JUDGMENT : A. BADHARUDEEN, J. These are appeals at the instance of accused Nos.1 and 3 in C.C.No.167/2008 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Court, dated 25.08.2012. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the verdict impugned and the records of the Special Court. Also gone through the decisions placed by both sides. 3. In this case, the prosecution alleges commission of the offences punishable under Sections 13 (1)(c) and (d) r/w Section 13 (2) and 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the PC Act, 1988’ hereinafter) as well as under Sections 409 , 465, 471, 477A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’ hereinafter), by accused Nos.1 to 5. 4. The precise allegation is that accused Nos. 1 to 5 hatched a conspiracy during the period 2000 to 2001 and misappropriated an amount of Rs.1,75,000/-, which was meant for distribution among the victims of the natural calamity in Idukki and Kanjikkuzhy villages for the reconstruction and repair of their damaged houses. The further allegation is that, despite the misappropriation of Rs.1,75,000/-, they attempted to misappropriate an additional amount of Rs.59,000/-. 5. In this matter, the Special Court proceeded with the trial. PW1 to PW48 were examined and Exts.P1 to P61 were marked on the side of prosecution. DW1 to DW3 were examined and Exts.D1 to D8 were marked on the side of the defence. Apart from that, Exts.C1 to C3 also were marked. On appreciation of evidence, the Special Court found that accused Nos.1 and 3 were guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 13 (1)(c) and (d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988. They were also found guilty of the offences punishable under Section 15 of the PC Act, 1988 and under Sections 409 , 465, 471, 477A, and 120B of the IPC. The 4 th accused also found guilty of the offences under Sections 120B and 465 of the IPC. The 5 th accused was acquitted. The 2 nd accused died before trial. The 4 th accused also found guilty of the offences under Sections 120B and 465 of the IPC. The 5 th accused was acquitted. The 2 nd accused died before trial. The Special Court imposed the sentence as under: “Considering these, the 1 st accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years each and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- each u/S.13(1)(c) and (d) r/w. S.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 . He is also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year u/S.15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 . He is also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- u/S.409 of IPC. U/Ss.465, 471, 477A and 120B of IPC, the 1 st accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each. In default of payment of fine he will have to undergo additional simple imprisonment for six months each. The 3 rd accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years each and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- each u/S.13(1)(c) and (d) r/w.S.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 . He is also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months u/S.15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 . He is also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- u/S.409 of IPC. U/Ss.465, 471, 477A and 120B of IPC, the 3 rd accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each. In default of payment of fine he will have to undergo additional simple imprisonment for three months each. The 4 th accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year each u/Ss. 120B and 465 of IPC.” 6. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the 1 st accused is that, insofar as the allegation against the 1 st accused that he had hatched conspiracy along with the other accused and misappropriated Rs.1,75,000/- and attempted to misappropriate Rs.59,000/- are concerned, no convincing evidence adduced by the prosecution. 120B and 465 of IPC.” 6. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the 1 st accused is that, insofar as the allegation against the 1 st accused that he had hatched conspiracy along with the other accused and misappropriated Rs.1,75,000/- and attempted to misappropriate Rs.59,000/- are concerned, no convincing evidence adduced by the prosecution. According to him, the prosecution mainly relied on the signatures of the 1 st accused in Exts.P4, P9(a), P12(a) to (h) and P16 (a) to (f) and Ext.P22 to hold that those applications were considered and the amount were granted by the 1 st accused Tahsildar and also he had issued cheques for the said sum. According to the learned counsel for the 1 st accused, the procedure for processing the application and disbursement of the amount by issuing cheques had been deposed by PW39. According to him, going by the evidence of PW39, it is emphatically clear that the verification of the applications and the certificates issued by the Village Officer were done by the Junior Superintendent, who thereafter recommended payment, and in turn, the 1 st accused, the Tahsildar, issued the cheques for the same. He pointed out that the evidence of PW39 does not support the prosecution allegation. The 1 st accused had no intention to misappropriate the said amount while functioning as Tahsildar. He had numerous duties to discharge, and according to him, a substantial number of applications were dealt with during the relevant period. 