JUDGMENT 1. - As all the three above cases arise out of a common judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge Jaipur City, dated 4th November, 1972, in Sessions Case No. 29/71 we are also disposing of all the above cases by one common judgment. 2. Gurbachan Singh, Mohanjit Singh, Dharam Dev Agarwal and Ramesh Chandra were tried for offences under Section 120-B and 420 IPC. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted accused Ramesh Chandra. He convicted and sentenced the other three accused persons in the following manner : 1. Gurbachan Singh - u/s 120-B/420 & 420 IPC, sentenced to imprisonment till rising of the court and a fine of Rs. 2,500/- on each count and in default of payment of fine one year's rigorous imprisonment on each count. 2. Mohanjit Singh- u/s 120-B & 420 IPC, sentenced to imprisonment till rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- on each count, in default of payment of fine six months rigorous imprisonment on each count. 3. Dharam Dev Agarwal- u/s 120-B & 420 IPC-sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment on each count and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- on each count and n default of payment of fine further rigorours imprisonment for six months on tach count. 3. Criminal Revision No 127/1973- by State of Rajasthan has been filed against accused Gurbachan Singh and Mohanjit Singh for the enhancement of the sentences. Criminal Appeal No. 735/1972 has been filed by accused Dharam Dev Agarwal against his convictions and sentences and Criminal Appeal No. 788/1972 as been filed by Gurbachan Singh and Mohanjit Singh against their convictions and sentences passed by the trial Court. 4. Shortly stated the prosecution case is that Gurbachan Singh was the proprietor and his son Mohanjit Singh was the manager of Messrs. Gandhi Industries which was dealing in wool and woollen felts and had its branch office at Jaipur. Accused Dharam Dev Agarwal was the godown-keeper in the State Bank of India, Jaipur from 17th October, 1959 to 4th November, 1961 and accused Ramesh Chandra, who took charge from Dharam Dev Agarwal remained as Godown-keeper upto 5th December, 1962. At the request of Messrs. Gandhi Industries the State Bank of India, Jaipur Branch initially granted a cash credit limit of Rs. 10,000/- upon the security of the goods pledged on 17th October, 1959. At the request of Messrs. Gandhi Industries the State Bank of India, Jaipur Branch initially granted a cash credit limit of Rs. 10,000/- upon the security of the goods pledged on 17th October, 1959. This cash credit limit was increased from time to time and was Rs. 1,80,000/- on 5th February, 1962. According to the agreement between Gandhi Industries and the Bank, the limit of advances under this cash credit account was not to exceed 60 percent of the value of the goods so pledged. The case of the prosecution is that accused Gurbachan Singh and Mohanjit Singh entered into a criminal conspiracy with the other two accused persons who were godown-keepers of the Bank between 17th October, 1959 and 5th December, 1962 to commit or cause to be committed the offences a of cheating by inducing the bank on false and fraudulent representation of facts to grant or advance withdrawals of more amounts than amounts which Messrs. Gandhi I Industries had otherwise been eligible, if the Bank had not been so cheated by falsely exaggerating the quantum of goods i. e. pledging goods in less quantity than quantity as mentioned in the pledged letters and over-valuing the goods i.e. by mentioning different and inferior quality of goods of less value than mentioned in the pledged letters. Both the Godown keepers also made entries of false quantity and less value of wool and woollen felts in the stock ledgers and godown inspection registers and issued wrong certificates, certifying the correctness of the quantity, quality and description of value of the wool and woollen felts. The bank was thui cheated to the tune of Rs. 1,45,774.47 paise. In December, 1962, the Bank found that the stocks of Messrs. Gandhi Industries had accumulated and their pledged stocks were not moving. On a detailed inspection conducted by the branch authorities, a huge shortage both of wool and woollen felts was detected by the bank authorities. The Chief Development Officer, State Bank of India, New Delhi, lodged first information report in writing on 23rd June, 1964 with Special Police Establishment, New Delhi. The police registered a case and after thorough investigation filed challan against the accused persons under section 120-B/420 and 420 IPC. The Magistrate committed the case for trial to the court of Sessions Judge, Jaipur City from where it was transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City. The police registered a case and after thorough investigation filed challan against the accused persons under section 120-B/420 and 420 IPC. The Magistrate committed the case for trial to the court of Sessions Judge, Jaipur City from where it was transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City. The charges were re-framed and were read over and explained to the accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution in support of the case examined 36 witnesses and also tendered in evidence the statements of the accused recorded in the committing court. The accused persons were examined under Section 342 Cr.P.C. and they examined one witness DW. 1, C.V. Raghvan in support of the defence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after thoroughly considering the oral and documentary evidence held that the prosecution had established the fraudulent representation by the accused persons in showing exaggerated quantum of goods. As regards the case of the prosecution that the goods pledged were over-valued, the learned Additional Sessions Judge decided in the negative and found this fact as having not proved by the prosecution. The learned trial Court than examined the liability of each one of the accused person. As regards accused Ramesh Chandra the learned trial Court found that there was nothing on record to show that Ramesh Chandra physically verified the stock of godown of Messrs. Gandhi Industries. The submission made by accused Ramesh Chandra that he took charge of godown in good faith without actually verifying appears to be possible. According to the trial Court whatever conspiracy and cheating took place, it appeared to have been done before 4th November 1961 when Ramesh Chandra took charge. Thus, it was held that offence of conspiracy and cheating was not proved to the hilt against accused Ramesh Chandra and acquitted him of the charges levelled against him. As regards, the other three accused persons, the learned trial Court found the charges proved and as such convicted and sentenced the accused appellant in the manner indicated above. 