Judgment RAMASWAMI,, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is brought by special leave from the judg-ment of the Andhra Pradesh High court, dated 23/03/1967 in Criminalappeal Nos. 297, 298, 299 and 300 of 1965 preferred by Respondents 1 to4 whereby the High court allowed the said appeals, set aside the judgmentof the Sessions court and convicted the respondents. ( 2 ) IN the Co-operative central Bank, Srikakulam, accused No. 1satya Rao, and accused No. 2 Prasada Rao were working as clerks whileaccused No. 4 Mohan Rao was a peon. The Co-operative central Bankhas four branches one of which is at Sompeta. The branch office has amanager, a clerk, a shroff and one peon and a night-watcher. Till Septem-ber 30, 1964 Sri V. S. Venkateswarlu was the Branch Manager of the Bankat Sompeta. He went on leave with effect from 1/10/1964. In his placeaccused No. 1 was posted to act as Branch Manager, Sompeta. Accusedno. 1 took charge as Branch Manager with effect from 1/10/1964 fromvenkateswarlu. The case of the prosecution is that while accused No. 1was at the headquarters he came to know that the accused No. 4 was in thehabit of practising signatures of the secretary of the Bank. A conspiracy forcheating the bank was entered into between all the accused. In pursuanceof the conspiracy accused No. 2 had typewritten credit advice card and alsoa letter of authority both staling to the effect that they should be treatedas Demand Draft advice and Demand Draft respectively. To both thesedocuments accused No. 4 forged the signature of the secretary. On Octo-ber 8, 1964 accused No. 4 took the credit advice card to the despatch clerkand said that the Manager wanted that the advice card should be despatchedimmediately and got it despatched the same day to the branch office. Thecredit advice card was received on 10/10/1964 by accused No. 1 himselfwho handed the credit advice to the clerk and asked him to keep the samewith him in spite af the fact that the clerk protested that such advice cardsshould be kept with the Manager himself. On 13/10/1964 accusedno. 1 pretended that he was having motions and was unable to sit up in theoffice and asked the clerk to carry on the business of the branch for him. But accused No. 1 was all the time sitting by the side of the clerk giving himguidance. On 13/10/1964 accusedno. 1 pretended that he was having motions and was unable to sit up in theoffice and asked the clerk to carry on the business of the branch for him. But accused No. 1 was all the time sitting by the side of the clerk giving himguidance. On 14/10/1964 accused No. 1 was still pretending that hewas unwell and asked the clerk to carry on the transactions on his behalf. At 12. 30 p. m. on 14/10/1964 accused No. 2 went to the Sompetabranch office. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 went out for about 15 minutes andcame back at about 1. 45 p. m. Accused No. 3 went to the Bank andpresented to accused No. 1 the letter of authority typewritten on the letter-head with a copy to the central Bank purporting to authorise payment ofra. 15,000. 00 to V. Chandradasu of Mandaaa treating the letter as Demanddraft. The letter purported to bear the signature of the secretary and alsospecimen signatures of the payee Chandradasu. Accused No. 1 gave theletter to the clerk for necessary action. When the clerk protested that noamount will be paid on the letter of authority in the absence of Demanddraft accused No. 1 said that the amount should be paid in any case as thebanks prestige was at stake. The clerk in obedience to the advice of accusedno. I took out the credit advice card and tallied the signature of the Secre-tary and after satisfying himself that the signatures were correct, preparedthe debit slip and after taking endorsement of accused No. 3 made the pay-ment order. The clerk passed on the documents to the shroff who againprotes. ted that the payment could not be made unless the payee was identifiedby a person known to the Bank. Again accused No. 1 interfered and toldthe shroff that to demand identifying witnesses would amount to harassmentof customers and the prestige of the Bank would be lowered. When the shrofffound accused No. 3 was talking familiarly with accused No. 1 he took it thataccused No. 1 must be known to accused No. 3. But as there was nosufficient money in the counter accused No. 1 and the shroff went to the chestand drew Rs. 15,000. 00. When the money was paid to accused No. 3 hetook it and went away without even counting the amount. But as there was nosufficient money in the counter accused No. 1 and the shroff went to the chestand drew Rs. 15,000. 00. When the money was paid to accused No. 3 hetook it and went away without even counting the amount. On 27/10/1964 the secretary verified the accounts of the Bank and of the head officeand found that there was no credit of Rs. 15,000. 00 in favour of Chandradasu. Suspecting foul play the secretary and the Auditor proceeded to Sompetaand made enquiries. After return to Headquarters the secretary made acomplaint to Sub-Inspector of Police, Srikakulam. On the same day thesub-Inspector arrested accused No. 1 and upon his statement recovered asum of Rs. 7,000. 00 (Rs. 3,000. 00 in 100. 00 rupee currency notes and the rest in 10rupee currency notes ). Then accused No. 1 took the police party to thehouse of accused No. 3 who after interrogation produced a sum of Rs. 3,000. 