JUDGMENT : S. Acharya, J. - The Petitioner stands convicted under Sections 120-B, 468, 471 and 420. Indian Penal Code and on each count he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, and to pay a fine of Rs 2001-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 2 months on each count. The substantive sentences of imprisonment have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that in 1962 the Petitioner was the Supervisor of the Puri Nimapara Central Co-Operative Bank (hereinafter referred to BS the Bank). On 28-8-1962 Panchu Swain, the Sarpanch of the Odasamal Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society (hereinafter referred as the society) withdrew Rs. 9300/- on the basis of several loan applications including that of Braja. Mantri (p.w. 1) in whose name an amount of Rs. 1000/. was drawn. The above named Panchu Swain stood his trial along with the Petitioner and has been convicted of several offences. I am not concerned with his case in this revision filed by the Petitioner separate oases were started against the Petitioner and the above named Panchu Swain for misappropriating Rs. 9360/and for committing different other offences for the above purpose and in connection with the same. Out of those 8 cases G.R. Case No. 397/65/- out of which this revision arises, was started for the offences committed by them in relation to the misappropriation of Re. 1000/-, being the amount, withdrawn from the Bank on the basis of B loan application in the name of Braja Mantri. It is the prosecution case that the loan application in the name of Braja Mantri and the normal credit form and other connected document required for the purpose of withdrawing money from the Bank on the aforesaid loan application were all false and forged documents. It is alleged that the Petitioners entered into a conspiracy along with Panchu Swain and others including the approver (p.w. 4) for withdrawing money from the Bank by fabricating false and forged documents. In pursuance of the said conpiracy he committed certain acts amounting to different offences and thereby cheated the Bank and ultimately misappropriated along with others Re. 1000/- drawn in the name of Braja. Mantri. In 1962 the matter came to light on the inception of the society by the Secretary of the Bank. 3. In pursuance of the said conpiracy he committed certain acts amounting to different offences and thereby cheated the Bank and ultimately misappropriated along with others Re. 1000/- drawn in the name of Braja. Mantri. In 1962 the matter came to light on the inception of the society by the Secretary of the Bank. 3. The Petitioner's plea in the case is that he had appended his certificates and recommendation as per instructions of the Bank Secretary and he knew nothing about the alleged conspiracy or about the withdrawal of the money from the Bank or the disbursement of the same to different persons. He has denied his complicity in falsifying the loan applications, normal credit forms, mortgage bonds etc, and has & alleged that it was Lingaraj Mohapatra & the approver (p.w. 4), who was writing all these documents under the Instruction of the then Bank Secretary. 4. The trial Court convected the Petitioner of offences under Sections 120. B, 468, 471 and 420, Indian Penal Code and the Appellate Court on in elaborate consideration of the evidence on record confirmed the conviction in to Some of the significate and important findings of the Court below which are relevant for the purpose of this revision are stated below: (i) The Petitioner played lion important part in making verifications regarding the loan appellations and the property statements appended to the loan &applications. It was the duty of the Petitioner to properly check the correctness of the property statements and to scrutinise the loan applications and normal credit forms before appending his certificates and recommendations for payment of loans. It was also his duty to prepare the disbursement statements containing the signatures or thumb marks of each individual payee and submit the same to the Bank. (ii) P.w. 1 has categorically asserted that he did not submit any list of properties, nor applied for any lone, nor had be any Indeed property of his own nor any money was given to him on loan by the Society. According to him, p.w. 4 and another person obtained his signatures in various forms and documents at the Chaulia Math & and at the registration office on false pretexts & and without letting him know that his signatures in the said documents and forms were taken in order to withdraw money from the Bank towards loan in his name. According to him, p.w. 4 and another person obtained his signatures in various forms and documents at the Chaulia Math & and at the registration office on false pretexts & and without letting him know that his signatures in the said documents and forms were taken in order to withdraw money from the Bank towards loan in his name. (iii) The signatures in the said documents were obtained with a view to defraud the Bank by or eating documents to the effect that p.w. 1 applied for the loan. (iv) in village Odasamal there was no such plot as plot numbers 814, 815 and 816 purported to have been mortgaged on the loan amount drawn in the name of p.w. 1. (v) The properties mentioned in the aforesaid documents were all imaginary properties and as such on false property statements the Petitioner, as Super visor of the Bank, falsely appended his verification certificate and recommendations to the loan application of Braja Mantri. P.w. 4 has stated that he mentioned the plot numbers in the normal credit forms as desired by the Petitioner though the plot numbers mentioned therein were actually not in existence. (vi) The plea of the Petitioner that at the