6. Heard Mr. P.N. Mathur on behalf of Gurbachan Singh and Mohanjit Singh and Mr. J.K. Mathur on behalf of Dharam Dev Agarwal and Mr. D.K. Soral on behalf of the State of Rajasthan. 7. 6. Heard Mr. P.N. Mathur on behalf of Gurbachan Singh and Mohanjit Singh and Mr. J.K. Mathur on behalf of Dharam Dev Agarwal and Mr. D.K. Soral on behalf of the State of Rajasthan. 7. Before dealing with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties it would be appropriate to mention a few details of the case which are almost admitted. Messrs. Gandhi Industries applied for opening a cash credit account and granting of loan from State Bank of India, Jaipur vide Ex. P1, which is admittedly signed by accused Gurbachan Singh. In furtherance of Ex. P1. agreement for cash credit account on security of pledge of goods were executed by Messrs. Gandhi Industries vide Exs. P2 to P7. The borrowing limits were increased from time to time and ultimately it was raised to Rs. 1,80,000/- vide Ex. P9 dated 6th February, 1962. According to the agreement, the Bank was to advance 60 per cent of money to the extent of the value of goods pledged. Messrs. Gandhi Industries pledged goods i.e. wool and woollen felts through various pledge letters signed by Gurbachan Singh and Mohanjit Singh. There is no dispute about the signing of these pledge letters by the aforesaid two accused persons. There pledge letters mention the quantity, rate and value of the goods pledged. After the receipt of this pledge letters and goods, the Godown-keeper used to issue certificates mentioning therein that they had taken possession of the stocks and weight and contents had been checked and verified them to be correct. The godown keepers further worked out 60 per cent of the value of the goods for which Messrs. Gandhi Industries were entitled to get advances. The godown-keeper also made entries in respect of the godown in registers wherein particulars of pledge letters, quantity and other details were mentioned. When goods were delivered back to Messrs. Gandhi Industries on their request, particulars were also noted therein. On the basis of cash credit account Messrs. Gandhi Industries used to draw money by cheques, Exs. P. 52 to P. 181 and Ex P. 182 and P 347 are such cheques by which the money had been drawn by Messrs. Gandhiji Industries. On 1st December, 1962 there was debit balance of Rs. 1,73,455-47 p. in the account of Messrs. Gandhi Industries. Gandhi Industries used to draw money by cheques, Exs. P. 52 to P. 181 and Ex P. 182 and P 347 are such cheques by which the money had been drawn by Messrs. Gandhiji Industries. On 1st December, 1962 there was debit balance of Rs. 1,73,455-47 p. in the account of Messrs. Gandhi Industries. On physical verification of the entire goods, it was revealed that the total value of the stock of wool and woollen felts was only Rs. 46,136.12 paise. Messrs. Gandhi Industries was only entitled to borrow an amount to the extent of 60 per cent of the above value of Rs. 46, 136.12 p. while in fact it had borrowed an amount of Rs. 1,73,455-47 p. The entire goods pledged were kept in godown Nos. 27, 28, 29 and 94. The godowns were situated in the premises of Messrs. Gandhi Industries. The physical verification of the godowns was conducted by PW. 1 M.C. Taneja and PW 3 T.D. Chawla, Agents of the State Bank of India and at that time accused Gurbachan Singh, Mohanjit Singh and Ramesh Chandra were also present besides other bank officials. Ex.P. 348 and P. 349 are inventories as a result of physical verification of goods as found in the godowns of Messrs. Gandhi Industries. Both the aforesaid inventories contained the signature of accused Gurbachan Singh made in the presence of PW 3 Shri Chawla. All the wool and woollen felts were taken out from the aforesaid godowns and were measured and weighed. The entries were made in registers Ex.P. 33, P. 34/35, P. 36 and P. 37. All these registers also bear signature of accused Gurbachan Singh. On the basis of physical verification of all the godowns the total quantity of wool that was found as per Ex. P. 348 and P. 349 comes to 288 Mds. 14 Seers. The total quantity of woollen felts found in the godown came to 3776 Yds. According to the stock register Ex. P. 30, which was in continuation of earlier registers Ex. P. 27, P28 and P. 29 the balance of the goods on the basis of pledge letters and delivery orders ought to have been 554 Mds. and 20 Seers of wool valued Rs. 94,165/- and woollen felts as 5572 Yds. valued at Rs. 1,95,020/-. Thus, there was a shortage of 272 Mds. 6 seers in wool and 1707 Yds in felts. and 20 Seers of wool valued Rs. 94,165/- and woollen felts as 5572 Yds. valued at Rs. 1,95,020/-. Thus, there was a shortage of 272 Mds. 6 seers in wool and 1707 Yds in felts. In order to square up the shortage found at the time of physical verification, Shri Gurbachan Singh executed Ex. P. 24 a delivery order and further in Ex. P. 355 dated 19th January, 1963 it was stated that shortage would soon be made. Thus, it remained undisputed that at the time of physical verification there was shortage of stocks in godowns to the extent of 272 Mds. 6 Seers in wool and 1707 Yds in woollen felts. It is also undisputed that the godowns were situated in the premises of Messrs. Gandhi Industries. It is admitted that the goods used to be given to Messrs. Gandhi Industries against delivery orders and person receiving goods used to sign by way of acknowledgement. In the face of these admitted facts we shall now examine the respective contentions raised by learned counsel for accused persons. 