JUDGMENT : (P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.) The Special Judge (SPE/CBI)-I, Ernakulam tried accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.5 of 2004 on a charge for the offences punishable under Section 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act), and Sections 120B , 420 , 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC ). Separate charges were framed. After trial, the Special Court acquitted the 1 st accused and convicted accused Nos.2 to 4 as follows: Accused No. Sentence imposed Section 2nd accused RI for 7 years I/d, 2 years RI RI for 7 years I/d, 2 years RI RI for 2 years Rs.1,50,000/- Rs.1,50,000/- Section 120B r/w Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC Section 420 of IPC Section 471 of IPC 3rd accused RI for 7 years I/d, 2 years RI RI for 7 years I/d, 2 years RI Rs.1,50,000/- Rs.1,50,000/- 120B r/w Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC Section 468 of IPC 4th accused RI for 7 years I/d, 2 years RI RI for 7 years I/d, 2 years RI Rs.1,50,000/- Rs.1,50,000/- 120B r/w Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC Section 420 of IPC 3. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the 4 th accused filed Crl.Appeal No.1406 of 2006 and accused Nos.2 and 3 filed Crl.Appeal No.1408 of 2006 under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code). 4. Heard the learned counsel for the respective appellants and the learned Standing Counsel for the CBI. 5. The case of the prosecution is as follows: The 1st accused was the Manager of Canara Bank, Sasthamangalam Branch, Thiruvananthapuram and as such a public servant. The 2 nd accused availed a car loan from the said bank under the “Canmobile” scheme, without actually purchasing the car. The accused had hatched a conspiracy to effectuate that plan. A concern namely, “South East Automobiles, Feroke P.O., Calicut”, was falsely created by the 4 th accused and in the name of such a fictitious company, invoice and advance payment receipt concerning sale of a Maruti Versa car in the name of the 2 nd accused were falsely created by accused Nos. 3 and 4. Based on such forged documents, a loan of Rs.4,99,988/- was sanctioned by the 1 st accused. The said amount was disbursed without inspecting the vehicle. 3 and 4. Based on such forged documents, a loan of Rs.4,99,988/- was sanctioned by the 1 st accused. The said amount was disbursed without inspecting the vehicle. 21 cheques issued in disbursal of the loan amount were cashed through the bank account opened in the Central Bank of India, Rishimangalam Branch, in the name of the said company and appropriated by the accused. Photocopies of the registration certificate and tax payment certificate in respect of a vehicle having Reg.No.KL-01-W-5401 were forged and produced in the bank to support the claim of the purchase. The said registration number, in fact, was of a motorcycle. After obtaining such illegal gain by committing forgery and cheating, the 2 nd accused stopped repayment of the loan amount. By such acts, the accused allegedly had committed the aforementioned offences. 6. The prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 20 and proved Exts.P1 to P54 to establish the charge framed against the accused. The appellants not only denied the incriminating circumstances appeared against them in evidence, but also submitted their defence in the respective statements during examination under Section 313 of the Code. On the side of the accused, Exts.D1 to D23 were proved and DWs.1 to 8 were examined. The Special Court, after considering the evidence that came on record found that the 1 st accused was not a party to the conspiracy. He was accordingly acquitted. The Special Court, however found that the evidence brought in by the prosecution was sufficient to prove creation of false documents, such as Exts.P4 and P5, which are the invoice and advance payment receipt in relation to the vehicle for which loan was availed in the name of the 2 nd accused. It was also found that the evidence was sufficient to establish the respective role of accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 in forging the documents and obtaining money from the bank illegally. 