direction of p.w. 10 he simply appended his certificates and recommendations is not acceptable. (vii) The Petitioner was present at the registration office when the mortgage bonds in connection with the aforesaid loan were registered, from which it is evident that the Petitioner always took active part in seeing that the loan was sanctioned and paid on the basis of the false loan application and other connected documents and imaginary property statements contained therein. (viii) The Petitioner with p.w. 4 and his co-accused Panchu Swain entered into a conspiracy to commit fraud on the Bank and cheated the Bank by dishonestly inducing the Bank authorities to deliver Rs. 9300/-, including the loan amount of Rs. 1000/- drawn in the name of Braja Mantri on false loan applications, normal credit forms, mortgage bonds and other such connected documents including faked resolution of the Society. The Petitioner need the aforesaid forged documents as genuine knowing fully well that they were all forged documents, and in doing 80 he bad the dishonest intention of making wrongful gain to himself and the above named persons with whom be entered into the said conspiracy. The Petitioner need the aforesaid forged documents as genuine knowing fully well that they were all forged documents, and in doing 80 he bad the dishonest intention of making wrongful gain to himself and the above named persons with whom be entered into the said conspiracy. In arriving at the aforesaid finding the Court below has taken note of the evidence of the approver (p.w. 4) to the effect that in February, 1962, the approver, the Petitioner, his co-accused Panchu Swain and one Kulamoni Misra and another Ram Krishna Mohapatra settled amongst themselves in the temple of Lord Jagannath that they would, through Odasmall and Jagannathpur Co-Operative Societies, withdraw money from the Bank by presenting false applications with false property statements, and divide the same amongst themselves. In pursuance of such conspiracy, the approver scribed the loan applications, normal credit forms and, other necessary documents and obtained the signatures of Braja Mantri on those documents wherever necessary, on the false representation that he would be given his salary for working in the Jatra party after with drawing money from the Bank. False property statements were inserted in the normal credit form and the loan applications, and the Petitioner as Supervisor of the aforesaid Bank falsely appended the necessary certificates and recommendations to the said loan applications. The Petitioner has signed the disbursement statements of the society (Exhibit 3) showing therein that the money drawn in the name of Braja Mantri was paid to him though in fact p.w. 1 neither applied for the loan nor he was paid any amount as loan by the Society. (X) There was no Panchayat meeting recommending the loans to Braja Mantri and others. (XI) Panchu Swain (the co-accused of the Petitioner in the trial Court) received Rs. 9300/- (including Rs. 1000/ in the name of Braja Mantri) from the bank on the aforesaid false loan applications and documents certified and recommended by the Petitioner and the said amount was handed over to the Petitioner and subsequently it was divided amongst the Petitioner, p.w. 4, Panchu Swain and two others. On the above and other ancillary findings, the Court below upheld the conviction of the Petitioner on the above mentioned counts and dismissed the appeal in toto. 5. Mr. Jagadev Ray, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, contended that the Petitioner was seriously prejudiced as the charge framed against him is vague and indefinite. On the above and other ancillary findings, the Court below upheld the conviction of the Petitioner on the above mentioned counts and dismissed the appeal in toto. 5. Mr. Jagadev Ray, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, contended that the Petitioner was seriously prejudiced as the charge framed against him is vague and indefinite. In this connection he urged that as the charge did not specify the instances of cheating or the manner of the same, the Petitioner was seriously prejudiced in his defence. This fact was not agitated earlier at any stage, nor was it taken up in the grounds of revision filed in this Court. The question of prejudice can be ascertained only on a proper appreciation of the evidence and materials on record. So if really the accused was prejudiced by any defect in the charge framed against him, he should have agitated this question in the Courts of fact below, where on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record and the facts and circumstances of this case the matter could have been examined in the proper perspective. From the impugned judgment Mr. Ray has not been able to show anything convincing to substantiate the above show of prejudice. The Petitioner was defended by two lawyers in the trial Court. The case was committed to the Court of session after the examination of some witnesses in that Court in the presence of the accused. In the trial Court as many as 21 witnesses were examined for the prosecution in the presence of the Petitioner and his lawyers. Two witnesses were examined on behalf of the defence. A large number of documents were exhibited both on behalf of the prosecution and the defence. The witnesses have all been cross-examined at length and the case proceeded for quite a few days. The particulars and details of the charge were an on the record and sufficiently indicated to the accused at the hearing of the case. There is absolutely no indication in the judgment of the trial Court that the lawyers appearing for the Petitioner raised the above question in any form. It is well settled that trial of a case is not vitiated merely