the Assistant Secretary, Smt. Sreekumari and in the matter of release of the said FD in favour of S.R.Anilkumar without realising the loan availed, the 1 st accused and 2 nd accused has no role. 11. While supporting the argument advanced by learned State Brief appearing for the 1 st accused, the learned counsel for the 2 nd accused specifically contended that, on perusal of Ext.P3, it could be seen that Ext.P3 loan application alleged to be that of S.R.Anilkumar was filed on 16.11.1994 and the loan was passed on 29.11.1994. It was later on, the prosecution would allege that the 2 nd accused being the Section Clerk made endorsement regarding FD for Rs.1,80,000/-. Therefore, the role of the 2 nd accused in granting the loans could be found after paying the loans. In view of this argument, when the attention of the learned counsel for the 2 nd accused is brought to Exts.P7 and P10, wherein the 2 nd accused noted FD for Rs.1,80,000/- in the name of S.R.Anilkumar for 91 days on 02.12.1994, he pointed out that, apart from Ext.P3, in Exts.P7 and P10 loan applications put up on 02.12.1994 also, the 2 nd accused noted FD in the name of S.R.Anilkumar on 02.12.1994 itself, and the loan was passed by the Secretary on 02.12.1994 and ratified by the President on 10.01.1995. According to the learned counsel for the 2 nd accused, as per Ext.P13 office order, the duty of the 2 nd accused is confined to: “Responsible to the maintenance of all Loan accounts and loan payments. Preparation of notes to loan applications. Maintenance of liability register and index. Writing of loan recoveries and also do any other works entrusted by the Secretary from time to time.” 12. In Ext.P13, the responsibility of the 1 st accused is also stated as: “Secretary will be responsible for the executive administration of the Bank, subject to the control of the President as per bye-law no.25(1), b, e & e(1). He will be the custodian of all valuables owned by or charged to the Bank and all stocks and records jointly with the record keeper. He will be the custodian of all valuables owned by or charged to the Bank and all stocks and records jointly with the record keeper. Cash in safe and gold pledged to the Bank will be in the joint custody of the Secretary or the person authorised by the committee will sign all receipts and pass vouchers for payment.” 13. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the 2 nd accused that, since grant of loan and the payment etc. were not the duty of 2 nd accused, arraying him as an accused at a later stage of investigation after registering the crime, is without any substance. It is further pointed out that even though the prosecution attempted to prove that Ext.P3 series, Ext.P7 series and Ext.P10 series loans were not at the instance of S.R.Anilkumar with the assistance of the expert opinion, the prosecution failed to prove the forgery and availing of loan by the 1 st and 2 nd accused, along with Smt.Sreekumari, against whom the I.P.C. offenses alone alleged (that is because of refusal of sanction by the authority under Section 19 of the P.C Act, 1988) and also with the assistance of Sri.P.K.Manoharan, the Cashier who committed suicide during the investigation. The learned counsel also argued for leniency considering the delay in the investigation and implicating the 2 nd accused in this crime. 14. Repelling these contentions, learned Public Prosecutor argued that PW1 has given evidence deposing the procedure regarding passing of loan on the basis of fixed deposit receipts and as per which, the role of the 1 st and 2 nd accused in passing the loan has been detailed and no challenge raised during the cross examination regarding the procedure stated by PW1. It is also pointed out that since the procedure as deposed by PW1 is not challenged, when the evidence read along with Ext.P13, the inference is that accused nos.1 and 2 discharged their duties in terms of evidence given by PW1 and Ext.P3 series, Ext.P7 series and Ext.P10 series were generated at the outcome of the conspiracy hatched in between 1 st and 2 nd accused along with Sreekumari and the Cashier of the Bank during the relevant time. In such circumstances, the finding of the Special Court is only to be justified. 15. In such circumstances, the finding of the Special Court is only to be justified. 15. In view of the rival submissions, points arise for consideration are: 1.Whether the Special Court is justified in finding that the accused/appellants committed the offence punishable under Section 13 (1)(c) read with 13(2) of the P.C Act, 1988? 