Judgment 1. Appellant No.1, Partha Sarthy Banerjee (P. S. Banerjee) has been convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for four years under each of the sections 409, 420 and 120-B read with Sec.420 of Indian Penal Code read with section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, simple imprisonment for two years under each of the sections 467, 471 read with sections 467 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code and simple imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.45000/-, in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for one year under section 5 (2) read with section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Appellant No.2, Bina Banerjee (wife of appellant No.1), has been convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for four years under each of the sections 420 and 120-B read with section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and two years under each of the sections 411 and 467 read with section 471 of the Indian Penal Code by judgment and order dated 30-8-1979 passed by the Special Judge (C. B. I.), Patna. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. On 9-11-1972 S. C. Maitra, Manager of Patna Branch of United Commercial Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Commercial Bank), P. W.34, sent a typed report (office copy Ext.25/6) to the Officer-in-charge, Kotwali police station, Patna, on the basis of which formal first information report (Ext.1/2) was drawn by Rajendra Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Kotwali Police Station (not examined) and a case was registered under sections 409 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code against appellant No.1 and investigation was taken up. The aforesaid first information report was subsequently cancelled. V. R. Desai, Chairman of the aforesaid Bank (P. W.28) sent a letter dated 13-12-1972 (Ext.28/5) to the Deputy Inspector- General of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation (North) New Delhi for investigation of the matter mentioned therein on the basis of which first information report (Ext.1) was drawn on 11-5-1973 by Nageshwar Prasad Sinha, Inspector of Central Bureau of Investigation (P. W.22) and a case was registered against appellant No.1 under sections 120- B/420/467/468/471/477a of the Indian Penal Code and section 5 (2) read with section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and investigation was taken up by him. On completing the investigation and obtaining sanction for prosecution of appellant No.1 (Ext.29), chargesheet dated 14-10-1974 was submitted against both the appellants. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that appellant No.1 while functioning as Special Assistant in the Commercial Bank, Exhibition Road, Patna, during the period from 31-5-69 to 4-11-72 entered into criminal conspiracy with appellant No.2 and others to commit the offence of cheating and criminal misconduct and in pursuance thereof he fraudulently misappropriated a cheque book containing cheques from Serial No.174901 to 174910 of his bank, forged two of the cheques Nos.174901 and 174903 for a sum of Rs.- 3000/- and Rs.7198/- respectively, passed the same for payment facilitating the deposit of the aforesaid amount in the Saving Bank Account No.1584 of his wife (appellant No.2) held in the United Industrial Bank Limited, Exhibition Road, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the Industrial Bank ). As Special Assistant he was in-charge of Savings Bank Department of the bank and on 26-8-1972 a bunch of 50 cheque books were issued to him by the Chief Cashier which remained under his custody for issuing the same to the customers holding account in the said bank. He issued all the aforesaid cheques in between 5-9-1972 and 18-9-1972 except one cheque book containing the numbers mentioned above. Out of the above non-issued cheque book, two cheques bearing the aforesaid numbers 174901 and 174903 showed account numbers 4163 and 63 respectively. Account No.4163 was standing in the name of Sri Sheo Prasad (P. W.14) whose specimen signature filed with the Bank was in Hindi, whereas the signature on the cheque was in English as S. Prasad. On the aforesaid date, there was a balance of only Rs.9.28 in his account which had remained non-operated for a long time. The