8. Mr. P.N. Mathur, learned counsel for Gurbachan Singh and Mohanjit Singh, contended that pledged goods were kept in the exclusive possession of the bank and under its control in such a manner that the goods could not be taken out unless it was open by a key which remained in the possession of the Agent of the Bank. The lock and key was of the bank and key movement register was also maintained by the Bank. The key movement register has not been produced by the prosecution and adverse inference on this account should be drawn against the Bank. In accordance with clause 15 of the agreement with the Bank in Ex. P. 2 to P. 7 there was no responsibility on the bank in respect of loss of quantity of the pledged gods. This condition in the agreement was based on the coercive law of bailment given under Sections 151 and 152 of the Contract Act. However, this clause 15 of the contract was still more coercive as it exonerated the bank of its duty to take as much rare of the pledged goods as a man of ordinary prudence will take of his own goods. However, this clause 15 of the contract was still more coercive as it exonerated the bank of its duty to take as much rare of the pledged goods as a man of ordinary prudence will take of his own goods. According to the learned counsel, it was a contract to the contrary to the provisions of responsibility laid on a bailee under section 151 of the Contract Act. By keeping this clause in the agreement, the bailor or pledger alone was liable for the loss of the pledged goods caused by any reason. It is thus contended that in the face of the aforesaid clause in the agreement, it was a matter of civil liability alone and the bank could have filed a suit for the recovery of the amount and there was no question of any criminal liability on the accused-appellants. It was further submitted that the pledges were made by presenting pledge letters in which the quantum and value of the goods pledged was clearly mentioned and the correctness of such entries were certified by the godown keeper and head-cashier. Sub-Accountant and the Agent. The entries were then made in godown inspection register, stock register and ledger after the pledge had been accepted by the bank. Keys of the godown were kept by the Agent and a key movement register was maintained regarding the date, time and the person to whom the key was given and the purpose for which it was given and the time when it was returned. The accused persons could have drawn the pledged goods only by delivery orders. On depositing of cash or pledging the goods with the bank of equivalent value. It is contended that right from 1959 upto November, 1962, there was no shortage found in the stocks and it was in the time of Shri K.D. Chawla when he joined as Agent of Jaipur Branch of State Bank of India, the locks must have been broken and the goods stolen away out of the godowns. It was also argued that no adverse inference should be drawn from Ex. It was also argued that no adverse inference should be drawn from Ex. P24 by which accused Gurbachan Singh had admitted the shortage and placed a delivery order to meet the shortage in the goods and to regularise the cash credit account, Gurbachan Singh had done this as under clause 15 of the terms and agreement, he was bound to make up the loss in quantity and quality of the pledged goods irrespective of the negligence of bank employees. It is also pointed out that that in order to show the willingness to regularise the account, 14 Mds. of wool of the value of Rs. 12,000/- was deposited by the accused appellant soon after the shortage was detected. It was also argued that the Bank vide their letter Ex. P. 352 dated 15th August, 1963 intimated to the accused persons the wool stock of Rs. 11,607/- only and that of woollen felts of Rs. 36,438/- vide letter Ex. P351 dated 26th July, 1953. The accused persons sent protest letters that the offers of the pledged goods were very low and the felts were manufactured for the defence department whose orders were in hand and as such orders could be carried out only with the assistance of the Bank. However, the Bank sold the goods under a very low value and realised Rs. 2,500/- for wool against their own offer of Rs. 11,807/- and sold the felts, for Rs. 32,167/- against the offer of Rs. 36,438/-. The Bank thus sold the goods at a throw away prices and in these circumstances the Bank had a civil remedy only to file a suit for the balance due. The accused in that case would make a counter claim for the loss of pilferage of the goods from the banks custody. It was also submitted that though the shortage was detected on 4/5th of Dec., 1962, but the F.I.R. was lodged after a long delay on 23rd June, 1964. There is no explanation for this extra-ordinary delay. Reliance in this regard is placed on Theulia Kai v. The State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1973 SC. 501 and Pitamber v. the State, 1979 Cr.L.R (Raj) 40 . 9. It was also contended that there was no documentary or oral evidence to prove that the accused persons made any mis-representation or gave exaggerated quantum of the goods offered for pledge. 501 and Pitamber v. the State, 1979 Cr.L.R (Raj) 40 . 9. It was also contended that there was no documentary or oral evidence to prove that the accused persons made any mis-representation or gave exaggerated quantum of the goods offered for pledge. On the contrary the contents of each one of the pledge letters bears the certification of the bank godown keeper and other officers of the Bink. None of Agent of the Bank have said a single word about any alleged exaggerated quantum or value or any mis-representation made by the accused-appellants. It is submitted that the whole case is based on circumstantial evidence and it is well settled that where conclusion of guilt is to be drawn of circumstantial evidence alone than such inference should be consistent only with hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and should exclude every hypothesis other than guilt. Reliance is placed on Govinda Reddy v. State of Mysore, AIR 1960 SC 29 and Jaswant Singh v. The State, AIR 1966 I Rajasthan 83. It is also argued that the conduct of the accused has no relevance as a criminal trial is not an inquiry into the conduct of an accused for any purpose other than to determine that he is guilty of the offences charged or not. In this connection basis of conduct can be held to be incriminatory which has no reasonable explanation except on the hypothesis that he is guilty. Conduct which destroys the presumption of innocence can be considered as material. Reliance in this regard is placed on Anant Chintaman Lagu v. The State of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 500 . As regards cheating it is contended that, has not been established that the accused persons had any dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. No dishonest intention can be inferred from the mere fact that the accused persons subsequently could not fulfil the premises. If a complaint arises out of contractual obligations, then no offence of cheating is made out. Reliance is placed on The State of Kerala v. A. Pareed Pillai and another, AIR 1973 SC 326 and Hari Parasad Chamaria v. Bishnu Kumar Surekha and others, AIR 1974 SC 301 . It is also contended there was no evidence of conspiracy between the accused appellant and Dharam Dev Agarwal. As regards Ex. Reliance is placed on The State of Kerala v. A. Pareed Pillai and another, AIR 1973 SC 326 and Hari Parasad Chamaria v. Bishnu Kumar Surekha and others, AIR 1974 SC 301 . It is also contended there was no evidence of conspiracy between the accused appellant and Dharam Dev Agarwal. As regards Ex. P211 the cheque of Rs. 600/-, the accused appellants had given an explanation that the men, who went with the cheque was an illiterate person as such it was given in the name of Dharamdev Agarwal. There was no reason for the trial Court to discard the aforesaid explanation. Reliance is placed on Aher Raja Khima v. The State of Saurashtra, AIR 1956 SC 217 and Rameshwar Daga v. The State of West Bengal, AIR 1956 Calcutta 38 . 