2. Whether the Special Court is justified in finding that the accused/appellants committed the offence punishable under Section 13 (1)(d) read with 13(2) of the P.C Act, 1988? 3. Whether the Special Court is justified in finding that the accused/appellants committed the offence punishable under Section 465 of IPC? 4. Whether the Special Court is justified in finding that the accused/appellants committed the offence punishable under Section 471 of IPC? 5. Whether the Special Court is justified in finding that the accused/appellants committed the offence punishable under Section 120-B of IPC? 6. Whether the verdict of the Special Court would require interference? 7. Order to be passed? 16. Point Nos.1 to 7:- In the instant case, the prosecution case is that, one S.R.Anilkumar deposited Rs.1,80,000/- as fixed deposit on 14.11.1994 before the Thiruvananthauram Service Co-operative Bank vide F.D. No.173/1994-1995. The specific allegation of the prosecution is that, after the deposit, accused nos.1 and 2 along with deceased P.K.Manoharan and Sreekumari, who were working as Clerk and Assistant Secretary respectively in the said bank conspired together and submitted three forged secured loan applications purported to have been duly filled by the fixed depositor Sri.S.R.Anilkumar and availed loan of Rs.30,000/- on 16.11.1994 and Rs.10,000/- each 02.12.1994 without the knowledge and consent of S.R.Anilkumar and they misappropriated the said sum. 17. Ext.D4 is the fixed deposit receipt dated 14.11.1994 tendered in evidence by examining DW1. As per Ext.P4 FD register, Ext.D4 Fixed Deposit was closed on 04.05.1995, while the loans were subsisting without realising the subsisting loans. 18. Ext.P3 is the loan application purported to have been submitted by S.R.Anilkumar for Rs.30,000/-, ie. SL No.261. Ext.P3 would show that even though Rs.30,000/- was applied as per Ext.P3 the sanctioned amount was only Rs.10,000/- and the date of issue of loan was 16.11.1994. Ext.P3(a) is the loan bond purported to have been executed by S.R.Anilkumar on 16.11.1994 in respect of Ext.P3 loan application. Ext.P3(b) is the voucher in respect of Ext.P3 loan purported to have been issued by S.R.Anilkumar on 16.11.1994. Ext.P3(a) is the loan bond purported to have been executed by S.R.Anilkumar on 16.11.1994 in respect of Ext.P3 loan application. Ext.P3(b) is the voucher in respect of Ext.P3 loan purported to have been issued by S.R.Anilkumar on 16.11.1994. Ext.P3(b-1) is the initial of first accused Secretary at the time of passing the loan. Ext.P3(c) is the endorsement made by the second accused Senior Clerk on the rear side of Ext.P3 loan application. As per Ext.P3(c) endorsement, it is noted that the applicant had been deposited Rs.1,80,000/- for 91 days. The date of the said endorsement is 2.12.1994. Ext.P3(e) is the endorsement made by the Assistant Secretary G.Sreekumari. As per Ext.P3(e) Assistant Secretary G.Sreekumari recommended for sanctioning Rs.10,000/- as loan. Ext.P3(d) is the endorsement made by the first accused Secretary dated 29.11.2004 in respect of ratification of the loan by the Board of Directors. The signature of the President of the Bank (PW3) is also seen present under Ext.P3(d) endorsement. On the rear side of Ext.P3 loan application extreme bottom portion, it is noted that loan No.SL 261 was issued on 16.11.1994. That means the ratification of the loan was made by the Board of Directors after the issuance of loan. Even though as per Ext.P3(d) the sanctioned amount is only Rs.10,000/-, from Ext.P27(a) cash book entry it could be seen that on 16.11.1994, Rs.30,000/- was disbursed in favour of S.R.Anilkumar. That means, even though the amount sanctioned as per Ext.P3 secured loan is only Rs.10,000/- as per the relevant cash book entry Rs.30,000/- was disbursed to S.R.Anilkumar, ie. the entire amount applied as per Ext.P3 loan application. Ext.P3 series are marked and proved through PW1 Internal Auditor of the Bank. 19. Ext. P7 is the loan application purported to have been submitted by S.R.Anilkumar before the Bank dated 2.12.1994 for sanctioning Rs.10,000/- as loan. Ext.P7(a) is the loan bond purported to have been executed by S.R.Anilkumar, dated 2.12.1994 and Ext.P7(b) is the voucher. Right side bottom portion of Ext.P7(b) voucher have been found torn hence it is not able to understand who passed the loan amount. But in Ext.P3(b) voucher the pay order was found initialled by the first accused Secretary. Ext. P7(c) is the endorsement on the rear side of Ext.P7 