other Account No.63 Was in the name of one Smt. Suhasini Ghose which was closed on 18-6-1952. Cheque No.174903 bore the signature of one K. Prasad. Appellant No.1 had passed both the aforesaid cheques which were issued in favour of J. B. Banerjee and B. Banerjee respectively and the same were presented by the Industrial Bank through clearing on 12-9-1972 and 29-9-1972 respectively. He also prepared and sent a bogus credit advice of Rs.9913.91 on 1-8-1972 to the aforesaid Industrial Bank facilitating and causing deposit of the said sum into the aforesaid account of appellant No.2. He also prepared and sent a bogus credit advice of Rs.9913.91 on 1-8-1972 to the aforesaid Industrial Bank facilitating and causing deposit of the said sum into the aforesaid account of appellant No.2. He also made false entries and manipulated figures and writings in transfer scroll and other books of his bank by preparing false and fabricated vouchers on the basis of non-existent outward bills for collection and caused 9 managers cheques for a total sum of Rs.28516.34 issued in favour of Industrial Bank. All amounts were credited to the aforesaid account of appellant No.2. The bogus credit advice dated 1-8-1972 for the sum of Rs.9913.91 was prepared, signed and sent by appellant No.1 to the Industrial Bank on 2-8-1972 through peon book with an endorsement By amount of F. D. R. with interest transferred to your credit of Savings Bank Account No 1584 A/c Bina Banerjee with you under advice to beneficiary, though Bina Banerjee had no F. D. R. (fixed deposit) with the Commercial Bank and no request letter of her was received in the Commercial Bank for such a transfer. On the basis of the aforesaid advice, Industrial Bank credited the aforesaid amount to the aforesaid account of appellant No.2. After each of the aforesaid fraudulent deposit in the aforesaid account of appellant No.2, almost the entire amount used to be withdrawn by her on different dates. Thus, the amount withdrawn from her account were far in excess of the amount genuinely deposited in her account. During investigation it had come to light that several cheques and withdrawal forms issued by appellant No.2 against her aforesaid saving bank account were found to be in the writings of appellant No.1. 4. The defence of appellant No.1 is plea of innocence though from the cross-examination and statement made by him under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the major portion of the prosecution case appears to have been admitted by him. The defence of appellant No.2 is that she is innocent and that she has been unnecessarily made accused and prosecuted in the case. Her further plea is that she had sold her paternal house at Bhagalpur for a sum of Rs.6000/- and she had opened a bank account in the Industrial Bank through her next door neighbour Ashok Kumar Roy (P. W.2), an employee of the same bank at Patna branch. Her further plea is that she had sold her paternal house at Bhagalpur for a sum of Rs.6000/- and she had opened a bank account in the Industrial Bank through her next door neighbour Ashok Kumar Roy (P. W.2), an employee of the same bank at Patna branch. At the time of opening her account she had gone to the aforesaid bank but she had never gone thereafter to the bank for the withdrawal. She used to hand over blank cheques and withdrawal forms after signing the same to her husband whenever he asked her for the same. She had no knowledge about the details of the deposit in and withdrawal from the aforesaid bank account. The pass book also mostly remained with her husband. She has become victim of circumstances though she is innocent. 5. Forty witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution and one witness on behalf of the defence. 