7. The learned counsel for accused Nos.2 and 3 harped more on the contentions in support of plea of innocence of the 3 rd accused. Of course, it is submitted that the evidence is insufficient to implicate the 2 nd accused as well. 7. The learned counsel for accused Nos.2 and 3 harped more on the contentions in support of plea of innocence of the 3 rd accused. Of course, it is submitted that the evidence is insufficient to implicate the 2 nd accused as well. It is submitted that the evidence of PWs.2, 6, 8, 9, 19 and 20 was adduced by the prosecution to implicate the 3 rd accused and that evidence is insufficient to prove the complicity of the 3 rd accused to any of the offences charged against him. 8. The learned counsel for accused Nos.2 and 3 would submit that PW19 did not give sufficient and convincing reasons to arrive at his conclusions. The sample writings of the 3 rd accused are Ext.P32 series and Ext.P34 series. The report is that the said writings match with the disputed handwritings in Exts.P4, P5, P37 and P38. As regards the said assertion, it is contended by the learned counsel that there exists doubt about the specimen writings obtained from the 3 rd accused by the investigating officer, PW20. He obtained sample handwritings of the 3 rd accused alone twice; whereas in the case of others, there was no such second attempt. It is also urged that he was asked by PW20 to imitate the questioned writings when his writings were obtained the second time and that was because his natural writings taken earlier did not match with the disputed ones. It is alleged that intention of PW20 to do so was to falsely implicate the 3 rd accused. It is also submitted that no justifiable explanation has been offered by PW20 during cross-examination as to why the specimen handwritings of the 3 rd accused were obtained the second time. 9. The learned counsel for the 4 th accused would submit that in the light of evidence of PW5 that after necessary verification only an account was allowed to be opened by the 4 th accused in the name of M/s South East Automobiles, it cannot be said that the account was a fictitious one. When such an account was genuinely opened and the transactions were not shown to be shady, it cannot be said that the 4 th accused was a party to the alleged conspiracy. When such an account was genuinely opened and the transactions were not shown to be shady, it cannot be said that the 4 th accused was a party to the alleged conspiracy. It is further submitted that the only evidence highlighted by the prosecution to implicate the 4 th accused was that he was an attestor to Ext.P1 application, which by itself would not incriminate him at all to any of the offences. The further submission of the learned counsel is that payee in none of the 21 cheques encashed through the aforementioned account in the Central Bank of India as reflected from Ext.P26 is the 4 th accused and as such he cannot be said to be a party to the alleged acts of cheating and forgery. As regards the recovery of offending documents and articles from his possession, it is submitted that he happened to be in possession of those things as entrusted by the 2 nd accused. Therefore, the learned counsel maintains that, without sufficient evidence, the 4 th accused was found guilty by the Special Court. 10. The charge against the 2 nd accused is that he availed a loan of Rs.4,99,988/- purportedly for the purchase of a car, but he did not purchase the car. He submitted Ext.P1 application supported by forged Ext.P4 proforma invoice and Ext.P5 receipt for payment of Rs.1,10,000/-. He later submitted Exts.P16 and 17 purported to be copies of the tax token and RC Book of the car he had purchased, but those documents were actually of a motorcycle. Thus, those documents are also forged. The fact that he submitted Ext.P1 application for loan is not disputed. In his statement submitted under Section 313 of the Code he candidly admitted that he submitted the application. His case was that at the instigation of the 4 th accused, he had submitted that application. He maintained that it was the 4 th accused who did the manipulations and obtained money. 11. A story different from that of the prosecution case was tailored by the 2 nd accused and presented in his statement. But that is not supported by any evidence or circumstance. PW1 as well as PW2 deposed about submission of Ext.P1 application by the 2 nd accused. 11. A story different from that of the prosecution case was tailored by the 2 nd accused and presented in his statement. But that is not supported by any evidence or circumstance. PW1 as well as PW2 deposed about submission of Ext.P1 application by the 2 nd accused. PW2 categorically deposed about the details starting from the 2 nd accused approaching and enquiring about possibility of a loan till submission of the application and connected papers. Ext.P2 is his specimen signature card. Ext.P3 is a letter submitted by him. All these documents contain the signatures of the 2 nd accused. Apart from PW2 and other witnesses identifying the signatures of the 2 nd accused in those documents, the handwriting expert, PW19 gave an opinion confirming that the said signatures matched the specimen signatures of the 2 nd accused. From the said evidence, it has been established that it was the 2 nd accused, who availed the loan in question. 