7. The learned counsel also argued that in paragraph No.51 of the judgment, the learned Special Judge addressed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the 1 st accused along with the written statement filed by the 1 st accused, and also observed in paragraph No.65 that the role of the 1 st accused is made out. However, the said finding is merely based on conjectures and surmises, and hence, no credence could be given to the same. He has pointed out that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances relied upon must form a complete chain of links leading to the conclusion that it was the accused and only the accused who committed the offence, leaving no reasonable doubt regarding his guilt. He has pointed out that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances relied upon must form a complete chain of links leading to the conclusion that it was the accused and only the accused who committed the offence, leaving no reasonable doubt regarding his guilt. In this connection, the learned counsel has placed decision of the Apex Court in Renuka Prasad v. State Represented by Assistant Superintendent of Police reported in [(2025) SCC OnLine SC 1074], with reference to paragraph No.49. It is further submitted that, since there are no ingredients connecting the accused with the commission of the offences, a conviction could not sustain. Moreover, the offence of conspiracy cannot be deemed to have been established on mere suspicion, surmise, or inference unsupported by cogent and acceptable evidence. 8. The learned counsel for the 3 rd accused submitted that sanction was not proved by examining the sanctioning authority, and therefore, the sanction for prosecution has not been proved in this case as against the 3 rd accused. Hence, the trial is vitiated. He also argued that the evidence adduced by the prosecution are insufficient to prove the guilt of the 3 rd accused and thus, the verdict under challenge is liable to be reversed. 9. Negating this contention, the learned Public Prosecutor placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Nujum P.A. v. State of Kerala reported in [2025 KHC OnLine 1031], wherein, in paragraph No.6, this Court addressed the question of sanction by relying on the decision of the Supreme Court as under: “6. Repelling this contention the learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit that examination of the author of the person who issued sanction is not at all necessary and in order to buttress this contention she placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2009) 15 SCC 72 State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jiyalal wherein paragraph 8 the Apex Court held as under: - "8. It was also not justified for the learned Single Judge to hold that the District Magistrate who had passed the sanction order should have been subsequently examined as a witness by the prosecution in order to prove the same. The sanction order was clearly passed in discharge of routine official functions and hence there is a presumption that the same was done in a bona fide manner. The sanction order was clearly passed in discharge of routine official functions and hence there is a presumption that the same was done in a bona fide manner. It was of course open to the respondent to question the genuineness or validity of the sanction order before the learned Special Judge but there was no requirement for the District Magistrate to be examined as a witness by the prosecution." Similarly the decision of this Court reported in 2023 (4) KHC 530 Ravinathan L v. State of Kerala holding the same view also has been placed in this regard.” 10. According to the learned counsel for the 3 rd accused, in this case, there was failure to conduct the case properly and some of the witnesses were not properly cross-examined by the learned counsel for the 3 rd accused. At the same time, the learned counsel conceded that, insofar as the witnesses who were not cross-examined by the 3 rd accused are concerned, no application was filed before the Special Court to recall them for the purpose of cross-examination. On a perusal of the depositions, it can be inferred that some of the crucial witnesses were cross-examined by the learned counsel for the 3 rd accused, while certain other witnesses left out without subjecting themselves for cross-examination for reasons known to him. This might have been a strategy adopted by the learned counsel for the 3 rd accused, who found that it was unnecessary to cross- examine those witnesses or the same might be counterproductive. 11. The learned Public Prosecutor also relied on the evidence of PW39 to contend that, during chief examination itself, PW39 deposed that it was the Tahsildar, who had issued the cheques and that he was bound to verify the records before doing so. He also deposed that payment register, cheque issue register etc., should be signed by the parties before issuing, for which, receipt also to be obtained. Therefore, the evidence of PW39 does not support the prosecution, showing the role of the 1 st accused in this crime, as part of conspiracy hatched in between them. 12. Adverting to the rival arguments, the points arise for consideration are; (i) Whether the Special Court was right in holding that accused Nos.1 and 3 committed offences punishable under Sections 13 (1)(c) and (d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988? 12. Adverting to the rival arguments, the points arise for consideration are; (i) Whether the Special Court was right in holding that accused Nos.1 and 3 committed offences punishable under Sections 13 (1)(c) and (d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988? (ii) Whether the Special Court was right in holding that accused Nos.1 and 3 committed offence punishable under Section 15 of the PC Act, 1988? (iii) Whether the Special Court was right in holding that accused Nos.1 and 3 committed offences punishable under Sections 409 , 465, 471, 477A, and 120B of the IPC? (iv) Whether the verdict would require interference? (v) The order to be passed? Point Nos.