made by second accused Senior Clerk regarding the existence of fixed deposit in the name of S.R.Anilkumar. But in Ext.P3(b) voucher the pay order was found initialled by the first accused Secretary. Ext. P7(c) is the endorsement on the rear side of Ext.P7 made by second accused Senior Clerk regarding the existence of fixed deposit in the name of S.R.Anilkumar. Ext.P7(d) is the endorsement made by the first accused Secretary after the ratification of the loan by the Board of Directors. The signature of the President is also present under Ext.P7(d) endorsement. Ext.P7(e) is the endorsement made by the Assistant Secretary recommending to sanction Rs.10,000/- as loan. From Ext.P7(d) it could be seen that Rs.10,000/- was issued as loan on the basis of Ext.P7 loan application, ie. SL No.273 dated 2.12.1994. Ext. P10 loan application is also dated 2.12.1994. It is also for Rs.10,000/-. The same is also purported to have been submitted by S.R.Anilkumar. Ext.P10(a) is the loan bond alleged to have been executed by S.R.Anilkumar on 2.12.1994 and Ext P10(b) is the voucher alleged to have been executed by S.R.Anilkumar for Rs.10,000/-. On the rear side of Ext. P10 loan application also the endorsement made by the second accused regarding the existence of fixed deposit is marked as Ext.P10(c). As per Ext.P10(e) endorsement, the Assistant Secretary recommended to sanction Rs.10,000/-. Ext.P10(d) is the endorsement made by the Secretary (first accused) after ratifying the loan by the Board of Directors. The signature of the Bank President (PW3) after ratifying the loan is also present on the rear side of Ext.P10 loan application. Ext. P10 loan application is in respect of SL No.274. The disbursement of Rs.10,000/- each in respect of Ext. P7 SL No.273 and Ext.P10 SL No.274 are entered in the corresponding cash book, ie, Ext.P26 cash book. Ext. P26(a) is page No.20 of Ext. P26. From Ext.P26(a) it could be seen that on 2.12.1994 Rs.10,000/- each covered by SL Nos.273 and 274 were given to S.R.Anilkumar. The certified copy of Ext.P27(a) is Ext.P6 and certified copy of Ext. P26(a) is Ext. P8. Thus, from Ext.P27(a) cash book entry and from Ext.P26(a) cash book entry it is clear that Rs.30,000/- was disbursed in respect of Ext.P3 SL No.261 on 16.11.1994 and Rs.10,000/- each were disbursed in respect of Ext. P7 SL No.273 and Ext.P10 SL No. 274 on 2.12.1994. 20. In Ext. P26(a) is Ext. P8. Thus, from Ext.P27(a) cash book entry and from Ext.P26(a) cash book entry it is clear that Rs.30,000/- was disbursed in respect of Ext.P3 SL No.261 on 16.11.1994 and Rs.10,000/- each were disbursed in respect of Ext. P7 SL No.273 and Ext.P10 SL No. 274 on 2.12.1994. 20. In Ext. P23 Secured Loan Register maintained in the Bank in page No.60 the details of SL No.261 is seen entered and the said page is marked as Ext. P23(a). The details of SL No.273 ie. Ext P7 loan is seen entered in page No. 72 of Ext. P23 SL Register and the said page is marked as Ext.P23(b). The details of SL No.274, ie. Ext.P10 loan is seen entered in page No.73 of Ext. P23 SL Register and the said page is marked as Ext. P23(c). Certified copy of Ext. P23(a) is Ext.P5, certified copy of Ext. P23(b) is Ext.P9 and certified copy of Ext.P23(c) is marked as Ext.P11. In Exts.P5, P9 and one column is present for the initial of ‘Secretary' and the initial seen in the said column is marked separately as Ext.P5(a) in Ext.P5 and the writing seen in Ext.P5 is marked as Ext.P5(b). The writing seen in Ext.P9 is marked as Ext.P9(a). The writing seen in Ext.P11 is marked as Ext. P11(a). Exts.P9(a) and P11(a) were marked through PW2 Ramesh. Thus, from the above referred entries in Ext. P23 secured loan register and from Exts. P26 and P27 cash books maintained in the Bank, it is clear that Rs.50,000/- was disbursed as secured loans on the security of Ext.D4 fixed deposit certificate. But the same time, from a perusal of Ext.P4, ie. page 223 of Fixed Deposit Register in respect of Ext.D4 Fixed Deposit Certificate, wherefrom it is discernible that in Ext.P4 the details of the above referred three secured loans were not entered. From Exts.P23(a), P23(b) and P23(c), ie. the relevant entries seen in the Secured Loan Register wherefrom it is clear that Exts.P3, P7 and P10 Secured Loan amounts were not repaid. But the same time, from Ext.D4 Fixed Deposit Certificate, Ext.D4(a) voucher and from Ext.P4 Fixed Deposit Register, it is clear that the entire amount covered by Ext.D4 fixed Deposit Certificate was released to the depositor on 4 th May 1995. But the same time, from Ext.D4 Fixed Deposit Certificate, Ext.D4(a) voucher and from Ext.P4 Fixed Deposit Register, it is clear that the entire amount covered by Ext.D4 fixed Deposit Certificate was released to the depositor on 4 th May 1995. Since Ext.D4 Fixed Deposit was closed without realizing the above referred three secured loans the bank sustained a loss of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.30,000/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.10,000/-). 