6. Out of the aforesaid two appellants I want to first discuss and consider the case of appellant No.2, who has been charged under section 120-B read with section 420 of the Indian Penal Code for entering into criminal conspiracy with her husband (appellant No.1) and other unknown persons to do or cause to be done illegal act to wit, to obtain undue pecuniary benefit for appellant No.1 and for herself and to cheat the Commercial Bank in between the period from 30-5-1969 to 4-1-1974, by inducing them to transfer Rs.48, 628.25 in her Savings Bank Account No.1584 standing in the Industrial Bank on the basis of forged cheque Nos.174901 and 174903 (Exts.2/8 and 2/12), false credit advice of 9 Managers cheques with fabricated outward bill collection Nos. (OBS Nos.) and false credit vouchers and advice with fabricated F. D. R. No. prepared by appellant No.1 and in pursuance of the said agreement she fraudulently and dishonestly withdrew a sum of Rs.46,984.47 out of the said account. She has also been charged with the offence punishable under section 411 of the Indian Penal Code for dishonestly receiving stolen property, namely, Commercial Banks Savings Bank Account Cheque Nos.174901 and 174903 (Exts.2/8 and 2/12) knowing and having reason to believe the same to be stolen property. She has also been charged with the offence punishable under section 411 of the Indian Penal Code for dishonestly receiving stolen property, namely, Commercial Banks Savings Bank Account Cheque Nos.174901 and 174903 (Exts.2/8 and 2/12) knowing and having reason to believe the same to be stolen property. She has also been charged under section 471 read with section 467 of the Indian Penal Code for fraudulently and dishonestly using the aforesaid cheques by forging the same as genuine and valuable security. She has also been charged for the offence punishable under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code for cheating the Commercial Bank, by dishonestly and fraudulently inducing the aforesaid bank to deliver a total sum of Rs.48628.25 in her Saving Bank Account No.1584 standing in the Industrial Bank and also to deliver Rs.3000/- and Rs.7198/- by the aforesaid two forged cheques and Rs.9913.91 by fabricated credit vouchers and credit advice and Rs.28516.30 by false and fabricated credit advice of 9 Managers cheques which were the property of the United Commercial Bank. 7. The learned Special Judge held appellant No.2 guilty on all the aforesaid counts and convicted her on the following findings: - (i) Cheque Nos.174901 and 174903 belonged to the Commercial Bank, Exhibition Road, Patna, which were stolen by appellant No.1 and their proceeds were credited to the Savings Bank Account No.1584 standing in the name of appellant No.2 in the Industrial Bank. (ii) The Managers cheques of the Commercial Bank (Exts.11 series) were sent to the Industrial Bank and the same were deposited in Savings Bank Account No.1584. (iii) A total sum of Rs.48000/- were deposited to the aforesaid account of appellant No.2 by fraudulent means. (iv) Appellant No.2 had personally gone to the Industrial Bank and withdrawn the sums, viz. Rs.1300/-, Rs.2400/- and Rs.1500/- on the basis of withdrawal forms dated 22-7-1969, 30-7-1969 and 10-10-1972 respectively on the basis of the fact that both sides of the withdrawal forms were bearing her signatures and the withdrawals on the basis of other withdrawal forms were made by Krishna Bahadur Thapa (P. W.3 ). (v) Appellant No.2 had herself received the amount of Cheque No. SB/pt 26171, dated 29-11-1969. (vi) The aforesaid withdrawals were made with the aid either of her husband or Krishna Bahadur Thappa (P. W.3 ). 8. (v) Appellant No.2 had herself received the amount of Cheque No. SB/pt 26171, dated 29-11-1969. (vi) The aforesaid withdrawals were made with the aid either of her husband or Krishna Bahadur Thappa (P. W.3 ). 8. It has to be examined as to whether the aforesaid findings are correct and sufficient to hold appellant No.2 guilty for the aforesaid charges. For giving the aforesaid findings, the court below has relied upon the evidence of P. Ws.4, 12, 13, 19, 20 and 29. 9. P. W.4 was a clerk in the Industrial Bank who had introduced appellant No.2 at the time of opening the aforesaid account in the said bank. He has proved her specimen signature (Ext.8/1 ). She also does not challenge the opening of Savings Bank Account No.1584 in Industrial Bank. He has proved her signatures on both sides of cheques on Exts.2, 2/1, 2/3 and 2/7 as well as on withdrawal slips, Exts.3/7, 3/13 and 3/14. P. W.12 is also a clerk in the Industrial Bank. He has merely proved certain documents and initials namely Exts.16, 17, 15/1 and 18 which are in his pen and in the pen of Sushil Kumar Chakravarty and Awadhesh Kumar Tilia. P. W.13 has merely proved the seizure of certain papers from the Industrial Bank. S. C. Palit (P. W.19) is the Manager of Industrial Bank. He has proved opening of