(i) to (v) 13. Coming to the judgment, in paragraph No.35, the learned Special Judge described the details of the applicants, who claimed compensation, being victims of the calamities, with remarks and the same are as under: Sl. No. Name of the applicant and his Village as per the application In which village the applicant originally resides Whether fictitious/rea l person Whether actual damage was caused to the house or not Amount (Rs.) released by A1 and date of release Amount actually received by the party Proof of disbursal of amount Allotment Register, Cheque counter foil, payment receipt etc Remarks 1 Thresiakutty Idukki P4(a) Idukki Died before 7 years of the application No damage 5,000/- 31-7- 2000 Received by a fictitious person P5(a), P5(a) (1), P6 and P8(a) PW2 is the son of Thresiakutty who has spoken that no damage was caused to the house and no official contacted for preparing the report 2 Ipe Varghese, PW3 Idukki P4(b) Idukki PW3 filed no application No damage 4,500/- 1-8-2000 Received by unknown person by impersonating PW3 P5(b), P6(b), P7(b) and P7(b)(1) No challenge has been there from the side of the accused in cross-examination 3 Thomas, PW4 Idukki P4(c) Idukki He himself filed application Damages sustained 4,500/- Rs.1,000/- According to him, A4 had obtained the cheque and gave Rs.1,000/- only. 4 PW5 Devassiya Antony Idukki P4(d) Idukki He himself filed application Damages sustained 4,000/- Rs.950/- P5(b), P7, P7(e) and P8(a)(2) According to him, A4 had obtained the cheque and gave Rs.950/- only. 4 PW5 Devassiya Antony Idukki P4(d) Idukki He himself filed application Damages sustained 4,000/- Rs.950/- P5(b), P7, P7(e) and P8(a)(2) According to him, A4 had obtained the cheque and gave Rs.950/- only. Actual damage would come only Rs.800/- and A4 had promised Rs.1,000/- 5 PW6 Rajesh Kumar Idukki P9(a) Idukki A4 filed application for him Minor damages 4,500/- 1,200/- P5(c), P5(c) (1), P10(a), P11(a), P11(b) & P8(b)(1) Imitated the signature put in by A4 in P9(a) in all other documents 6 PW7 Mathew Thomas Idukki P12(a) Idukki He put is signature in the application No damages 4,500/- 1,150/- P5(d), P7(h), P7(g), P7(c) A deal was there between A4 and him that the witness would be paid ¼th of the amount 7 PW8 Benny Idukki P4(e) Idukki Filed by A4 Joy Damages suffered 4,000/- 600/- P14(a), P5(a) (3),P7(i), P7(j), P8(a) (3) A4 filed application and put signature 8 PW9 Shaji K.J. Idukki P4(f) Idukki Filed by fictitious person No damage 3,200/- A case of impersonation P5(a), P5(a) (4),P14(d), P7(k), P7(1), P8(a) (4) In the name of the witness by forging an application and signature the amount was seen disbursed 9 PW11 A.A.Thomas Idukki P4(h) Idukki Filed by fictitious person No damage 4,500/- A case of impersonation P5(e), P5(e) (1),P15(a), P15(b), P7(0), P7(p)P8(a) (6) In the name of the witness by forging an application and signature the amount was disbursed 10 PW12 Moly Mathew Kanjikkuzhy P16(a) Idukki Filed by fictitious person No damage 4,500/- A case of impersonation p5(f), P5(1), P17(a), P17(b), P18, P18(a), P18(b), P18(d), P18(d)(1) In the name of the husband of the witness by forging an application and signature the amount was seen disbursed 11 Pw10 Siby Idukki P4(g) Idukki Not filed by the witness Rented building, no damage 5,000/- 1,200/- P6(d), P6(e),P5(a) (5),P7(m),P 7(n),P8(a) (5) He owned no house and not filed application 12 PW14 Jose Thomas Kanjikkuzhy P16(b) Kanjikkuzhy Not filed by the witness Damages was there to the house 4,500/- 900/- P5(g), P5(g)(1), P20(a), P20(b), P18(c) A4 filed application and put signature 13 PW15 Varkey Kanjikkuzhy P16(c) Idukki (He was shown as a resident of Kanjikkuzhy village) Filed by A4 Joy No damages 4,000/- as per P20(c) cheque 940/- P20(c), P5(g), P5(g)(2), P18(d), P18(e) No such body marks as stated in P18(d) and he was constrained to imitate the signatures in those document s as found in the application put in by A4 Joy who had promised arranging compensation 14 PW16 John Mathew Kanjikkuzhy P16(d) Kanjikkuzhy Not filed by him and no amount received Suffered minor damages 4,000/- But as per P21(a) counter foil of cheque Rs.4000 /- was released Received by fictitious person P21(a), P18(f), P18(e) Amount was released to unknown person. The body marks P18(e) was not there on the body of the witness. The description of the house in P16(d) also denied by the witness. 15 PW17 V.T.Chacko Kanjikkuzhy P16(e) Idukki (He was shown as a resident of Kanjikkuzhy village) Not filed by him. Filed by A4 No damage to his house 4,300/- as per P21(c) counter foil 940/- P21(b), P21(c) page No.175 of P18. Lured by A4 by taking advantage of the mental ailment of the wife of the witness offering amount 16 PW18 K.V.Raju Kanjikkuzhu P16(e)(1) Idukki (He was shown as a resident of Kanjikkuzhy village) Not filed by him. No damage to his house 4,000/- as per P20(e) counter foil 940/- P20(e), P5(g), P5(g)(3), P18(h) He reached the Taluk office as suggested by A4 and put signatures on various document s imitating the signature in P16(e) (1) as suggested by Joy. Body marks mentioned in P18(h) were not there on his body. The promise was to pay 1/3rd amount. Rs.60/- was deducted towards bus fare as spent by A4. 