21. As far as non availability of Sri.S.R.Anilkumar to record his statement, the investigating officer specifically deposed that even though attempt was made to secure his presence for the purpose of recording his evidence, his whereabouts could not be found during investigation; though during the vigilance enquiry, he had given statement supporting the prosecution case. In order to justify this aspect, the prosecution has produced Ext.P32 letter addressed to him through PW7, the investigating officer, showing that the said Ext.32 letter was returned with endorsement “addressee not in station, present address not known, returned to sender”. PW9, the officer who laid charge also supported this version. Therefore, the prosecution could not be found fault with in the matter of not recording the statement of S.R.Anilkumar as he left being not available for questioning by the investigating officer. 22. The prosecution attempted to prove that Exts.P3, P7 and P10 loan applications and the connected documents thereof were forged by 1 st and 2 nd accused with the assistance of P.K.Manoharan and G.Sreekumari. Ext.P19 report as that of PW5 filed by the Assistant Director (Documents), FSL, Thiruvananthapuram has been pressed into in this regard. 23. PW5 deposed before the Special Court that on 13.9.2012, he was working as Assistant Director (Documents) in FSL, Thiruvananthapuram and he had examined the questioned documents and the standard documents and prepared Ext.P19 report. Ext.P19 is marked and proved through PW5. The questioned signatures in Exts.P3, P3(a) and P3(b) are marked as Q1A, Q1B, Q1C respectively for the purpose of FSL examination. The questioned signatures in Exts. P7, P7(a) and P7(b) are marked as Q3A, Q3B, Q3C respectively for the purpose of FSL examination. The questioned documents in Exts.P10, P10(a) and P10(b) are marked as Q4A, Q4B and Q4C respectively for the purpose of FSL examination. The standard signatures of S.R.Anilkumar present in Ext.P20 were also sent to the FSL for comparing it with questioned signatures of Sri.S.R.Anilkumar seen in Exts.P3 series, P7 series and P10 series. The questioned documents in Exts.P10, P10(a) and P10(b) are marked as Q4A, Q4B and Q4C respectively for the purpose of FSL examination. The standard signatures of S.R.Anilkumar present in Ext.P20 were also sent to the FSL for comparing it with questioned signatures of Sri.S.R.Anilkumar seen in Exts.P3 series, P7 series and P10 series. Ext.P20 is the fixed deposit application form submitted by S.R.Anilkumar dated 14.11.1994 in respect of Ext.D4 Fixed Deposit Receipt. The four signatures of Anilkumar present in Ext.P20 were taken as standard signatures and the same were marked as A1, A2, A3 and A4 in Ext.P20 for the purpose of FSL examination. PW5 expert categorically stated before the Special Court that on examination it was found out that the person who put the standard signatures marked as A1 to A4 in Ext.P20 was not the person who put the questioned signatures mentioned in Ext.P19 report. In Ext.P19 report page No.1. It is reported as follows:- “The questioned documents in this case were carefully and thoroughly examined and compared with standard documents in all aspects of handwriting identification and detection of forgery with modern scientific aids in the State Laboratory at Thiruvananthapuram. The result of examination is the following: 2) The person who wrote the blue enclosed standard signatures stamped and marked A1 to A4 did not write the red enclosed questioned signatures similarly stamped and marked Q1A to Q1C, Q2A to Q2C, Q3A to Q3C, Q4A to Q4C, Q5A to Q5C, Q6A to Q6C, Q7A to Q7C, Q8A to Q8C, Q9A to Q9C and Q10B." 24. The reasons for the report are mentioned in page No.2 of Ext.P19 report. In last paragraph of Ext.P19 report it is stated as follows: “On comparison the questioned signatures exhibit significant differences with the standard signatures in individual writing characteristics. Some of the individual features in which they disagree are the following: (i) The nature of commencement and execution