00 (300 ten rupee currency notes ). Accused No. 1 took the police party to thehouse of accused No. 2 who after his arrest produced Rs. 1,930. 00 - 193 tenrupee notes ). Besides, he produced a transistor radio with a licence and onegold necklace staling that he purchased the transistor radio from D. V. Ramanaiah for Rs. 498. 50 and had redeemed the gold necklace from A. Gopala Rao of Vijayanagaram by paying Rs. 200. 00. He further statedthat he paid Rs. 250. 00 to Patnala Satyanarayana, dealer in watches atsrikakulam to get him a "fortis" wrist watch. Accused No. 1 took thepolice party to the house of accused No. 4 in Relli Street at Srikakulam. Accused No. 4 produced Rs. 1,686. 00 (168 ten rupee currency notes andsix one rupee currency notes ). He also produced one gold necklace, a goldchain, a wrist watch and other articles. Accused No. 3 was identified bythe clerk and the shroff of Sompeta in test identification parade held by thejudicial Second Class Magistrate on 11/11/1964 in Srikakulam Sub-Jail. ( 3 ) THE Additional Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, convicted all the fouraccused of the charge under Section 120-B, Indian penal code , and sentenced them toundergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each. Accused No. 2 and 4were also convicted under Section 467,indian penal code, and each of them wassentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. Accused Nos. ( 3 ) THE Additional Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, convicted all the fouraccused of the charge under Section 120-B, Indian penal code , and sentenced them toundergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each. Accused No. 2 and 4were also convicted under Section 467,indian penal code, and each of them wassentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. Accused Nos. 1,2 and 3 were convicted under S. 467 and 471, Indian penal code, and each wassentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. Accused Nos. 1to 4 were further convicted under Section 429, I. P. G. , and each of them wassentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years. Accused No. 3alone was convicted under Section 419, Indian penal code, and was sentenced to undergorigorous imprisonment for two years. Accused No. 1 was found guilty undersection 203) Indian penal code All the accused presented appeals to the Andhra Pradeshhigh court which allowed the appeals and acquitted them of all thecharged. ( 4 ) ON behalf of the appellant it was contended by Mr. Ram Reddythat in reversing the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge the Highcourt has failed to take into account all the important circumstances pointingto the guilt of each of the respondents and as a result the findings of the Highcourt suffered from grave infirmities and there has been a failure of justicein this case. ( 5 ) ON a consideration of the entire evidence the Additional Sessionsjudge found that the following circumstances are established :(1) accused No. 4 was in the habit of practising the signatures of the Secretary and the Manager and other officials of the Bank as spoken to by P. Ws, 7 to 9 ; (2) accused Nos. ( 5 ) ON a consideration of the entire evidence the Additional Sessionsjudge found that the following circumstances are established :(1) accused No. 4 was in the habit of practising the signatures of the Secretary and the Manager and other officials of the Bank as spoken to by P. Ws, 7 to 9 ; (2) accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 were in close contact with one another ; on October 7, 1964 accused No. 2 took a bundle of Advice Cards from P. W. 2 and was later seen typing an Advice Card and a (3) letter of Authority ; (4) accused No. 4 took the Advice Cards and the Letter of Authority to P. W. 7 and told him that the Advice Card addressed to the somepeta Branch was to be despatched immediately ; (5) accused No. 1 received the Advice Card on October 10, 1964 and asked the clerk to keep it in his custody ; (6) accused No. 1, though he was present in the office on October 13 and 14, 1964 pretended to be ill and made the clerk P. W. 1 to attend to the business of the Branch ; (7) accused No. 2 met Accused No. 1 at Somepeta on October 14, 1964 ; (8) accused No. 3 appeared at the Branch Office on October 14, 1964 with a letter of authority and despite the irregularities pointed out by the clerk and shroff accused No. 1 made them pay the amount of Rs. 15,000/- to accused No. 3 ; (9) soon after accused No. 3 left accused No. 1 also left the office throwing the keys on the shroffs table ; (10) on October 27, 1964 P. W. 11 found the documents relating to the payment of Rs. 15,000 missing ; (11) Various accused produced various amounts and articles when interrogated by the police ; (12) Accused No. 3 was identified by P. Ws. 1 and 2 at an identification parade held by the Magistrate, P. W. 15 (13) p. W. 14, the Handwriting Expert gave his opinion that Ex. P-4, the debit slip was in the handwriting of accused No. 3. 