because the charge does not specify the instances of cheating or the manner thereof. There is absolutely no indication in the judgment of the trial Court that the lawyers appearing for the Petitioner raised the above question in any form. It is well settled that trial of a case is not vitiated merely because the charge does not specify the instances of cheating or the manner thereof. Vagueness of the charge is only an irregularity which does not vitiate the trial unless the accused ismaterially prejudiced there by. K. Damodaran Vs. The State of Travancore-Cochin, Sunil Kumar Paul v. State of West Bengal AIR 1965 S.C. 706 . The facts that this point was not agitated at any earlier stage and no grievance of the same is made in the grounds taken in this revision, show that the Petitioner has not really been prejudiced, and this point was agitated merely as a matter of course without making out a formidable basis for the same. There is therefore no force in the above contention. 6. It has been contended by Mr. Roy that the charge of conspiracy has not been proved against the Petitioner as his conviction on this count is solely based on the, evidence of the approver which has not been properly corroborated in all material particulars. This contention is without any weight and substance. There can be a legal conviction upon the uncorroborated evidence of an approver if believed to be true. But it 18 the settled rule of practice which has assumed the force of a rule of law, that the Courts ordinarily should not base the conviction of an accused on the sole testimony of an approver unless it is corroborated in material particulars by other independent evidence. But that does not mean that the corroboration should consist of evidence which is sufficient by itself to sustain the conviction. In the case of Piara Singh Vs. The State of Punjab, it has been held: It would not, however, be right to expect that such independent corroboration should over the whole of the prosecution case or even all the material particulars of the prosecution case. If such a view is adopted it will render the evidence of the accomplice wholly superfluous. The State of Punjab, it has been held: It would not, however, be right to expect that such independent corroboration should over the whole of the prosecution case or even all the material particulars of the prosecution case. If such a view is adopted it will render the evidence of the accomplice wholly superfluous. On the other hand it will not be safe to act upon such evidence merely because it is corroborated in minor particulars or Incidental details because, in such a case, corroboration does not afford the necessary assurance that the main story disclosed by the approver can be reasonably and safely accepted as true. It is well settled that the appreciation of approver's evidence has to satisfy a double test. His evidence must show that he is a reliable witness and that is a test which is common to all witnesses. If this test is satisfied the second test which still remains to be applied is that the approver's evidence must receive sufficient corroboration. Sarwan Singh Vs. The State of Punjab, relied on. The dictum laid down in Haroon Haji Abdulla Vs. State of Maharashtra, may also be seen. 7. In the present case the approver's evidence is corroborated by the following evidence and materials on record. P.w. 1 states that his signature was obtained on blank forms assuring him that he would get his salary for working in the Jatra Party He has further stated that he never applied for any loan nor had he any landed property in the basis of which he could apply for any such loan. His evidence to the above effect materially corroborates the statement of the approver (p.w. 4) that in February, 1962 it was settled amongst himself, accused Jagannath Ray, accused Panchu swain and others that they would misappropriate some amount through the Odasmal and Jagannathpur Societies by withdrawing money from the Bank by presenting false loan applications with false property statements in the name of real and fictitious persons. According to him, false documents were prepared in the name of Braja Mantri, and the money which was withdrawn from the Bank on such documents, was shared by him, the Petitioner and other persons. Moreover, p.w. 12, the Record Room Clerk of the Pori Collectorate, proves the non-existence of the properties mentioned in Ext. 19 purporting to be the properties of p.w. 1. P.ws. Moreover, p.w. 12, the Record Room Clerk of the Pori Collectorate, proves the non-existence of the properties mentioned in Ext. 19 purporting to be the properties of p.w. 1. P.ws. 2 and 8 corroborate the approver's statement that he along with the Petitioner and another person were in control of the Jatra party and p.w. 1 was serving in that party. P.w. 6 states that the Petitioner was present in the registration office when the mortgage bond was being registered in connection with the loan drawn in the name of Braja Mantri. P.w. 14 corroborates the evidence of p.w. 4 that p.w.14 scribed the mortgage bond (Exhibit 4/5) of Braja Mantri. P.ws. 3 and 7, two members of the society, corroborate the evidence of p.w. 4 to the effect that no Panchyati meeting was held for the purpose of recommending the loan application in the name of Braja Mantri and others. The evidence of p.ws. 2, 5 and 6 that p.w. 4 and the Petitioner obtained their signatures on several forms on false pretexts is admissible in evidence under Sections 8 and 15 of the Evidence Act and corroborates the evidence of p.w. 4 to that effect. The admitted certificates and recommendation given by the Petitioner in connection with and in support of the loan applications furnish convincing corroboration to the approver's evidence. The confessional