of initial letter 'S'. (ii) The manner of execution of the subsequent letter 'A' (iii) The nature of execution of the terminal letter 'K' (iv). The nature of execution of the underscore. In addition, the questioned and standard signatures exhibit differences in general writing characteristics such as skill, speed, movement etc. (ii) The manner of execution of the subsequent letter 'A' (iii) The nature of execution of the terminal letter 'K' (iv). The nature of execution of the underscore. In addition, the questioned and standard signatures exhibit differences in general writing characteristics such as skill, speed, movement etc. The differences in writing characteristics seen between the questioned and standard signatures in conjunction with the signs of forgery mentioned above are significant and are beyond the range of natural variations or intended disguise but are only due to different authorship. Hence the result." 25. The Special Court given emphasise to the evidence of PW5 and Ext.P19 report to find that the signatures in Ext.P3 series, Ext.P7 series and Ext.P10 series were not that of Sri.S.R.Anilkumar. Regarding the procedure for granting loan and also to support the audit report, evidence of PW1 has been pressed into service. 26. According to PW1 from 1983 onwards she was working in the said Bank as a Junior Clerk and the first and second accused were working along with her and thereby she obtained acquaintance with their handwriting. PW1 stated that she had examined the records of the Bank in the capacity as Internal Auditor for the purpose of finding out whether any misappropriation was taken place in the Bank and on examination of the records it was understood that Rs.30,000/-was disbursed on the basis of SL No.261 on the basis of FD Receipt No.173/94-95 (Ext.D4 Fixed Deposit Certificate). PW1 further would state that on the basis of SL No.273 and on the basis of SL No.274 Rs.10,000/- each were disbursed on 2.12.1994 in respect of the above referred fixed deposit receipt. PW1 further would state that without repaying the amount covered by SL No.261, SL No.273 and SL No.274 fixed deposit amount covered by FD No.173/94-95 (Ext.D4) was disbursed to the depositor on 4 th May 1995. According to PW1 without clearing the secured loan amounts FD receipt amount would not have been disbursed. PW1 further deposed the procedure regarding granting of Secured Loans in the Bank. According to her as per clause 46(1) of Ext.P2 Byelaw of the Bank 90% of the fixed deposit amount could be disbursed as Secured Loan in favour of the deposit holder. PW1 further deposed the procedure regarding granting of Secured Loans in the Bank. According to her as per clause 46(1) of Ext.P2 Byelaw of the Bank 90% of the fixed deposit amount could be disbursed as Secured Loan in favour of the deposit holder. For the purpose of availing secured loan, the depositor should approach the Secretary with the fixed deposit certificate and after examining the fixed deposit certificate the Secretary would issue loan application, loan bond and loan voucher to the deposit holder and after filling the same deposit holder would put his signature in the said documents and entrust the same to the Secretary including fixed deposit certificate and in turn Secretary would give fixed deposit certificate, loan application, loan bond and voucher to the loan the Section clerk and after verifying the said documents the Section Clerk would note the loan amount in the fixed deposit register and in the Secured Loan Register and Section Clerk would write the loan amount, loan No. etc. in the SL Register and keep the voucher inside the SL Register. The availing of loan would be entered in the fixed deposit register also by the Section Clerk. After that fixed deposit register, SL Register (Loan Ledger) would place before the Secretary for the purpose of passing loan and after that Secretary would pass the voucher and Secretary would give voucher directly to the cash counter or entrust it to the concerned party or to any other staff of the Bank. After receiving the voucher, cashier would disburse the amount to the holder of the voucher and the holder of the voucher would entrust the amount to the Secretary. PW1 further would state that if voucher was given directly to the party, party could collect the amount from the counter directly and the Cashier would keep the voucher. PW1 further testified that Secretary should keep the loan application, loan bond, fixed deposit certificate after disbursing the loan and after that Secretary