17 PW19 Prabhakaran Kanjikkuzhy Village P16(f) Idukki (He was shown as a resident of Kanjikkuzhy village) Not filed by him. But filed by A4. No damage 4,500/- 940/- P18(j), P8(d)(3), P20(f), P5(g), P5(g)(4) According to the witness the remaining amount has been received by A4. As instructed A4 reached the Taluk Office and put signatures . 18 PW20 Philomina P22(a) Kanjikkuzhy Idukki Idukki (He was shown as a resident of Kanjikkuzhy village) Not filed by her No damage 3,800/- No amount received P5(h), P5(h)(1), P23(a), P24(a), P24(b) Amount disbursed to unknown person in the name of the witness 19 PW21 James Mathew P12(b) Idukki Filed by the witness through A4 Damage suffered 4,500/- 1,125/- P13(b), P7(q) The description of the house was not tallied with P12(d). The balance amount had been taken by A4. No official turned up for enquiry. Body marks not tallied with P7(g) 20 PW22 Omana Joseph Kanjikkuzhy P22(h) Idukki (He was shown as a resident of Kanjikkuzhy village) Unknown person No damage 4,000/- No amount received P5(h) P5(h) (2)P23(b) P23(c) P24 (c) P24(d)P8(e) (2) Amount received by some unknown person. Identification marks are not found on 21 PW23 Vijayan Idukki P12(c) Idukki Witness filed application Damaged 4,300/- 1,000/- Documents are not marked as no dispute is there According to the witness, A4 Joy had given Rs.1,000/- by taking back balance amount. Identification marks are not found on 21 PW23 Vijayan Idukki P12(c) Idukki Witness filed application Damaged 4,300/- 1,000/- Documents are not marked as no dispute is there According to the witness, A4 Joy had given Rs.1,000/- by taking back balance amount. The descriptions of the house is not tallied with P12(c). A4 has taken him in a jeep to the Taluk office. 22 Pw24 Sukumaran Idukki P12(d) Idukki Signed the application as suggested by A4 No damage 4,500/- 1,000/- P25(b) P7(r) The personal marks on P7 are not there on the body of the witness. The balance amount was taken by A4. At the initial stage of the filing of the application itself A4 fixed the amount as Rs.1,000/- . 22 Pw24 Sukumaran Idukki P12(d) Idukki Signed the application as suggested by A4 No damage 4,500/- 1,000/- P25(b) P7(r) The personal marks on P7 are not there on the body of the witness. The balance amount was taken by A4. At the initial stage of the filing of the application itself A4 fixed the amount as Rs.1,000/- . No official turned up for enquiry 23 PW25 John P22(c) Kanjikkuzhy Idukki (He was shown as a resident of Kanjikkuzhy village) Application not put by the witness No damage 4,000/- as per P24(f) 300/- P24(f), P5(i)(1), P24(e) Joy obtained the cheque from him and handed over Rs.300/- 24 PW26 Joy P22(d) Kanjikkuzhy Idukki (He was shown as a resident of Kanjikkuzhy village) Application not put by the witness No damage Amount not disbursed as the payment was stopped on revealing the fraud even though Rs.3,800/- was sanctioned by A1 in the application 25 PW27 Thankappan Idukki P12(h) Idukki Application put by the witness Damaged 5,000/- Provided liquor by A4 No dispute with regard to the document At the initial stage of filing application itself to A4 he had promised Rs.500/- 26 PW28 Sahadevan P12 (e) Idukki Idukki No application by the witness No damage 4,500/- awarded by A1 Cheque No.239769 has been cancelled P5(d)(2),P2 6(a) According to the witness, A4 had obtained service of the son of the witness by giving liquor and obtained his signature 27 PW29 Nelson Thomas P27(a) Idukki Idukki Filed by the party Claimed to be damaged A1 had sanctioned Rs.1,500/- in P27(a) Amount not disbursed Pertaining to the allegation against A5 28 PW30 V.J.Thomas P27(b) Idukki Idukki Filed by the Claimed party to be damaged A1 sanctioned Rs.1,500 /- No amount disbursed Pertaining to the allegation against A5 29 PW31 James Thomas P28(a) Kanjikkuzhy Idukki (He was shown as a resident of Kanjikkuzhy village) Not filed by the party No damage Sanctioned Rs.3,500/- by A1 Not received the amount Amount not disbursed as the fraud was unearthed He filed a complaint after knowing that his name has been misused for dwindling the amount 30 PW32 Binoy Thomas P4(j) Idukki Idukki Put in by the party Damages 4,000/- 1,000/- P6(f) P7(s) The witness put the signature as suggested by A4 in the application itself and the balance amount was retained by A4. 31 PW35 George Joseph P22(e) Kanjikkuzhy Kanjikkuzhy Filed application in the name of his wife Bincy George Damaged 15,000/- sanctioned by A1 No amount received The amount was not disbursed. 14. In the instant case, the FIR was registered on the basis of Exts.P1 and P2 complaints lodged by two persons, viz., PW1 and PW2. PW2 raised specific contention in the complaints that an application in the name of his mother, Thresiakutty, who had died on 20.05.1993, was also considered by the 3 rd accused and cheque was issued in her name, deeming that she put an application, Ext.P4(a) during the year 2000. PW2 given evidence in support of this allegation. According to PW2, Ext.P4(a) application was dealt with by the 3 rd accused, who was then holding charge as the Village Officer, Idukki. Ext.P3, the Death Certificate of Thresiakutty, was also produced and marked in evidence through PW2 to show that Thresiakutty had died on 20.05.1993. It has been established by the prosecution that the 1 st accused, the Tahsildar issued Ext.P6 cheque in the name of Thresiakutty, who is no more, after putting the signature on the counterfoil of the cheque. The crucial evidence in this case would come from the testimonies of PW4, PW5, PW6, PW8, PW13, PW14, PW27, and PW35, who claimed compensation being victims of the calamities. 