10. On the other hand Mr. Soral, learned counsel for the State, contended that shortage in the goods is admitted case of the accused themselves. The goods could not be taken out of the godowns without the knowledge and consent of the accused persons. No complaint was ever lodged by Gurbachan Singe or the godown keeper about any theft in the godowns. Thus, it was a clear case of fraud committed by the accused persons by putting lesser quantity of goods and showing higher value and to borrow amounts from the bank for which the accused persons would not have been entitled otherwise. Even at the time of executing Ex. P. 24 no grievance was raised by Gurbachan Singh that the shortage in the goods was on account of any theft. Long time thereafter vide Ex.P. 355 dated 19th January, 1963, the accused persons had assured that the marginal deficiency alleged to have been found during the course of verification of the godowns, shall be met with as quickly as possible. It was further mentioned in this letter that the accused persons confirmed once again that in all circumstances they will definitely meet with the shortage. The accused persons even pledged wool worth about Rs. 12,000/- with the Bank. All this conduct of the accused persons proved beyond any manner of doubt that the goods of lesser quantity and lower value were put by the accused persons dishonestly with an intention to commit fraud with the Bank. It is further submitted that there was no reason to disbelieve the statement of Dr. 12,000/- with the Bank. All this conduct of the accused persons proved beyond any manner of doubt that the goods of lesser quantity and lower value were put by the accused persons dishonestly with an intention to commit fraud with the Bank. It is further submitted that there was no reason to disbelieve the statement of Dr. Narain PW 17 and the finding of the trial Court in this regard was not correct. The evidence of Dr. Narain being an expert was admissible under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. Reliance is placed on United States Shipping Board v. The Ship St. Albans, AIR 1931 PC 189 . Mr. Soral further contented that the conduct of the accused persons in this case is a relevant fact under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. Reliance is placed on M.M. Gandhi v. State of Mysore, AIR 1960 Mysore 111 , Arun Kumar Banerjee and another v. The State, AIR 1962 Calc. 504 , a Jagat Narain Nag v. The State of Rajasthan, 1979 RLW 192 , Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh and another v. State of Vindh. P., AIR 1954 SC 322 and State of Madras v. A. Vaidyanath Iyer, AIR 1958 SC 61 . It was also submitted that the accused Dharam Dev Agarwal accepted Rs. 600/- by cheque Ex. P211 for showing favour to the accused persons and the explanation given by the accused persons in this regard has been rightly held unbelievable by the learned trial court. As regards conspiracy there cannot be any direct evidence and the circumstances in this case clearly prove that the accused persons Gurbachan Singh and Mohanjit Singh in conspiracy with the godown keeper Dharam Dev Agarwal cheated the bank. Reliance in this regard on Bhagwan Das Keshwani etc. v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1974 SC 898 and Jagat Narain Nag's case (supra). 11. We have given our careful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and have thoroughly examined the oral and documentary evidence placed on record. There can be no manner of doubt that on physical verification of the entire goods lying in the godowns on 4th December, 1962 and 5th December. 1962, 1707 Yds. of woollen felts and 272 Mds. 6 Seers of wool was found short. It is proved by the inventories Ex. There can be no manner of doubt that on physical verification of the entire goods lying in the godowns on 4th December, 1962 and 5th December. 1962, 1707 Yds. of woollen felts and 272 Mds. 6 Seers of wool was found short. It is proved by the inventories Ex. P. 30 further supported by the statements of PW3 Chawla and PW 22 J.R. Kapoor, This fact is not even disputed by the accused persons. According to the agreement the accused persons were entitled to take a loan from the bank only 60 per cent of the value of the goods pledged with the bank. According for P30 there should have been 554 Mds. 20 Seer of wool value at Rs. 94,165/- and 5572 Yds. of felts valued at Rs. 1,95,020/-. The total value of the goods according to the stock register was shown at Rs. 2,89, 185/-Messrs. Gandhi Industries was thus entitled to draw Rs. 1,73,511/- which wqs 60 per cent of the aforesaid value of the goods. The debit balance showa against the accused person on 1st December, 1962 was Rs. 1,73,455/47 p. Thus, it is abundantly clear that the accused persons were not entitled to take the aforesaid loan of Rs. 1,73,455/47 p. in case the aforesaid goods were found short by 1707 Yds in felts and 272 Mds. and 6 seers in wool. The figures regarding quantity and quality of the goods were admittedly entered by the accused persons Gurbachan Singh and Mohanjit Singh in the pledged letters and it was clearly within their knowledge as to how much goods were pledged and were lying in the godowns. It cannot be disputed that no goods could be removed or taken out of the godowns without the consent or knowledge of the accused persons except that it would have been a case of theft. Learned counsel for the accused appellants also in the circumstances of the case were unable to offer any other explanation than theft having committed in the godowns. On the basis of the evidence produced in the case and the conduct of the accused persons, we are not prepared to believe that there could have been an theft and the goods might have been stolen from the godown. The godowns in question were admittedly situated within the premises of Messrs. On the basis of the evidence produced in the case and the conduct of the accused persons, we are not prepared to believe that there could have been an theft and the goods might have been stolen from the godown. The godowns in question were admittedly situated within the premises of Messrs. Gandhi Industries The godown were kept under lock and key and one key used to remain with the agent and another with the accused persons. The godowns were opened and goods used to be taken out only when a delivery order was given by the accused persons and the goods were taken out only in the presence and by the accused persons. Though a large number of times the goods were taken out from the time of their pledge in 1959 till total physical verification made in December. 