statement of the co-accused (Ext. 37), which can be taken into consideration u/s 30 of the Evidence Act also corroborates the statement of the approver. Thus the approver's evidence is corroborated on various material particulars. There Is therefore no weight and/or substance in the above mentioned contention of Mr. Ray. 8. The approver, in connection with the offence of criminal conspiracy in this case, states that in February, 1962 he himself, the Petitioner, the above mentioned Panchu Swain and two others assembled at the temple of Lord Jagannath and there they decided to cheat the Bank to the extent of Rs. 30, 000/-, and pledged their oath to keep the matter a secret. Subsequently in the Chaulia Math they, in furtherance of their aforesaid conspiracy, deviled plans as to how they would submit raise loan applications with false property statements to obtain money from the Bank. The evidence of the approver to the above effect has received sufficient corroboration. 30, 000/-, and pledged their oath to keep the matter a secret. Subsequently in the Chaulia Math they, in furtherance of their aforesaid conspiracy, deviled plans as to how they would submit raise loan applications with false property statements to obtain money from the Bank. The evidence of the approver to the above effect has received sufficient corroboration. A conspiracy of this nature is mostly hatched in secrecy and so in most cases it becomes extremely difficult to get direct evidence of such conspiracy, and in some such oases, direct evidence of such conspiracy may not at all be available. An agreement, which Is the essence of conspiracy, can be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence and can be inferred from acts and conduct of parties. Even act done by one will be admissible against a co-conspirator u/s 10 of the Evidence Act as the act so done is a relevant fact "as against each of the persons believed to be so conspiring, as well as for the purpose of proving existence of conspiracy and for showing that any such person was a party to it." (The scope of the provisions of Section 10 of the Evidence Act, As elucidated in the decision reported in Aburu Kondayya and Ors. v. Singraju Ramarao and Ors. AIR 1965 S.C. 681 may be seen). In the above view of the matter, the making of false entries in various forms by p.w. 4, his getting the signatures of p.w. 1 on false pretexts, and the fact that Panchu Swain signed various false documents in order to get money from the Bank, on the aforesaid loan application of p.w. 1 are relevant facts which may be taken into consideration against the Petitioner. The evidence of p.w. 6 show's that this accused was present when the mortgage bond relating to the loan application of Braja Mantri was registered. On the above mentioned acts of p.w. 4, and Panchu. Swain, which are properly borne out on the evidence on record, and on the Petitioner's act of falsely certifying and recommending the relevant property statements attached to the loan application on alleged verification, and on the other facts stated, above the charge u/s 120-B Indian Penal Code against the Petitioner is clearly established. The confession of the co-accused lends assurance to the above conclusion. The confession of the co-accused lends assurance to the above conclusion. Both the Courts below, on a cogent and convincing consideration of the evidence of record in the proper perspective, have arrived at the concurrent finding that the offence u/s 120-B Indian Penal Code is established against the Petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. I am satisfied that the said finding is perfectly correct and justified. 9. It was next contended by Mr. Ray that on the evidence on record it was not established that the Petitioner dishonestly induced the Bank to part with the money in question. According to him, on the evidence on record it can at best be said that the Petitioner acted in a negligent manner in discharging his official duty, in which case his conviction u/s 420, Indian Penal Code cannot be maintained. Intention, whether dishonest or not, can be gathered from the facts and the surrounding circumstances of the case. In this case the Petitioner was the supervisor in the Bank on whom, for obvious reasons, lot of confidence was reposed by the Bank. P.w. 10 the Secretary of the Bank at the relevant time, has deposed to the fact that a Supervisor of the Bank is required to verify the property statements in the loan applications with reference to proper documents, and has to append his certificate of correctness in the normal credit forms only on due verification. He is also required to recommend the loan applications processed through the Society and has to fill up the different forms showing the financial condition of the person applying for the loan. It if quite clear from his evidence that the Petitioner had an important assignment in the Bank, for on his verified statements certificates and recommendations as aforesaid, the loan applications are entertained in the Bank, and money is granted and disbursed on the strength of the same. As such an important responsibility devolved on the Petitioner and the Bank reposed as much of confidence on him, it was expected of him to have acted in an honest manner and to give correct certificates and recommendations to the loan applications. In granting loans, the Bank had to depend on the certificates and recommendations of some person or persons employed for the purpose of verifying the correctness of the statements made in the loan applications and other connected documents. In granting loans, the Bank had to depend on the certificates and recommendations of some person or persons employed for the purpose of verifying the correctness of the statements made in