15. PW4, Thomas, a resident of Vazhathoppu Panchayath in Idukki District, had admitted that he had subscribed his signature in Ext.P4(c) application, claiming compensation for the minor damage caused to his house. His evidence discloses that the 4 th accused, Joy, had approached him and obtained his signature in the said application. According to the witness, though a sum of Rs.4,500/- had been sanctioned, he received only Rs.1,000/-. He further deposed that no official had visited his house for assessing the damage. However, he admitted that the description of the house in Ext.P4(c) application tallied with the actual details. He stated that the 4 th accused, Joy, was aware of the particulars of his house and might have entered the same in the application. He also admitted his signature in Ext.P5(a) allotment register, and Ext.P6(c) which would bear his signature in the counterfoil of the cheque for Rs.4,500/-, which he had received. He stated that the 4 th accused, Joy, was aware of the particulars of his house and might have entered the same in the application. He also admitted his signature in Ext.P5(a) allotment register, and Ext.P6(c) which would bear his signature in the counterfoil of the cheque for Rs.4,500/-, which he had received. PW4 further testified that immediately after he had received the cheque, the 4 th accused, Joy, had taken it back and later handed over Rs.1,000/- to him after about two weeks. When the witness enquired about the reason for the same, the 4 th accused replied that the cheque had not been encashed and that the amount of Rs.1,000/- was paid from his own pocket. The witness was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the 4 th accused. The suggestion that the witness himself had encashed the cheque from the treasury had been denied by him. According to the witness, it was the 4 th accused, Joy, who had received the cheque from the office. 16. Ext.P4(b) application was put in by PW5, Devassiya and according to him, some damage sustained to his house. He was a resident of the same ward as the 4 th accused, Joy in Vazhathoppu Panchayath and was familiar with him. According to the witness, though a sum of Rs.4,000/- had been sanctioned and a cheque for the said amount had been received from the Village Office, Thodupuzha, he was given only Rs.950/- by the 4 th accused. The 4 th accused had taken back the cheque from him, along with those received by other persons. The witness further deposed that, at the time of furnishing the application itself, the 4 th accused had informed him that he would be paid only Rs.1,000/-, even though the expected amount was Rs.4,000/-, as the remaining portion had to be shared among the Taluk and Village Offices. The amount was given to him after two days, and when he asked about the balance of Rs.50/-, the 4 th accused replied that it was given to the peon. He further stated that no one had visited his house to conduct any enquiry to assess the damage. In response to a court question regarding the nature of the damage, the witness stated that around 30 tiles had been broken and the total loss would come to about Rs.700/-. He further stated that no one had visited his house to conduct any enquiry to assess the damage. In response to a court question regarding the nature of the damage, the witness stated that around 30 tiles had been broken and the total loss would come to about Rs.700/-. Exts.D1, D1(a), and D1(b), were the contradictions marked during cross-examination on behalf of the 1 st accused. Ext.D1(c) was the contradiction marked during cross- examination on behalf of the 4 th accused, wherein it was recorded that Joy was seen filling up the application form and preparing the enquiry report marked as Ext.P4(b). 17. PW6 examined in this case is Sri.Rajesh Kumar. He testified that his house situated in Idukki Village had suffered minor damages in the natural calamity, and Ext.P9(a) application had been prepared by the 4 th accused Joy in his own handwriting. Joy himself had subscribed his signature therein. The witness stated that he had been assured that nobody would turn up for enquiry. Ext.P9(a) was identified by the witness as the said application. He admitted that he had received a cheque for Rs.4,500/- from the Taluk Office and identified Exts.P5, P5(c)(1), P10(a), P11(a), P11(b), and P8(b)(1). He clarified that those were not his original signatures, but imitated ones, as the same had been entered in Ext.P9(a) application as suggested by Joy. According to the witness, the 4 th accused had informed him that the balance amount had to be shared among the Village Officer and the Tahsildar. The witness was not cross- examined by the learned counsel for accused Nos.1 and 3. In cross-examination from the side of the 4 th accused, he stated that, in the statement furnished to the police, he had admitted to having received Rs.4,500/- from the treasury. He denied the suggestion that he was tendering false evidence by stating that he had been paid only Rs.1,200/-. 