1962, yet no point of time any complaint was made by the accused persons that the goods had fallen short or the same have been stolen from the godowns. Even on 4th/5th December, 1962, when physical verification of the entire goods was done, the lock was opened and the goods were measured and weighed in the presence of the accused persons. Shri Gurbachan Singh vide Ex. P24 wrote a letter to deliver the under-noted goods to Messrs. Gandhi Industries or through authorised agent : 279 Mds. of Wool 78,025/- 1700 Yds. of Felt 1,46,655/- It was further mentioned that the aforesaid 279 Mds. of wool and 1700 Yds. of felt have been received from the State Bank of India. It has been signed by Gurbachan Singh on behalf of Gandhi Industries. This document was written at the time of physical verification when the wool and felts were found short in the godowns. Not only that in Ex. P355 dated 19th January, 1963, which was sometime after the verification made on 4th/5th December, 1962, the accused persons had admitted to make up the deficiency and had even tried to make up the shortage of goods of pledging wool worth Rs. 12,000/-. The documents Ex. P24 and PJ55 are admitted by the accused persons. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused persons is that documents were executed, because under clause 15 of the agreement, the responsibility lay on the pledger even if any shortage was found in the goods and as such the accused persons executed these documents. 12,000/-. The documents Ex. P24 and PJ55 are admitted by the accused persons. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused persons is that documents were executed, because under clause 15 of the agreement, the responsibility lay on the pledger even if any shortage was found in the goods and as such the accused persons executed these documents. We are not convinced at all with the aforesaid argument. There was no question at all of accepting any liability by the accused persons for the shortage in goods in case any had taken place at least they would have made some report in the police station or would have made a protest with the bank authorities. In our opinion, the behaviour and the manner in which the accused persons acted, was clearly against a behaviour of prudent person in such circumstances. Nobody can be expected to bear such a huge loss by shortage in the goods without taking any recourse to the Police authorities or the other officials in the bank. Irresistible conclusion is that the lesser quantity of goods were put in the godowns with the convenience of the godown-keeper. It is no doubt true that the bank authorities were negligent in not making physical verification from time to time, but that act of negligence on the part of the bank authorities cannot permit the accused persons to put an inflated quantity of goods in the pledge letters and to put lesser quantity of goods in the godowns. It is, therefore, clearly proved that the accused persons had dishonest intention at the time when they obtained loan from the bank by showing inflicted goods in their stock in the godowns when the same quantity was not actually pledged or laid in the godowns. 12. The condition in clause 15 of the agreement with the bank in Ex. P2 to P7 to the effect that bailor or pledger was liable for loss of pledged goods by any reason cannot in any manner, absolve the accused persons from the criminal liability. The accused persons in the facts and circumstances of the case were liable both for civil as well as criminal liability. The accused person could have escaped the criminal liability only if their explanation regarding theft or pilferage in the goods might have been believed. The accused persons in the facts and circumstances of the case were liable both for civil as well as criminal liability. The accused person could have escaped the criminal liability only if their explanation regarding theft or pilferage in the goods might have been believed. The learned trial Court has also disbelieved such explanation and we are also of the opinion that there is no basis or justification at all for us to believe such explanation 13. The arguments regarding delay in lodging F.I.R, in this case of no consequence at all. The case is entirely based on admitted facts and is supported by oyer whelming documentary evidence of the bank record. The genuineness of the documents has not been disputed by the accused persons and the delay cannot be considered to have prejudiced the defence of the accused in this case. The delay can further be explained by the fact that negotiations might be going on for making of the loss and in taking steps to auction the goods of the accused persons available in taking sanction etc. of the authorities of the bank before lodging the F.I.R. 14. There is yet another clinching evidence which proves the guilt of the accused persons. A cheque Ex. P211 for an amount of Rs. 600/- was issued by accused Mohanjit Singh in favour of accused Dharam Dev Agarwal. The amount of this cheque was collected by Shri Agarwal. These facts are even admitted by the accused persons. The explanation given by accused Agarwal in this regard is that although he took the amount but the same was returned to the party. The explanation of accused Gurbachan Singh and Mohanjit Singh in this regard is that the man who was sent to collect the cheque was an illiterate person and as such the cheque was issued in the name of Agarwal. We are not prepared to believe the explanations given by the accused persons even if an illiterate man was sent to collect the cheque, there was no occasion for issuing could the same in the name of accused Agarwal. The cheque could have been issued in the name of self or could have been a bearer cheque. We are thus, clearly of the opinion that the cheque was given to accused Dharam Dev Agarwal for showing favour and to commit fraud with the bank. 15. The cheque could have been issued in the name of self or could have been a bearer cheque. We are thus, clearly of the opinion that the cheque was given to accused Dharam Dev Agarwal for showing favour and to commit fraud with the bank. 15. The cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the accused persons in Govinda Reddys case (supra) and Jaswant Singh's case (supra) lay down the principle that in case of circumstantial evidence, of the facts established should be consistent only with hypothesis of guilt. There can be no dispute about the said preposition. However, the explanation suggested by the accused persons must be a reasonable one and should be consonant with the act of an ordinary prudent person in those circumstances. We have already kept the above principle in mind and in our opinion the circumstantial evidence in this case is of such a nature which establishes no hypothesis other than the guilt against the accused persons. It has been observed in Govinda Reddy's case (supra) itself : "The principle that the inculpatory fact must be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation on any other hypothesis than that of guilt does not mean that any extravagant hypothesis would be sufficient to sustain the principle, but that the hypothesis suggested must be reasonable." 16. We have also no dispute with the ruling relied upon by the learned counsel for the accused appellant that if the facts give rise to a civil liability alone than the accused persons cannot be held guilty for the offences of cheating. For cheating it has to be shown that the intention of the accused persons was dishonest or fraudulent at the time of making the promise. However in the facts and circumstances of the present case we are fully convinced that the accused persons had dishonest and fraudulent intention at the time of taking loan from the Bank. 17. The conduct of the accused persons is certainly relevant and can be taken into consideration. However in the facts and circumstances of the present case we are fully convinced that the accused persons had dishonest and fraudulent intention at the time of taking loan from the Bank. 17. The conduct of the accused persons is certainly relevant and can be taken into consideration. It has been observed into Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh and anothers case (supra) that: "Held that the circumstances that on the numbers of the notes being tallied and his explanation in that behalf asked for the police authorities the accused was confused and could furnish no explanation in regard there to support the conclusion that the accused was guilty of the offence under S. 161." We find no force in the argument of the learned counsel for the accused appellant that an adverse presumption should be taken against the prosecution for not producing the key movement register. The key movement register only maintains a record regarding date, time and the person to whom the key was given and the purpose for which it was given and when it was returned. It is not the case of the defence that at any time the godowns were opened in their absence. Admittedly, the key remains with the agent and it is only the godown keeper who goes alongwith the pledger (Gurbachan Singh & Mohanjit Singh in this case) and permits the goods to be taken out by the pledger himself. Thus, no prejudice can i be said to have occasioned to the defence by the non-production of the key movement register. 18. It has also come in evidence of PW. 1 M.C. Taneja, Agent, State Bank of India from January, 1952 to December, 1962 that during his period, there was no delivery of wool but there were a few transactions in felts. He persuaded the party, whosoever was available to take delivery of stock of wool and they promised to do it shortly but they never did. He asked them to take delivery so that stock may not be detriorated and become under-valued. He also asked the party to show the stock and arrange for physical weighment and detailed verification so that he could know the position of the stock and also the position of the bank which may not be jeopardised. The parties put off doing this from January to mid-September due to rainy season. He also asked the party to show the stock and arrange for physical weighment and detailed verification so that he could know the position of the stock and also the position of the bank which may not be jeopardised. The parties put off doing this from January to mid-September due to rainy season. Again after rainy season he pressed them bull they went on putting off and after October they were seldom available and with difficulty he could contact them. This sort of conduct of the accused persons in avoiding to get the stock physically verified also leads support to the prosecution case that the conduct of the accused persons was not free from doubt 19. Thus, taking in view the entire facts and circumstances and evidence of this case we are clearly of the opinion that the accused persons Gurbachan Singh and Mohanjit Singh are guilty of offences under Sections 420 and 420/120-B I. P. C. and the appeal No. 788/72 filed by them has no force and is hereby dismissed. 20. Mr. J.K. Mathur, learned counsel for accused Dharam Dev Agarwal, contended that the accused Dharam Dev Agarwal had admittedly handed over charge to Shri Ramesh Chandra on 4th November, 1961 and according to PW. 1. S.C., Shattorcharya, Agent Local Branch of State Bank of India from April, 1961 to January, 1962, that Mr. Ramesh Chandra accused had taken charge from Dharam Dev Agarwal. Both took 10-15 days in handing over add taking over. It is further pointed out that the State Bank of India has issued a book-let Ex. D. 2 containing duties and responsibilities of godown keepers. Under instruction No. 28 of Ex. D2 it has been laid down that in the event of any change in the post of godown keeper the relieving certificate (specimen appended) must be submitted to the agent by the relieving and relieved employees. The specimen of the relieving certificate given by the relieving godown keeper contains the following description : "Certificate from the relieving godown keeper in the above respect. I certify that I have thoroughly verified all the stocks pledged to the Bank in all the godowns at ................ ......and that, to the best of my knowledge and belief they are in order both as regards quality and quantity. I further certify that no incidence information adversely affecting the banks interest came to my notice. I certify that I have thoroughly verified all the stocks pledged to the Bank in all the godowns at ................ ......and that, to the best of my knowledge and belief they are in order both as regards quality and quantity. I further certify that no incidence information adversely affecting the banks interest came to my notice. Dated : Relieving Godown-keeper."It is contended that Ramesh Chandra had taken fall charge of the godowns and had issued the above mentioned relieving certificate and this was done after having checked the quantity and the quality of the goods lying in the godowns and thereafter there remained no responsibility of the accused Agarwal. It is contended that admittedly on 4th/5th December, 1962 when the physical verification of the godowns was done, the accused Agarwal was no longer incharge of godowns as he had handed over charge to Rameah Chandra in November, 1961 and the physical verification on 4th/5th December, 1962 having also been conducted in the absence of the accused Agarwal, there is no liability of the accused Agarwal at all. It is submitted that there is no evidence at all produced by the prosecution to show that there was any conspiracy between accused Agarwal and the accused persons Gurbachan Singh and Mohanjit Singh. There was sufficient explanation given regarding cheque Ex. P211 and by mere collection of the amount of cheque no inference of irresistible conclusion can be drawn that such amount was taken as bribe. It is also argued that though accused Agarwal was posted at Mathura but he was not called at the time of physical verification nor any charge-sheet was given to him. The benefit of reasonable doubt must go in favour of the accused. Reliance is placed on the following observations in Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 637 : "It is no doubt a matter of regret. That a foul coldblooded and cruel murder should go un-punished. There may also be an element of truth in the prosecution story against the accused. Reliance is placed on the following observations in Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 637 : "It is no doubt a matter of regret. That a foul coldblooded and cruel murder should go un-punished. There may also be an element of truth in the prosecution story against the accused. Considered as a whole, the prosecution story may be true; but between may be true and must be true there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by the prosecution by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence before an accused can be convicted." Reliance is also placed on the following observations in Prabhoo and others v. Emperor, AIR 1941 Allahabad 402 : "My answer to the question referred therefore is that the accused person is entitled to be acquitted, if upon a consideration of the evidence as a whole (including the evidence given in support of the plea of the said general exception) a reasonable doubt is created in the mind of the Court whether the accused person is or is not entitled to the benefit of the said exception." Reliance is also placed on the same proposition on Rishi Kesh Singh and others v. The State, AIR 1970 Allahabad 51 and Sri Rabindra Kumar Dev v. State of Orissa, 1976 CAR (SC) 266 . Reliance is also placed on the following observation in Harisingh Bhagat Singh v. State of Madhya Bharat, AIR 1953 SC 468 : "The statements of an accused person recorded under section 208, 209, and 342 are among the most important matters to be considered at a trial. It has to be remembered that in this country an accused person is not allowed to enter the box and speak on oath in his own defence. This may operate for the protection of the accused in some cases but experience else-where has shown that it can also be a powerful and impressive weapon of defence in the hands of an innocent man. The statement of the accused recorded by the Committing Magistrate and the Sessions Judge are intended in India to take the place of what in England and in America he would be free to state in his own way in the witness-box. They have to be received in evidence and treated as evidence and be duly considered at the trial. The statement of the accused recorded by the Committing Magistrate and the Sessions Judge are intended in India to take the place of what in England and in America he would be free to state in his own way in the witness-box. They have to be received in evidence and treated as evidence and be duly considered at the trial. "This means that they must be treated like any other piece of evidence coming from the mouth of a witness and matters in favour of the accused must be viewed with as much difference and given as much weight as matters which tell against him. Nay more. Because of the presumption of innocence in his favour even when he is not in a position to prove the truth of his story, his version should be accepted if it is reasonable and accords with probabilities unless the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is false." It is no doubt true that it was the legal duty and responsibility of Ramesh Chandra while taking charge to have physically verified the entire quantity and quality of the goods lying in the godowns as required in the rules made by the State Bank of India in this regard. He has also mentioned in the relieving certificate that he had checked the entire quality and quantity of the goods. But we have to see whether in fact this was done or not at the time when Ramesh Chandra took charge from the accused D.D. Agarwal. Accused Ramesh Chandra has stated in his explanation under Section 342 Cr. P. C. that he took charge of 25 to 30 godowns on 4th November, 1961 and that it was not possible to take out the stock, verify it and again keep them back. There is nothing on record to show that labour was engaged and expenses incurred in physically verifying the stock when Ramesh Chandra took charge from Agarwal. It has also come in evidence that no transaction of wool took place during the time accused Ramesh Chandra remained in charge of the godowns. Only a limited transaction in woollen felts during his term as godown-keeper. Though no transaction of wool took place during the time of Ramesh Chandra but shortage of wool was found in Godown No. 28. Though there was transaction of woollen felts from godwn Nos. Only a limited transaction in woollen felts during his term as godown-keeper. Though no transaction of wool took place during the time of Ramesh Chandra but shortage of wool was found in Godown No. 28. Though there was transaction of woollen felts from godwn Nos. 27, 29 and 94 but the total pledges of woollen felts during the period of accused Ramesh Chandra was 828 Yds. The deliveries of woollen felts during his period was 680 Yds. Thus, leaving 148 Yds. to be a counted by Ramesh Chandra, while the shortage in fact in respect of woollen felts is to the extent of 1707 yds. Thus, there remains no manner of doubt that the shortage in wool related to the period when D. D. Agarwal was godown-keeper and substantial portion of the shortage in woolten felts also