Savings Bank Account by appellant No.2 in his bank. He has proved that money were credited to the account of appellant No.2 on the basis of Managers cheques (Exts.11 to 11/7) which were accompanied by credit advice slips (Exts.4 to 4/7) received from the Commercial Bank written by appellant No.1 with signatures thereon of the Accountant of the Commercial Bank which are Exts.4/9 to 4/16. Besides, he has also stated that on the basis of cheques (Exts.2 to 2/7) and withdrawal forms (Exts.3 to 3/7) which bear the signatures of appellant No.2, money were withdrawn from her Account No.1584. Besides that he has also proved regular withdrawal from and deposit in the aforesaid account.5k. Chakravarty (P. W.20) was also Manager of Industrial Bank. Previously he was an accountant in the same bank. He has also proved that certain amounts were deposited in the aforesaid account on the basis of the credit advice (Ext.4/8 ). Besides that he has also proved regular withdrawal from and deposit in the aforesaid account.5k. Chakravarty (P. W.20) was also Manager of Industrial Bank. Previously he was an accountant in the same bank. He has also proved that certain amounts were deposited in the aforesaid account on the basis of the credit advice (Ext.4/8 ). P. W.29 is Manager of Industrial Bank who was Accounts Clerk in the said Bank from 1968 to 1975. He has proved clearance schedule (Exts.15/1 to 15/2) which are in his own pen and which relate to cheque Nos.174901 and 174903 (Exts.2/8 and 2/12), referred to above. None of the aforesaid witnesses has stated that appellant No.2 has ever come personally to the Industrial Bank for withdrawal of any amount. None of them has stated that appellant No.2 had ever come in possession of the aforesaid two cheques, viz. , Nos.174901 and 174903 or that she was in any way connected with the aforesaid cheques except that the contents of the same were deposited in her account though it is in evidence that the aforesaid cheques contained the writings of appellant No.1. There is no evidence that there is any writing of this appellant on the same. This being the state of evidence in the case, the charge under section 411 of the Indian Penal Code as well as the charge under section 471 read with section 467 of the Indian Penal Code must fail against her. 10. The Manager cheques (Exts.11 to 11/2, 11/4 to 11/7, 11/12 and 11/13) are in the writings of Sheo Kumar Chandra, Clerk of the Commercial Bank and in the writings of Purnima Goswami, a clerk of the said bank (P. W.8) bearing signatures of P. W.9 and Nawasis Bose. Their corresponding covering letters credit advice slips (Exts.4 to 4/7) are in the writings of appellant No.1. There is no evidence on the record that appellant No.2 was in any way connected with either Exts.11 series or Exts.4 series, except that the amounts were deposited in her account in Industrial Bank. Similarly credit advice dated 1-8-72 for Rs.9913.91 (Ext.4/8) sent from the Commercial Bank showing that the aforesaid amount of F. D. R. with interest was transferred to the credit of Savings Bank Account No.1584 of the Industrial Bank has been proved to be in the writing of appellant No.1 as deposed to by P. W.2. Similarly credit advice dated 1-8-72 for Rs.9913.91 (Ext.4/8) sent from the Commercial Bank showing that the aforesaid amount of F. D. R. with interest was transferred to the credit of Savings Bank Account No.1584 of the Industrial Bank has been proved to be in the writing of appellant No.1 as deposed to by P. W.2. There is no an iota of evidence to show that appellant No.2 was ever connected with the aforesaid credit voucher. This is all about credit side to her account. 11. Now withdrawals from the aforesaid account are to be considered. Some withdrawals from her aforesaid account have been made on the basis of cheques and some on the basis of withdrawal forms. Exts.2 to 2/3 are the writings of the body portion made by appellant No.1 on four cheques dated 6-2-19701 1-12-1969, 10-12-1969 and 19-12-1969 said to have been issued by appellant No.2 against her aforesaid account in the Industrial Bank. All the aforesaid cheques bear the signature of appellant No.2 on each side of the cheques. Signatures of appellant No.2 on both sides on the cheque dated 16-2-1970 have been marked as Exts.2/13 and 2/14 Ext.2/4 is the initials of appellant No.1 on its