18. The evidence of PW8, Benny is very crucial. He testified that he was a resident of Idukki Village and he had not filed any application for relief, though his house had sustained damage in the natural calamity. According to him, the 4 th accused Joy had filed the application, Ext.P4(e), and he denied having subscribed his signature therein. The witness stated that the 4 th accused Joy himself had filled up the application and affixed a signature. No official had visited his house for enquiry. According to him, the 4 th accused Joy had filed the application, Ext.P4(e), and he denied having subscribed his signature therein. The witness stated that the 4 th accused Joy himself had filled up the application and affixed a signature. No official had visited his house for enquiry. Though his house was constructed of bricks and roofed with sheets, the description of the house contained in Ext.P4(e) had no connection with it. As per Ext.P4(e), the house was described as being built with granite and roofed with tiles. The witness further deposed that he had received a cheque for Rs.4,000/- from the Taluk Office, which the 4 th accused Joy had taken away, stating that he would contact the treasury officials to ascertain whether sufficient funds were available for encashment. After two days, the 4 th accused had given him Rs.600/-, informing that the balance amount had been shared among the Tahsildar and the Village Officer. The witness identified his signatures in Ext.P14(a) (the counterfoil of the cheque), Ext.P5(a)(3) (the allotment and expenditure register), Ext.P7(i) (the receipt), Ext.P7(j) (the identification certificate), and Ext.P8(a)(3) (the payment register). He stated that all those signatures had been put by him by imitating the signature appearing in Ext.P4(e) application, which had been written and signed by the 4 th accused. In cross-examination from the side of the 4 th accused, the witness stated that he was an illiterate man and knew that signing on behalf of another person was an offence. He denied the suggestion that he had misappropriated the entire amount. There was no cross-examination from the other accused. 19. PW13, a neighbour of the 4 th accused, had turned hostile to the prosecution. He deposed that he had received Rs.4,500/- towards compensation and denied having given any statement to the Vigilance authorities to the effect that he had received only Rs.1,000/- and that the balance amount had been misappropriated by the 4 th accused. The said contradiction was marked as Ext.P19(a). In cross-examination by the learned Additional Legal Adviser, when confronted with the differences in the signatures appearing in various documents, the witness was compelled to admit that the 4 th accused was his friend and that his son used to sleep in the house of the 4 th accused, as the 4 th accused was unwell, thereby indicating their close acquaintance. 20. 20. PW14, Jose Thomas of Kanjikkuzhy Panchayath, deposed that Ext.P16(b) application had been prepared and submitted by the 4 th accused, Joy, and not by the witness himself, though it was presented with his consent. He stated that no official had come to enquire about the damages, even though his house had suffered minor damage. According to the witness, he was paid Rs.900/-, despite being promised Rs.1,000/-. He further deposed that he had signed various documents in the Taluk Office - Exts.P5(g), P5(g)(1), P20(a), P20(b), and P18(c) - by imitating the signature appearing in Ext.P16(b). Ext.P20(a), the counterfoil of the cheque, indicated that the cheque issued in his name was for Rs.4,500/-. The witness stated that the 4 th accused had collected the cheques from him and others and that he had been made to believe from the beginning that no enquiry would be conducted in the matter. He denied the correctness of the descriptions of his house in Ext.P16(b) application and also denied the signature appearing therein. There was no effective cross-examination on the side of the accused. 21. As regards to PW27, Thankappan, the Special Court emphasized his attitude that when he appeared before the court and examined on 10.07.2012, was found to have consumed alcohol, as the odour of liquor was noticed in his breath, and he was accordingly directed to appear on 13.07.2012. On 13.07.2012, PW27 deposed that Ext.P12(h) application had been submitted by him to the 4 th accused, Arackal Joy, who had promised to pay Rs.500/-, since the western corner of his house had sustained damage. After a few days, the 4 th accused Joy had taken him in a jeep to the Taluk Office, Thodupuzha, along with others. The witness stated that he had received a cheque for Rs.5,000/- from the Taluk Office after signing various papers. One Jose, a friend of the 4 th accused, had taken back the cheque from him and handed it over to the 4 th accused Joy. Both of them thereafter took the witness to a liquor shop, where he consumed liquor at their expense, and later they proceeded to Cheruthoni in a jeep. Even though the witness had demanded from the 4 th accused the promised amount of Rs.500/-, the 4 th accused kept postponing the payment. On learning that a vigilance enquiry had commenced in relation to the matter, the witness remained silent thereafter. Even though the witness had demanded from the 4 th accused the promised amount of Rs.500/-, the 4 th accused kept postponing the payment. On learning that a vigilance enquiry had commenced in relation to the matter, the witness remained silent thereafter. There was no serious cross- examination in connection with his testimony. 22. Ext.P22(e) is an application filed in the name of the wife of PW35, George Joseph, by name Bincy George, claiming compensation on the ground that their house had been damaged in the natural calamity. He stated that the 1 st accused had sanctioned an amount of Rs.15,000/-, but no amount had been received by them. The Special Tahsildar had visited his house for conducting an enquiry. In his chief examination, he denied the suggestion that he did not own a house. 23. It is interesting to note that PW7, PW17 and PW19 also obtained compensation for natural calamities, though they had not sustained any loss, in any manner. 