would place the loan Application and loan bond before the Director Board Meeting for the purpose of ratification and prior to that Assistant Secretary would verify the file. After ratification by the Director Board it would be entered in the minutes and on the rear side of the loan application and Secretary would keep the said document till the loanee close the loans. PW1 further testified that Ext. After ratification by the Director Board it would be entered in the minutes and on the rear side of the loan application and Secretary would keep the said document till the loanee close the loans. PW1 further testified that Ext. P3 is the SL loan application No.261 and Ext.P3(a) is the loan bond and Ext.P3(b) is the voucher in respect of Ext.P3 loan application. According to PW1, first accused was the secretary and second accused was the loan section clerk at the time of Ext.P3 loan application. PW1 further stated that the handwriting seen in Ext.P3(b) voucher is the handwriting of second accused Sasidharan Nair. PW1 also stated that as per Ext.P3(b) voucher, the loan amount was Rs.30,000/- and Ext.P3(b) voucher was passed by first accused Secretary and the initial of first accused Secretary would be found in Ext.P3(b). The initial of first accused Secretary found in Ext.P3(b) voucher is separately marked as Ext.P3(b-1). PW1 further deposed that in Ext.P3(b) voucher F.D. receipt No.173/94-95 (D4) is noted. 27. According to PW1, on the rear side of Ext.P3, the entry seen in the remarks column is in the handwriting of second accused Sasidharan Nair and the said writing is marked an Ext.P3(c). PW1 further testified that on the rear side of Ext.P3 the entries seen made in pink ink is in the handwriting of the first accused Secretary. The said entries are marked as Ext. P3(d). The initial of Secretary is also seen in Ext. P3(d). PW1, the Internal Auditor’s, further evidence is that Ext.P7 is the loan application in respect of SL No.273 for Rs.10,000/- and Ext. 10 is the SL application in respect of SL No.274 for Rs.10,000/-. Ext.P7(a) loan bond, Ext.P7(b) loan voucher in respect of Ext.P7 loan, Ext. P7(c) writings on the rear side of Exts.P7, P7(d) writings on the rear side of Ext.P7, Ext.P10(a) loan bond, Ext.P10(b) voucher of Ext. P10 loan, Exts.P10(c) and P10(d) entries seen on the rear side of Ext.P10 loan application are also marked through PW1. PW1 categorically deposed before the court that Exts.P7(b) and P10(b) vouchers are in the handwriting of second accused Sasidharan Nair who was the then loan section clerk. PW1 also deposed that Exts.P7(c) and P10(c) entries are also in the handwriting of second accused Sasidharan Nair. PW1 further would state that Exts.P7(d) and P10(d) entries are in the handwriting of first accused Secretary. PW1 also deposed that Exts.P7(c) and P10(c) entries are also in the handwriting of second accused Sasidharan Nair. PW1 further would state that Exts.P7(d) and P10(d) entries are in the handwriting of first accused Secretary. PW1 also deposed before the court that in Ext.P7(b) and Ext.P10(b) loan voucher the loan passing portion found torn and the said portion is absent in Exts.P7(b) and P10(b). 28. During cross-examination PW1 deposed that the recommendation made by the Assistant Secretary G.Sreekumari in respect of sanctioning the loan is present on the rear side of Exts.P3, P7 and P10 loan applications and the said recommendations made by the Assistant Secretary Sreekumari is marked as Exts.P3(e), P7(e) and P10(e) respectively. During cross examination PW1 further would state that she gave statement before Vigilance Police that the handwritings seen on the facing sheet of Exts.P3, P7 and P10 loan applications are the handwritings of P.K.Manoharan who was working in the office. According to PW1 it is learnt that P.K.Manoharan is now no more. Thus, the evidence of PW1 would show that in Ext.P3 series, ie. loan application in respect of SL No.261 and in Ext.P7 series, ie. loan application in respect of SL No.273 and in Ext.P10 series, ie. loan application in respect of SL No.274 handwriting of first accused Secretary, second accused Senior Clerk of the Bank, handwriting of deceased P.K.Manoharan and handwriting of Assistant Secretary G.Sreekumari are present. 