back. From this it is clear that the amount of this cheque dated 16-2-1970 was drawn by appellant No.1. Cheque dated 1-12-1969 bears two signatures on each side of appellant No.2 marked as Exts.2/15 and 2/16. This cheque bears the signature (Ext.2/5) of Krishna Bahadur Thapa (P. W.3 ). The writing of appellant No.1 on it is Ext.2/1. The cheque dated 10-12-1969 bears only two signatures of appellant No.2 on its front side which have been marked as Exts.2/13. This bears the endorsement (Ext.2/6) of P. W.3. The writing on the body portion of this cheque by appellant No.1 is Ext.2/2. There is one more cheque dated 6-12-1969. There are two signatures on each side of appellant No.2 which have been marked as Exts.2/20 and 2/21. On the back portion of this cheque before there is an endorsement of P. W.3 (Ext.2/7 ). No witness has proved as to who has written its body portion. This has also not been sent to the Examiner of questioned documents (P. W.40 ). Exts.2/5, 2/6 and 2/7 are the admitted signatures of P. W.3. On the back portion of this cheque before there is an endorsement of P. W.3 (Ext.2/7 ). No witness has proved as to who has written its body portion. This has also not been sent to the Examiner of questioned documents (P. W.40 ). Exts.2/5, 2/6 and 2/7 are the admitted signatures of P. W.3. He has very clearly stated that he had gone to the bank for drawing the money and handed over the same to appellant No.1. Savings Bank Cheque No.26171 is dated 19-11-1969 and not dated 29-11-1969 as mentioned in the judgment of the learned Special Judge. There are two signatures of appellant No.2 on each side of the cheque which have been marked as Exts.2/18 and 2/19 respectively. On the basis of this it has been held by the learned Special Judge that the money was withdrawn by appellant No.2 personally as there is no endorsement of any other person. While giving this finding he has lost sight of two facts that the body portion (Ext.2/3) has been written by appellant No.1 and that the evidence of P. W.3 is that the Cashier who did not recognised him used to take his signature. The aforesaid fact makes the defence of appellant No.2 that she used to put her signatures on the blank cheques and give to her husband as desired by him probably. Besides there is no evidence at all that she had gone herself personally on that date to en cash the aforesaid cheque. 12. There have been withdrawals from her aforesaid account on the basis of 10 withdrawal forms. Out of the ten withdrawal forms, 7 withdrawal forms dated 26-9-1969 for a sum of Rs.500/-, dated 7-10-1969 for a sum of Rs.900/-, dated 1-11- 1969 for a sum of Rs.900/-, dated 26-8-1972 for a sum of Rs.1000/-, dated 21-9-1972 for a sum of Rs.1000/-, dated 30- 9-1972 for a sum of Rs.2300/- and dated 20-10-1972 for a sum of Rs.1400/-, bear the, endorsement of P. W.3 which have been marked as Exts.3/8, 3/9, 3/10, 3/13, 3/11,3/14 and 3/12 respectively. On all the aforesaid withdrawal forms there are signatures of appellant No.2 also on their back. The body portions of withdrawal forms dated 26-9-1969, 7-10- 1969, 1-11-1969, 21-9-1972 and 20-10-1972 have been written by appellant No.1 which have been marked as Exts.3/1, 3/3, 3/4, 3/5 and 3/6 respectively. On all the aforesaid withdrawal forms there are signatures of appellant No.2 also on their back. The body portions of withdrawal forms dated 26-9-1969, 7-10- 1969, 1-11-1969, 21-9-1972 and 20-10-1972 have been written by appellant No.1 which have been marked as Exts.3/1, 3/3, 3/4, 3/5 and 3/6 respectively. According to the evidence of P. W.3 money was brought by him and handed over to appellant No.1. This also makes the defence of appellant No.2 highly probable that she used to give blank withdrawal forms after signing only to her husband. The withdrawal forms dated 26-8-1972 for a sum of Rs.1000/- and dated 30-9- 1972 for a sum of Rs.2300/- also bear the endorsement of P. W.3 as mentioned above. No witness has proved as to who had filled up the body portion of these withdrawal forms. It has not been shown by the prosecution that the same were in the writing of appellant No.2 and not in the writing of appellant No.1 and hence they also do not falsify the defence of this appellant. Rather, according to the evidence of P. W.3, the contents of the aforesaid withdrawal forms were also brought by him and handed over to appellant No.1. 