12. PW1 explained the procedure for providing loan under the “Canmobile” Scheme and the follow up actions. Within two weeks of sanctioning the loan, the loanee has to produce the vehicle along with tax token, RC Book and insurance papers of the vehicle for verification. As per Ext.P11 demand draft for Rs.4,99,988/-, the loan amount was disbursed from the Sasthamangalam Branch of the Canara Bank. It is seen that thereafter copies of the tax token and RC Book of a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-1-W-5401 were produced claiming them to be relating to the car. PW14 was the Regional Transport Officer during 2003-2004. He deposed in court that the said registration number belongs to a motorcycle and not a car. 13. PW19, the handwriting expert, compared specimen writings and signatures of accused Nos.1 to 4 with the questioned writings and signatures. Ext.P47 is his report and Ext.P48 contains the reasons for his opinion. PW20, the investigating officer deposed in court about taking of specimen writings and signatures of all the accused. The specimen writings and signatures of all the accused were taken in the presence of PW8, who also stated substantiating that fact. After comparison, PW19 gave opinion that the signatures in Ext.P1 application form, Ext.P2 specimen signature card, Ext.P3 letter addressed to the bank and other relevant documents were of the 2 nd accused. 14. The specimen writings and signatures of all the accused were taken in the presence of PW8, who also stated substantiating that fact. After comparison, PW19 gave opinion that the signatures in Ext.P1 application form, Ext.P2 specimen signature card, Ext.P3 letter addressed to the bank and other relevant documents were of the 2 nd accused. 14. Ext.P4 is the proforma invoice and Ext.P5 is the receipt showing payment of Rs.1,10,000/- issued in the name of M/s South East Automobiles, Feroke, Kozhikode. The case of the prosecution is that no such car dealer existed and Exts.P4 and P5 were forged documents. The further allegation is that after the 2 nd accused obtaining car loan, using Exts.P4 and P5, the entire amount of Rs.4,99,988/- encashed using Ext.P11 demand draft issued in disbursal of the loan from the Canara Bank was misappropriated by the accused persons. 15. PW4 was the Manager in the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Kozhikode. On the request of the investigating officer, he had verified the existence or not of South East Automobiles. PW4 deposed that there was no such automobile dealer and the Central Sales Tax (CST) Number and Kerala Government Sales Tax (KGST) Number given in the sale documents were false. 16. PW5, the Senior Manager of Rishimangalam Branch of Central Bank of India, deposed that current account No.296 was opened by the 4 th accused in his bank in the name M/s South East Automobiles. The signatures in the application form and specimen signature card concerning the said account were proved to be of the 4 th accused. His photograph was affixed in the application form. A witness who introduced the 4 th accused to open the said bank account deposed before the court about that fact. Thus, it stands proved that it was the 4 th accused, who opened the said current account in the name of the concern M/s South East Automobiles. 17. PW18 was the Area Manager of Maruti Udyog Ltd. at Kochi. He deposed before the court that Maruti Udyog Ltd. did not have a dealer named M/s South East Automobiles, Feroke, Kozhikode. He added that images of the Emblem of Maruti Udyog Ltd. that find a place in Ext.P4 invoice, Ext.P5 receipt and Ext.P37 letterhead in the name of South East Automobiles were forged. He has produced the list of dealers of Maruti Udyog Ltd. in Kerala, Ext.P46. He added that images of the Emblem of Maruti Udyog Ltd. that find a place in Ext.P4 invoice, Ext.P5 receipt and Ext.P37 letterhead in the name of South East Automobiles were forged. He has produced the list of dealers of Maruti Udyog Ltd. in Kerala, Ext.P46. From the aforementioned evidence, it is proved that the 4 th accused had falsely created Ext.P4 invoice and Ext.P5 advance receipt in the name of a non-existing concern, M/s South East Automobiles in order to enable the 2 nd accused to avail a loan from Canara Bank, Sasthamangalam Branch. The evidence tendered by PW5, the Manager of Rishimangalam Branch of the Central Bank of India together with Ext.P24, statement of accounts, established that the amount of loan of Rs.4,99,988/- was encashed by the 4 th accused. Ext.P26 series are various cheques using which the said amount was caused to be withdrawn by the 4 th accused from the said account. From the said proved facts it is established that the car loan was availed from the Sasthamangalam Branch of the Canara Bank using forged documents and was misappropriated by accused Nos. 3 and 4, whereby they cheated the bank. 18. PW17 searched the house of the 4 th accused. During the search, several documents printed with M/s South East Automobiles were obtained. Ext.P35 is the search list for the seizure of such documents. PW10 is a witness to the said search. Both PWs.10 and 17 deposed about seizure of Ext.P36 letterhead and Ext.P37 letter in such a letterhead, Exts.P38 and P39 proforma invoices, all carrying the name, South East Automobiles, which further incriminate the 4 th accused with the crime. 