related to the same period. Ramesh Chandra has been acquitted by the trial Court and no appeal has been filed by the State and we have no reason to take a different view from the trial Court in the matter of acquitting accused Ra mash Chandra. Accused Agarwal in the capacity of godown keeper had wrongly issued certificates and accepted the short quantity of the goods from those mentioned in the pledge letters. There was no question of committing fraud by the accused persone Gurbachan Singh and Mohanjit Singh without the connivance of the godown keeper accused Agarwal. The acceptance of cheque Ex. P211 for Rs. 600/- by Agarwal is also a very strong circumstance which leads us to hold that Agarwal was in conspiracy with Gurbachan Singh and Mohanjit Singh and had accepted the amount to show undue favour to them. We do not want again to discuss the explanation given by accused Agarwal and other accused persons with regard to Ex.P211 as we have already rejected such explanation in our earlier part of the judgment. The physical verification was conducted in the presence of the agents of the Bank, Ramesh Chandra, Gurbachan Singh and Mohanjit Singh. The absence of accused Agarwal has no effect in this case inasmuch as no irregularity or illegality has been pointed out in the preparation of inventories or in the figures mentioned regarding the actual stock found on physical verification. The non-production of key movement register also does rot help the accused Agarwal. The absence of accused Agarwal has no effect in this case inasmuch as no irregularity or illegality has been pointed out in the preparation of inventories or in the figures mentioned regarding the actual stock found on physical verification. The non-production of key movement register also does rot help the accused Agarwal. We have also dealt with the question of non-production of key movement register while dealing with the case of the other accused persons. In our opinion, when the charge is fully established against Gurbachan Singh and Mohanjit Singh there remains no manner of doubt that the offence of Section 420 and 420/120-3 IPC could not have been committed by them without the conspiracy with accursed Agarwal who was gedown-keeper and ti e main person responsible for the stocks kept in the godowns. It was he, who used to verify the quantity and quality of the goods and on his verification the Bank used to advance 60 per cent of loan of the value of the stocks. Thus, we find no ground or justification to take a different view from the trial Court in convicting the accused Agarwal. 21. In the result appeal No. 735/72 filedjby Dharam Dev Agarwal is alio dismissed. 22. Now we shall consider the resision filed by the State of Rajasthan for enhancing the -sentences awarded to the accused persons Gurbachan Singh ands Mohanjit Singh. The learned trial Court apart from the sentences of fine be awarded six months imprisonment to accused Agarwal but has given sentence of rising of court only to Gurbachan Singh and Mohanjit Singh. The reason given by the learned trial Court is that accused Gurbachan Singh was an old man of about 59 years. F.I.R. was lodgod about 8 years back. All the accused were facing court proceedings since over five years and it would, therefore, serve the ends of justice if accused Gurbachan Singh being convicted may be sentenced to imprisonment till rising of the court. As regards Mohanjit Singh it was stated that he was son of the accused Gurbachan Singh and he w as a young man aged 39years. As regards accused Agarwal the learned trial Court observed that the offence committed by him was more serious being an employee of the Bank and being a link between other accused and the Bank and he was instrumental in this offence of conspiracy and cheating. Mr. As regards accused Agarwal the learned trial Court observed that the offence committed by him was more serious being an employee of the Bank and being a link between other accused and the Bank and he was instrumental in this offence of conspiracy and cheating. Mr. Soral, learned counsel for the State has prayed for enhancement of the sentences against accused persons Gurbachan Singh and Mohanjit Singh. He has also placed reliance on Dharam Das Hukmantri Dorwani v. State of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 734 . The matter regarding award of sentence primarily lies within the discretion of the trial Court but the sentence should not be wholly dispropoitionate to the propensity gravity, motive and other facts and circumstances of the crime. The offence in the present case is an economic offence. The motive behind the crime is nothing but greed and enrichment at the cost of others. The State Bank of India is a custodian of the public money and the modus oparandi adopted in this case is not an isolated one but is one of those large number of cases which are generally adopted, but rarely caught and punished. The subsequent conduct of the accused persons in not paying the amount to the bank also reflects their dishonest intention. The age factor and the intervening period in this case are hardly relevant as the accused persons have not been put to any disadvantage but must have taken full use of the money taken by them. The distinction pointed out by learned trial Court in the matter of awarding punishment to accused Agarwal and the accused persons Gurbachan Singh and Mohanjit Singh appears to be woolly unreal. Gurbachan Singh and Mohanjit Singh running Gandhi Industries were the main persons benefited by committing these offences with the connivance of accused Agarwal godown keeper in the bank. Thus, they should have deserved no sympathy in the matter of awarding sentence in comparison to accused Agarwal. 23. In the result, we allow the revision filed by the State and enhance the sentences from rising of the court to six months rigorous imprisonment to each one of the accused persons Gurbrchan Singh and Mohanjii Singh on both the counts separately i e. under Sections 420 as well as 120-B/420 IPC. However, both the substantantive sentences will run concurrently. In the result, we allow the revision filed by the State and enhance the sentences from rising of the court to six months rigorous imprisonment to each one of the accused persons Gurbrchan Singh and Mohanjii Singh on both the counts separately i e. under Sections 420 as well as 120-B/420 IPC. However, both the substantantive sentences will run concurrently. The sentences of tins and imprisonment in default as awarded by the trial Court are maintained. The (accused persons should surrender to the bail bonds for serving out the sentences awarded to them.Revision allowed. *******