24. PW7, Mathew Thomas, deposed that he had been residing in Idukki Village and had subscribed his signature in Ext.P12(a) application, which had been handed over to him by the 4 th accused. He stated that no damage had, in fact, been caused to his house. According to him, he had dealings only with the 4 th accused and, as instructed by him, had signed the application. He denied the description of damages contained in Ext.P12(a) application. Although his name, Mathew Thomas, appeared in Ext.P12(a), in Ext.P5(d), the entry in the allotment expenditure register against which he had signed [Ext.P5(d)(1)], the name was shown as Mathew Jose. The cheque counterfoil, Ext.P13(a), contained his correct name, and the cheque number mentioned against Mathew Jose was the same, indicating the careless manner in which the officials had dealt with the matter. His evidence further disclosed that the 4 th accused had taken the cheque for Rs.4,500/-, and both of them had gone to the treasury, where the cheque was encashed. The witness was paid only Rs.1,150/-. As per the understanding between him and the 4 th accused, he was to receive only one-fourth of the total amount, while the balance was retained by the 4 th accused, stating that the same had to be distributed elsewhere. The witness was paid only Rs.1,150/-. As per the understanding between him and the 4 th accused, he was to receive only one-fourth of the total amount, while the balance was retained by the 4 th accused, stating that the same had to be distributed elsewhere. Ext.P7(h) was the certificate issued by the 3 rd accused, indicating the identification marks of the witness to be produced before the Taluk Office for obtaining the cheque. The marks mentioned in Ext.P7(h), a healed wound above the right elbow and left eyebrow, were not actually present on his body, which the witness had also affirmed. During cross-examination from the side of the 1 st accused, it was suggested that he might not remember whether such marks existed on his body, to which he replied that he was not remembering. In cross-examination from the side of the 4 th accused, the witness stated that it was the 4 th accused Joy who had informed him about the financial assistance. 25. PW17, V.T. Chacko, a resident of Idukki Village, had been struggling to meet the medical expenses for the treatment of his wife, who was suffering from a mental ailment during the relevant period. Taking advantage of his vulnerable condition, the 4 th accused Joy had asked him to be present at the Taluk Office, Thodupuzha, on the assurance that he would be paid some amount. Accordingly, PW17 went to the Taluk Office and affixed his signatures on various documents as directed by the 4 th accused. He was handed over a cheque, which was immediately taken back by the 4 th accused, who later gave him only a sum of Rs.940/-. It also emerged that no identification marks, as mentioned on page 175 of Ext.P18, were found on his body. The witness was cross-examined only on behalf of the 4 th accused, and such cross-examination was limited to suggesting that he had made a false statement. 26. The evidence of PW19, Prabhakaran also is in tune with that of PW17. He had been in need of money to meet the medical expenses for his mother’s treatment. PW19 was a resident of Idukki Village and a neighbour of the 4 th accused Joy. 26. The evidence of PW19, Prabhakaran also is in tune with that of PW17. He had been in need of money to meet the medical expenses for his mother’s treatment. PW19 was a resident of Idukki Village and a neighbour of the 4 th accused Joy. Taking advantage of his situation, the 4 th accused had promised him one-third of the cheque amount and filed an application on his behalf, which was marked as Ext.P16(f), falsely stating that PW19 was a resident of Kanjikkuzhy Village, though he was actually residing in Idukki Village. Pursuant to this, PW19 was taken to the Taluk Office, Thodupuzha, where he affixed his signatures on various papers, as noted in Sl.No.17 of the Schedule to the judgment. He was given only a sum of Rs.940/- by the 4 th accused, despite the cheque amount being Rs.4,500/-, and the 4 th accused had appropriated the balance. The witness also deposed that the identification marks mentioned in Ext.P18(j) were not present on his body. He was cross-examined by the counsel for the 4 th accused, during which he stated that the 4 th accused had been known to him since childhood and denied the suggestion that the evidence adduced against the 4 th accused Joy was false. 27. Though PW29 had filed an application, he did not receive any amount. Apart from him, PW3, PW9, PW11, PW12, PW16, PW20, PW23, PW26, and PW39 have also given evidence in support of the prosecution. Apart from the evidence of PW39, Ext.P35(a) also points out the duties and responsibilities of the Tahsildar. It has been stated therein that it is the duty of the Tahsildar to fix and distribute compensation in cases of natural calamities. 28. In this matter, Ext.P45 sanction to prosecute accused Nos.1 and 3 were proved through PW46, the Investigating Officer and no challenge raised by accused Nos.1 and 3 regarding the same. Even though the learned counsel for the 3 rd accused argued that the non-examination of the officer, who granted sanction is fatal to the prosecution, paragraph No.6 extracted in Nujum P.A.’ s case (supra) clarifies the legal position, and therefore, this contention cannot be sustained. 29. To substantiate the defence case of the 5 th accused, DW1 to DW3 were examined. DW1, Thomas Kallampilackal, and DW2, Thomas Alappat, were examined on behalf of the 5 th accused in support of his defence. 