19. The role of the 3 rd accused is that he conspired with the other accused in committing the aforementioned offences. The prosecution relies on the evidence of PWs.2, 9 and 19 to establish his complicity with the crime. PW2 deposed that the 3 rd accused came to the bank twice. He also remembered that the 3 rd accused came once to the bank to remit a loan instalment. He added that the 3 rd accused was one of the witnesses in Ext.P1 account opening form of the 2 nd accused. The said signature in Ext.P1 was proved to be that of the 3 rd accused. He also remembered that the 3 rd accused came once to the bank to remit a loan instalment. He added that the 3 rd accused was one of the witnesses in Ext.P1 account opening form of the 2 nd accused. The said signature in Ext.P1 was proved to be that of the 3 rd accused. PW19, the handwriting expert, gave opinion that the handwriting in Exts.P4 and P5 as well as in Exts.P37 and P38 were of the 3 rd accused. Exts.P37 and P38 are two proforma invoices written on the printed form in the name of South East Automobiles. Yet another fact relied on by the prosecution to implicate the 3 rd accused is three withdrawals made by him from the account of the 4 th accused which could be seen from Ext.P24 statement of account. The learned Standing Counsel for the CBI would submit that the said fact would indicate previous acquaintance of the 3 rd accused with accused Nos.2 and 3. That, in the light of his role in preparing in Exts.P4, P5, P37 and P38 would prove his privy to the conspiracy. 20. The prosecution tried to establish that Exts.P16 and P17, copies of the tax token and RC Book of vehicle bearing No.KL-01-W-5401 were got attested by the 3 rd accused from PW6. As stated, although PW6 admitted having attested the said documents as true copies, he did not state that it was at the instance of the 3 rd accused. From the evidence tendered by the prosecution, it is plausible to say that the 3 rd accused was fully aware of the 2 nd accused maintaining an account in the Sasthamangalam Branch of Canara Bank. It may also be said even that he had an active role in preparing Exts.P4 and P5. But that may not be enough to prove beyond doubt that he was also a party to the plot of procuring loan using forged documents. The evidence of PW5 and Ext.P24 are not enough to prove satisfactorily that it was the 3 rd accused who withdrew amounts from the account of the 4 th accused. Even on accepting the plea of the prosecution in that regard, that would not help to have a finding that the 3 rd accused participated in creating the false documents for the purpose of committing the offence of cheating. Even on accepting the plea of the prosecution in that regard, that would not help to have a finding that the 3 rd accused participated in creating the false documents for the purpose of committing the offence of cheating. The evidence tendered by the prosecution is thus insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the 3 rd accused also is a conspirator and party to creation of those false documents. Therefore, he is entitled to get the benefit of doubt. 21. The result is, conviction of accused Nos.2 and 4 as per the impugned judgment is liable to be confirmed. The 3 rd accused is liable to be acquitted. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for accused Nos.2 and 4 regarding the quantum of punishment are anxiously considered. I am of the view that the order of the sentence is liable to be interfered with. 22. Accordingly, each of accused Nos.2 and 4 is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,50,000/- in default of payment of which, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 120B of the IPC , to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,50,000/- in default of payment of which to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 420 of the IPC . The 2 nd accused is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 471 of the IPC . The period of substantive sentence shall run concurrently. Accused Nos.2 and 4 are entitled to get set-off of the period, if any, they had undergone in connection with this case. In the event of realisation of fine, an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- shall be paid to the Canara Bank under Section 357(1) of the Code. The 3 rd accused is acquitted and set at liberty. The appeals are allowed in part in the above terms.