29. In this case on the side of the accused DW1, Smt.Ambika, who held the charge of Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram Service Co-operative Bank, was summoned for examining her and for production of documents. On summons, she appeared and was examined as DW1. DW1 deposed that the bye-law of Thiruvananthapuram Service Co-operative Bank under the Kerala Co-operative Service Act and Rules is Ext.D3 which was in existence prior to 1998. Ext.P2 was shown to the witness and got identified as the bye-law. DW1 deposed that as per clause 25(e) of Ext.D3, the President was the custodian of cash, jewels and bank properties and after the Amendment 11/1988, custodian was the Secretary. The attempt of the accused was to show that the custodian of the F.D deposits and loans was also the President during the relevant time. DW1 deposed that as per clause 25(e) of Ext.D3, the President was the custodian of cash, jewels and bank properties and after the Amendment 11/1988, custodian was the Secretary. The attempt of the accused was to show that the custodian of the F.D deposits and loans was also the President during the relevant time. DW1 deposed that Ext.P4 deposit was released on 04.05.1995 and the same was done by the 2 nd accused Sri Sasidharan Nair and suggestion that it was signed by Sreekumari, the then Secretary in-charge was denied by DW1. During cross examination, DW1 deposed that duties of the staff would be decided in the meeting of the Board and the said duty would be assigned to the staff concerned. The Board decisions in this regard would be assigned by the President and proceedings thereof would be issued by the Secretary. When she was examined after confronting Ext.P13 office order dated 30.03.1994, in Ext.P13 the 1 st accused Sasikumar signed as the first person and accused No.13 as the 6 person. As per Ext.P13, the custodian of all valuables, stock records, cash and gold was the Secretary and the duties assigned to the 2 nd accused Sasidharan Nair as stated in Ext.P13, included dealing with loan accounts, loan payments, preparation of notes on loan applications etc. 30. By examining DW1, the attempt of the accused was to fasten the responsibility upon the President. In fact, Sreekumari also is an accused in this crime but for want of sanction she could not be prosecuted for the P.C Act offences and for the Magisterial offences, separate charges were filed and she would be answerable for the same. It is true that what-else has been stated in Ext.D3 or Ext.P2, the office order passed in the Board meeting, would have relevance in the matter of duties assigned to each individual. Even though the learned counsel for the 2 nd accused argued at length to convince this Court that insofar as grant of disputed loan herein is concerned, there was no role for the 2 nd accused in dealing with F.D, Ext.P13 would show that he was dealing with loan accounts, loan payments, preparation of notes on loan applications etc. Even though the learned counsel for the 2 nd accused argued at length to convince this Court that insofar as grant of disputed loan herein is concerned, there was no role for the 2 nd accused in dealing with F.D, Ext.P13 would show that he was dealing with loan accounts, loan payments, preparation of notes on loan applications etc. If so, the evidence available would show that the 2 nd accused as well as the 1 st accused had active role in the matter of considering, verifying and sanctioning loans and without the knowledge of the 1 st and 2 nd accused as well as Sreekumari and P.K.Manoharan and the President only formally ratified the loans, believing them. Be it so, the evidence available would establish that accused Nos.1 and 2 as well as Sreekumari and P.K.Manoharan availed the loans and misappropriated Rs.50,000/-, ie., Rs.30,000/- on 16.11.1994 in respect of the secured loan No.261 and Rs.10,000/- each on 02.12.1994 in respect of secured loan No.273 and secured loan No.274 by availing three secured loans on the security of FD No.173/94-95 deposited by Sir S.R.Anil Kumar. On re- appropriation of evidence, it can be found that the appellants committed offences punishable under Sections 13 (1)(c) and 13(1) (d) r/w S.13(2) of the P.C Act, 1988 and Sections 420 , 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC. 31. Coming to the sentence, it could be gathered that the learned Special Judge imposed rigorous imprisonment for two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offences punishable under Sections 13 (1)(c) and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C Act, 1988. In default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months each was imposed. For the offence under Sections 465, 471 and 120-B of IPC, both the accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each. 32. It is argued by the learned counsel for the 2 nd accused that in a decision reported in A.K. Rajendran v. State of Kerala , 2025 KHC OnLine 1059 the Apex Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. Therefore applying the same ratio, sentence of the appellants in this case can also be reduced to the period of the sentence already undergone. 