13. The withdrawal forms dated 22-7-1969 for a sum of Rs.1300/-, dated 30-7-1969 for a sum of Rs.2400/- and dated 10- 10-1972 for a sum of Rs.1500/- do not bear the endorsement of any other person except that of appellant No.2 and on the basis of the same, the learned Special Judge has held that appellant No.2 herself gone to the bank for withdrawing the money. While giving this finding he has lost sight of the fact that body portions of the aforesaid withdrawal forms have been written by appellant No.1 which are Exts.3, 3/1 and 3/7 and the evidence of P. W.3 is that only those cashiers used to get his signatures at the time of encashment who were not knowing him and there is nothing to show on the record that P. W.3 was not known not those cashiers who had made payments under these withdrawal forms. Besides, there is one more fact which requires consideration. None of the signatures made by appellant No.2 on withdrawal forms, dated 22-7-1969 and 30-7-1969 has been proved by the witnesses but the same have been wrongly marked as Exts.3/16 and 3/18. Besides, there is one more fact which requires consideration. None of the signatures made by appellant No.2 on withdrawal forms, dated 22-7-1969 and 30-7-1969 has been proved by the witnesses but the same have been wrongly marked as Exts.3/16 and 3/18. From the evidence of P. W.4 on recall it appears that the aforesaid documents have been marked but he has stated in paragraph 11 of his evidence that the withdrawal slips Exts.3/7, 3/13 and 3/14 bear the signatures of appellant 2 on their both sides, but the aforesaid withdrawal forms are neither Exts.3/7, nor Ext.3/13 nor Ext.3/14 and still the court below has marked the signatures on them. No other witness has proved her signatures on these two withdrawal forms. There is absolutely no evidence to show that she had ever gone to the Industrial Bank for withdrawing the money. 14. From the discussions made above it is clear that it has not been conclusively proved that appellant No.2 had ever gone to the bank for the encashment of any cheque or withdrawal forms and thus it can safely be held that the defence of this appellant is highly probable. The only circumstance which stands proved in this case against her is that she is the wife of appellant No.1, but, in my opinion, that alone is not sufficient to prove that she had conspired with her husband and other persons to cheat the bank. The other circumstance taken into consideration by the learned Special Judge is that from the ledger book it appears that different amounts have been deposited in her account but, as mentioned above, it has not been proved that she had any connection with any of the deposits mentioned above. 15. It is well-settled that onus to prove criminal conspiracy rests upon the prosecution and it has to discharge its onus of proving its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The charge of criminal conspiracy can be proved either by direct or circumstantial evidence. Conspiracy is always hatched in secrecy and its origin is secret and in most of the cases it is incapable of being proved by direct evidence and in majority of cases it has to be inferred from the circumstances proved by the prosecution which must give rise to a conclusive or irresistible inference of agreement between two or more persons who commit the offence. In the present case, the prosecution has merely proved that this appellant Bina Banerjee is the wife of the other appellant and that she had an account with the Industrial Bank in which several deposits were made in the manner already discussed in which the hand of her husband was vividly discernable. It has also been proved in this case that this appellant used to sign blank cheques and withdrawal forms on the basis of which withdrawals were made from her aforesaid account. There is no evidence to show that she herself had filled up any of the withdrawal forms or the cheques. Rather, the same were filled up by her husband and money used to be drawn by P. W.3 and handed over to her husband, appellant No.1. The aforesaid facts prove the defence of this appellant that she used to sign the withdrawal forms and cheques at the dictates of her husband and used to hand over the same to him who used to in cash the same. The aforesaid facts do not lead to an irresistible conclusion that she had conspired with her husband. Mere evidence and proof of relationship of wife and husband and association is not sufficient to prove conspiracy. From the discussions made above it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove any of the charges against appellant Bina Banerjee and that she became victim of the circumstances and confidence reposed by her in her husband which is nothing but natural having regard to their relationship. 