1 and 2 at an identification parade held by the Magistrate, P. W. 15 (13) p. W. 14, the Handwriting Expert gave his opinion that Ex. P-4, the debit slip was in the handwriting of accused No. 3. ( 6 ) IN our opinion the Additional Sessions Judge was justified in holdingthat on the basis of all these circumstances the charge of conspiracy undersection 120-B and a charge of cheating under Section 420, Indian penal code wasestablished against all the four respondents and the charge under Section 419,indian penal code against respondent No 3. ( 7 ) IN regard to the question of the etfect and sufficiency of circumstan-tial evidence for the purpose of conviction, it is now settled law that beforeconviction based solely on such evidence can be sustained, it must be such asto be conclusive of the guilt of the accused and must be incapable of explana-tion on any hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the accused. Butthis does not mean that before the prosecution can succeed in a case restingupon circumstantial evidence alone, it must meet any and every hypothesissuggested by the accused, however extravagant and fanciful it might be. Before an accused can contend that a particular hypothesis to his innocencehas remained unexcluded by the facts proved against him, the court must besatisfied that the suggested hypothesis is reasonable and not far-fetched. Further, it is not necessary that every one of the proved facts must in itselfbe decisive of the complicity of the accused or point conclusively to his guilt. It may be that a particular fact relied upon by the prosecution may not bedecisive in itself, and yet if that fact, along with other facts which have beenproved tends to strengthen the coaclusion of his guilt, it is relevant and hasto be considered. In other words, when deciding the question of sufficiency,what the court has to consider is the total cumulative effect of all the provedfacts each one of which reinforces the conclusion of guilt, and if the combinedeffect of all those facts taken together, is conclusive in establishing the guiltof the accused, the conviction would be justified even though it may be thatany one or more of those facts by itself is not decisive. ( 8 ) APPLYING the principle to the present case we are satisfied that thecharges under S. 120-B and 420, Indian penal code, have been established againstall the four respondents and under Section 416, I. P. G. against respondentno. 3. ( 9 ) THE case of respondent No. 1 was that be was not in the Branchoffice and did not attend to the business of the Branch on October 13 and 14,1964. D. Ws. 1 to 4 were examined on his behalf to show that he was notin the Branch office either on the 13th or 14th October. All the witnessessaid that they were in the Branch office for 5 to 10 minutes. It is possiblethat they might not have noticed respondent No. 1 or at that particular timerespondent No. 1 might have gone out. The evidence of these witnesses wasalso discarded by the Trial court on the ground that it was inconclusive. On behalf of respondent No. 3 three witnesses D. Ws. 9, 10 and 11 wereexamined to prove the plea of alibi. The case of respondent No. 3 was thathe was present at the Panchayat court at Kotabommali on 14/10/1964and gave evidence in S. C. Noa. 2 and 3 of 1964. The evidence of D. W. 9does not in any way establish the alibi pleaded by respondent No. 3. Butd. Ws. 10 and 11 stated that respondent No. 1 was present in the Panchayatcourt at Kotabommali on 14/10/1964 for giving evidence. Theevidence of those two witnesses cannot be relied upon because it is admittedthat the father-in-law of respondent No. 3 was the purohit of Kotabommali andwas, therefore, in a position to influence D. Ws. 10 and 11. No reliance canbe placed on the evidence of D. Ws. 10 and 11 for the important reasonthat in the court of the Committing Magistrate respondent No. 3 did not setup the plea of alibi. If the respondent No. 3 was actually present in thepanchayat court on 14/10/1964 it is most unlikely that he would nothave put forward this plea of alibi in the court of the Committing Magistrate. We are, therefore, of opinion that the Additional Sessions Judge rightlyrejected the defence evidence adduced on behalf of the respondents. If the respondent No. 3 was actually present in thepanchayat court on 14/10/1964 it is most unlikely that he would nothave put forward this plea of alibi in the court of the Committing Magistrate. We are, therefore, of opinion that the Additional Sessions Judge rightlyrejected the defence evidence adduced on behalf of the respondents. ( 10 ) IT is well-settled that the extraordinary jurisdiction of this courtunder Article 136 will be exercised by it only when it finds : (a) substantialand grave injustice has been done, and (b) exceptional and special circumstan-ces exist in the case. In our opinion the judgment of the High court in thepresent case is perverse and as we have already shown the guilt of the respon-dents has been established beyond all reasonable doubt and the facts provedagainst them are of such a nature that the only conclusion which any courtwould legitimately reach on those fact is that the offences charged have beencommitted by each one of the respondents. ( 11 ) FOR these reasons we allow these appeals, set aside the judgment ofthe High court and convict all the four respondents under Section 120-B andsentence them to rigorous imprisonment for three years each. We alsoconvict all the respondents under Section 420, I. P. G. and sentence them torigorous imprisonment for four years each and respondent No. 3 undersection 419, Indian penal code, and sentence him to rigorous imprisonment four years. The sentences of imprisonment will run concurrently if the respondents are atlarge action should be taken for the arrest and the surrender of the respon-dents.