33. Therefore applying the same ratio, sentence of the appellants in this case can also be reduced to the period of the sentence already undergone. 33. Coming to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the 2 nd accused/2 nd appellant, in the decision in Pounammal K.’s case (supra), where the Apex Court modified the sentence for the period already undergone, i.e., the sentence lesser than the statutory minimum, it could be gathered that the Apex Court exercised the said power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. In this connection, it is relevant to refer another decision of the Apex Court in Dashrath v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 KHC 6456, where the Apex Court considered the question as to whether power conferred under Article 142 of the Constitution of India can be exercised to reduce a minimum sentence prescribed in the Statute. In the said decision, the Apex Court held that the excise of power conferred by Article 142, in a case such as the present where a minimum sentence is prescribed by the statute, cannot be tinkered, for, the same would amount to legislation by the Court; and, prescription of a term of sentence quite contrary to what the Parliament has legislated would be legally impermissible. The statutory prescription in relation to punishment for a minimum period, unless challenged, cannot be reduced by this Court even in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. 34. Going by the decision in Dashrath’s case (supra), the power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India also could not be invoked to reduce a sentence than the minimum sentence provided by the statute, as the same would amount to legislation by the Court overstepping on the domain of the legislature, which is impermissible. 35. Following the decision in Pounammal’s case (supra), referred by the learned counsel for the 2 nd appellant/2nd accused also, this Court cannot reduce the sentence beyond the statutory minimum, since no power under Section 142 of the Constitution of India is bestowed on this Court. Therefore, this contention could not be appreciated in the matter of sentence. 36. Minimum sentence provided for the offence under Section 13 (1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the P.C Act, 1988 is one year. Therefore, this contention could not be appreciated in the matter of sentence. 36. Minimum sentence provided for the offence under Section 13 (1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the P.C Act, 1988 is one year. In view of the above, I am inclined to modify the sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 13 (1)(c) and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C Act, 1988 as rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, while confirming the fine imposed by the Special Court for the said offences and default sentence for non payment of fine for the said amount and also confirming the sentence imposed for other offences. 37. In the result, these criminal appeals stand allowed in part. The conviction imposed by the Special Court is confirmed, but the sentence stands modified as under: (i) The appellants/accused are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) each for the offence punishable under Sections 13 (1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the P.C Act, 1988, in default of payment of fine, the appellants/accused shall undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a further period of three months each. (ii) The sentence imposed by the Special Court for the other offences also is confirmed. (iii) The substantive sentences shall run concurrently and the default sentences shall run separately. 38. The order suspending execution of sentence and granting bail to the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 shall stand vacated and the bail bonds executed by the appellants/accused stand cancelled. The appellants/accused are directed to surrender before the Special Court to undergo the modified sentence within two weeks from today, failing which, the Special Court shall execute the modified sentence without fail. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, for compliance and further steps.