16. It has next to be examined as to whether the prosecution has proved the charges against P. S. Banerjee (appellant No.1 ). In this case, the following facts have been proved by the prosecution and admitted by this appellant: (a) This appellant had been working in the United Commercial Bank, Exhibition Road, Patna, from 1965-72 which is the relevant period. (b) The writings on Exts.2 to 2/4, 2/10 to 2/12, 3 to 3/7, 4 to 4/8, 5 to 5/7, 7/1, 7/2, to 10/2 and 12 are that of this appellant. (c) Krishna Bahadur Thapa (P. W.3) used to in cash cheques and withdrawal forms from the Industrial Bank and used to hand over the money to this appellant. (d) Cheques bearing No. AS/li 174901 and 174903 of Commercial Bank were passed by him by putting the line through and signing the same. (c) Krishna Bahadur Thapa (P. W.3) used to in cash cheques and withdrawal forms from the Industrial Bank and used to hand over the money to this appellant. (d) Cheques bearing No. AS/li 174901 and 174903 of Commercial Bank were passed by him by putting the line through and signing the same. (e) Sheo Prasad, the account holder of Saving Bank account had a balance in his account only to the extent of Rs.9.28 only. (f) Cheque book containing cheque Nos.174901 to 174910 was not issued to any party. (g) In the capacity of special assistant the appellant used to keep the cheque book. (h) Saving Bank Account No.63 was in the name of Smt. S. Chose and her account was closed on 18-6-1952. (i) Cash transfer scroll (Ext.7/2) is in the pen of this appellant. (j) There was no posting of Ext.2/12 in the ledger and yet the appellant released the payment of the aforesaid cheque and the amount was deposited in the Saving Bank Account No.1584 in the Industrial Bank. (k) The different amounts of Managers cheques on different dates were credited to the account of appellant No.2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has not challenged the facts referred to above before me. 17. There were altogether 12 items of fraud which had come to light involving a total amount of Rs.48628.22. On considering the prosecution evidence and statement of the appellant under Sec.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and other facts and circumstances of the case the learned Special Judge recorded separate finding thereon. 18. Item No.12 involved a sum of Rs.9913.91. On consideration of the evidence the learned Special Judge has given the finding that the appellant P. S. Banerjee deceitfully issued credit advice (Ext.4/8) relating to the aforesaid amount and that he arranged fund to be credited to his wifes account with the Industrial Bank. 19. Item Nos.10 and 11 related to the aforesaid Cheque Nos.174901 dated 12-9-72 for a sum of Rs.3000/- bearing account No.4163 in favour of]. B. Banerjee and cheque No.174903 dated 29.9.72 for a sum of Rs.7198/- bearing account No.63 in favour of B. Banerjee. 19. Item Nos.10 and 11 related to the aforesaid Cheque Nos.174901 dated 12-9-72 for a sum of Rs.3000/- bearing account No.4163 in favour of]. B. Banerjee and cheque No.174903 dated 29.9.72 for a sum of Rs.7198/- bearing account No.63 in favour of B. Banerjee. The finding is that both the cheques were received through clearance from the Commercial Bank which were passed by this appellant and credited to his wifes account in the Industrial Bank though the aforesaid cheques were not written by the holders of the respective account. 