29. To substantiate the defence case of the 5 th accused, DW1 to DW3 were examined. DW1, Thomas Kallampilackal, and DW2, Thomas Alappat, were examined on behalf of the 5 th accused in support of his defence. DW3 is none other than the 5 th accused himself. Their evidence need not be discussed, as the 5 th accused was acquitted by the Special Judge for want of evidence, and no appeal has been filed by the State, challenging the said acquittal. 30. Here, as of now, the 4 th accused is no more. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the 1 st accused is that the 1 st accused had no occasion to verify the identity of the beneficiaries while issuing cheques. At the same time, the learned counsel for the 1 st accused produced Ext.P35(a) showing the duties of Tahsildar. On perusal of the same, it is emphatically clear that duties Nos.1 and 2 are as follows: 1) It is the duty of the Tahsildar to co-ordinate the works relating to natural calamities in the Taluk with the assistance of the concerned departments. 2) To disburse the compensation amount by accurately assessing and fixing the same, and to issue the monetary relief. Thus, Ext.P35(a) is clear to the point that it was the duty of the Tahsildar to do the said exercises. 31. In the instant case, it is shocking to note that as deposed by PW2, an application Ext.P4(a) was generated in the name of Thresiakutty, the mother of PW2, though she died as early on 20.05.1993, as evident from Ext.P3 Death Certificate. Thereafter, the amount also was disbursed by the Tahsildar, the 1 st accused, by issuing Ext.P16 on the basis of a false identification certificate issued by the 3 rd accused, who was fully aware of the fact that Thresiakutty was not alive during 2000. No doubt, while effecting payment of the amount entitled, it is the primary duty of the Tahsildar to verify the genuineness of the claimants as part of his duty to disburse the amount to those who are entitled to get the benefit. No doubt, while effecting payment of the amount entitled, it is the primary duty of the Tahsildar to verify the genuineness of the claimants as part of his duty to disburse the amount to those who are entitled to get the benefit. To put it otherwise, the Tahsildar has the duty not only to ensure that the benefit shall go to the persons entitled, but also to ensure that the benefit never would go to the hands of fictitious persons or those persons, who are not entitled for the relief. The assessment and disbursement of the amount, at the instance of accused Nos.1 and 3, in the name of the mother of PW2, who had died seven years prior to the assessment, by itself indicates that accused Nos.1 and 3 had conspired together to obtain unlawful enrichment by clearing the amount in the name of a dead person. That apart, from the evidence discussed in detail, as that of the beneficiaries and of those who were not beneficiaries, it could be gathered that the 4 th accused, being a local political leader, had conspired with the other accused, including accused Nos.1 and 3, to misappropriate Government funds meant for disbursement to persons who had suffered losses on account of natural calamities. In furtherance of the said conspiracy, they misappropriated the amount in the name of Thresiakutty and generated false claims in the names of persons who had not suffered any calamities. The 4 th accused also paid only a lesser sum to them and he dealt with the cash, for which, cheques were issued by the 1 st accused, acting on the recommendations and certificates issued by the 3 rd accused. It is relevant to note that it has come out in evidence that when the beneficiaries and the non-beneficiaries pointed out the reduction in the amount actually received as per the cheques, the 4 th accused informed them that the balance amount was to be shared between the Village Officers and the Tahsildar. 32. Merely because some verification of the applicants was done by the Junior Superintendent, the responsibility of the 1 st accused cannot be absolved. 32. Merely because some verification of the applicants was done by the Junior Superintendent, the responsibility of the 1 st accused cannot be absolved. The misappropriation occurred with the involvement of the 1 st accused, as already discussed, along with the 3 rd accused, who had verified the applications, recommended the amounts, and issued the certificates of identity of the claimants, are established by the evidence discussed in detail. In such a case, the finding of the Special Court that accused Nos.1 and 3 are guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 13 (1)(c) and (d) r/w Section 13 (2), and also under Section 15 of the PC Act, 1988, as well as under Sections 409 , 465, 471, 477A, and 120B of the IPC, is only to be justified. Therefore, the conviction imposed by the Special Court does not require any interference. 33. Coming to the sentence, having considered the seriousness of the allegations, including the misappropriation of funds meant for persons affected by natural calamities, I am of the view that the sentence also deserves to be confirmed. In the result, these appeals fail and are dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Court. Consequently, the orders suspending the sentence and granting bail to the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 3 stand cancelled, and their bail bonds also stand cancelled. The appellants/accused Nos.1 and 3 are directed to surrender before the Special Court forthwith to undergo the sentence, failing which, the Special Court shall take necessary steps to execute the sentence, without fail. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Special Court, Kottayam, forthwith, for information and further steps.