the loan applications and other connected documents. The Bank therefore had no other way but to accept as correct the certificates and recommendations appended by the Petitioner to the loan applications. As grant of loan and disbursement of money were directly dependent on the correctness of certificates and recommendations of the Petitioner, any false statement made therein to the knowledge of the Petitioner would certainly amount to deception within the meaning of Section 415, Indian Penal Code. In this case it is well established on the evidence on record that the Petitioner consciously appended false certificates to the property statements made in the loan application, and falsely recommended the same knowing fully well that the loan applications and the forms and papers connected with it were all false documents. Only because of these false certificates and recommendations in those documents the Bank authorities granted the loan and paid the money. So the Petitioner by deceiving the Bank in the manner aforesaid dishonestly induced it to deliver the money on the said loan application, which certainly it would not have done in the absence of such false certificates and recommendations. On the above facts, the charge against the Petitioner u/s 420, Indian Penal Code is clearly made out, and accordingly, his conviction for the aforesaid offence is well founded. 10. It was next urged by Mr. Roy that as the Petitioner did not himself forge any of the relevant documents, he could not be held guilty for the offence u/s 471, Indian Penal Code. This contention is absolutely incorrect. In order to punish a person u/s 471, Indian Penal Code it is not necessary that he himself should have made and/or created the said false document. The maker of a false document within the meaning of Sections 463 and 464, Indian Penal Code is to be punished u/s 465, Indian Penal Code, whereas one who fraudulently or dishonestly uses a forged document as genuine knowing or having reason to believe that the said document Is a forged one is to be punished u/s 471, Indian Penal Code. On the evidence on record and on the findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below, there is absolutely no doubt that the Petitioner knew that the documents on which the loan was applied in the name of Braja Mantri were all forged documents. Knowing them to be forged the Petitioner therein appended his certificates and recommendations stating falsely that he verified the statements made in these documents. By appending the aforesaid certificates and recommendations to the said false documents he passed them on to the Bank, with the express intention that the Bank would make payment of the amount mentioned therein. The Bank acting on the basis of the said certificates and recommendations actually paid the amount, and the Petitioner, as presumably arranged, got a share out of that money so received from the Bank. Accordingly, there is no doubt that he fraudulently or dishonestly used these forged documents, as genuine knowing fully well that the said documents were forged document, and so his conviction u/s 471, Indian Penal Code is also well founded. 11. The conviction of the Petitioner u/s 468, Indian Penal Code cannot be maintained, for he, on the evidence on record cannot be said to have committed, forgery within the meaning of Section 463, Indian Penal Code. The documents is question were signed by Braja Mantri. The relevant entries in the said documents were made by the approver, p.w. 4. as admitted by him. It transpires from the evidence of p.w. 1 Braja Mantri that be signed these documents at the instance of p.w. 4, the approver and one Rameshankar. He also stated that he did not have any talk with the Petitioner in connection with this matter. That being the evidence on record the Petitioner cannot be held responsible for making any false document within the meaning of Section 464, Indian Penal Code, and hence be cannot be said to have committed forgery within the meaning of Section 463, Indian Penal Code. Accordingly be can not be held guilty for an offence u/s 468 Indian Penal Code. Mr. Patnaik, the learned Counsel for the State, fairly and rightly conceded that he cannot support the conviction of the Petitioner u/s 463, Indian Penal Code. In view of the above, the conviction of the Petitioner under Section, 468, Indian Penal Code is liable to be set aside. 12. Mr. Mr. Patnaik, the learned Counsel for the State, fairly and rightly conceded that he cannot support the conviction of the Petitioner u/s 463, Indian Penal Code. In view of the above, the conviction of the Petitioner under Section, 468, Indian Penal Code is liable to be set aside. 12. Mr. Ray, in the elaborate argument addressed by him, unsucessfully attempted to challenge certain findings of fact merely on the ground of misappreciation of the evidence on record. The concurrent findings of fact have been arrived at on cogent and convincing consideration of the relevant and material evidence on record and nothing patently erroneous or manifestly perverse has been shown on which such concurrent findings of fact be inter ferred with in this revision. 13. On a perusal of the impugned judgment and that of the trial Court and on hearing the counsel of both parties I am satisfied that the offences under Sections 120-B, 420 and 471, Indian Penal Code have been established against the Petitioner beyond reasonable doubt, Accordingly the conviction and sentences passed on these counts are upheld. The substantive sentences of imprisonment are, of course, to run concurrently. For reasons stated above, his conviction u/s 468, Indian Penal Code and the sentences passed there under are hereby set aside. 14. In the result, therefore, the revision is partly allowed as stated above.