20. Item Nos.1 to 9 related to fraudulent issue of managers cheques. Out of the 9 Managers cheques, two cheques dated 31-5-1969 and 9-12-1969 are respectively in the writings of Sheo Kumar Chandra and Purnima Goswami. The first cheque bears the initials of C. R. Sen as Manager and second cheque bears the signature of R. K. Joshi as Manager of the United Commercial Bank and both of them bear the full signature of Nawasis Bose. They have been marked Ext.11 and 11/1. On the 7 remaining Managers cheques the signatures of the Accountant and initials of the Managers have been proved. The writings of their body portions have not been proved, but the entire two cheques dated 28-11-69 and 29-9-69 have been marked as Exts.11/12 and 11/13 respectively. The aforesaid two cheques bear the initials of R. K. Joshi as Manager and the initials on the remaining cheques are of B. N. Ghosh as Manager. The body portions of the Managers cheques credit vouchers are in the writings of appellant No.1 (Exts.5 to 5/7) except one which is in the writing of M. Das Gupta (Ext.5/8 ). They all bear the signatures of Nawasis Bose as Assistant Accountant (Exts.5/9 to 5/17 ). Ext.5/6 also bears the signature of the appellant in the column of Assistant Accountant (Ext.5/18 ). The body portions of the credit advices (except with regard to cheque dated 25-7-69 which has not been brought on the record) are in the pen of this appellant (Exts.4 to 4/7), but corresponding Managers cheques, credit voucher with regard to cheque dated 25-6-69 is in the pen of this appellant (Ext.5/2 ). All the Exts.4 to 4/7 bear the signatures of Nawasis Bose as Accountant (Exts.4/9 to 4/16 ). All the Exts.4 to 4/7 bear the signatures of Nawasis Bose as Accountant (Exts.4/9 to 4/16 ). The finding of the court below is that on the basis of the aforesaid managers cheques, credit vouchers and credit advice slips, the different amounts of money covered by the aforesaid Managers cheques, credit vouchers and credit advice slips were credited to the Savings Bank Account No.1584 of Bina Banerjee for which appellant No.1 was responsible and not appellant No.2 and the finding recorded by the trial court is correct. After consideration of the entire evidence, further finding given by the learned Special Judge is as follows : - From the discussion made above it was abundantly clear that accused P. S. Banerjee had different modes of operation for obtaining undue pecuniary advantage by diverting the funds of United Commercial Bank to his wifes Account No.1584 operating in the United Industrial Bank. Out of the 12 items of frauds, nine related to fraudulent issue of Managers Cheques and two items related to encashment of saving bank cheque and the last item related to the fraud by way of sending bogus credit advice (Ext.4/8 ). On the aforesaid findings this appellant was held guilty of the various charges and was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. There is also a finding to this effect that the sanction given for the prosecution of this appellant was legal and valid. 21. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has not been able to show that any of the aforesaid findings given by the learned Special Judge regarding this appellant is erroneous. As held above, the charge of conspiracy against appellant Bina Banerjee has failed but on this account the charge of conspiracy against this appellant will not fail. The charge framed against this appellant shows that this appellant had agreed with Bina Banerjee and others (unknown) and from the discussions made above as also from the observation made by the learned Special Judge it is clear that the bands of some other persons were also clearly discernible in the conspiracy. The learned Special Judge has rightly commented on the conduct of Nawasis Bose (P. W.25) and B. N. Chose (P. W.9) that their conduct in issuing Managers cheques recklessly and non-checking of ledger entries facilitated the carrying out of fraud by this appellant. 22. The learned Special Judge has rightly commented on the conduct of Nawasis Bose (P. W.25) and B. N. Chose (P. W.9) that their conduct in issuing Managers cheques recklessly and non-checking of ledger entries facilitated the carrying out of fraud by this appellant. 22. On consideration of all the facts and circumstances, evidence and arguments of the parties, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in the appeal of appellant P. S. Banerjee and it is fit to be dismissed and the appeal of appellant Bina Banerjee is fit to be allowed. 23. In the result, the appeal of appellant P. S. Banerjee fails and it is, accordingly, dismissed. The appeal of appellant Bina Banerjee is allowed, her convictions and sentences are set aside, she is acquitted and discharged from the liability of her bail bonds. Order accordingly.