Judgment U. P. Singh, J. 1. Both these appeals arise out of a common judgment passed by the trial court. They have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. In Criminal Appeal No.34/85 the sole appellant is Narendra Kumar and in Criminal Appeal No.68/85 the sole appellant is Bhulendra Ram. The appellant|in Criminal Appeal No.34/85 has been convicted under Sec.420/34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sec.5 (2) and 5 (1) (d) of the prevention of Corruption Act. He has been sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment on both the counts, and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000, in default whereof to undergo further imprisonment of one year. No separate sentence was awarded under Sec.120-B of the Indian Penal Code and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. In respect of appellant Bhulendra Ram in Criminal Appeal No.68/85, he has been convicted under Sec.420/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and in addition also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000, in default whereof, to undergo further imprisonment for one year. He also stands convicted under Sec.467/471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal code and Sec.5 (2)/5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment on each of these counts respectively. No separate sentence was awarded under Sec.120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Briefly stated the facts are that appellant Narendra Kumar was working as a Special Assistant and appellant Bhulendra Ram was working as a temporary peon in Allahabad Bank of Buxar branch during the period 1980-81. The duties of appellant Narendra Kumar was to check the debit vouchers including cheques and withdrawal slips and to compare the signature, appearing thereon with the signature of the accounts holder and then to pass it for payment. He was authorised to pass only such vouchers upto Rs.5,000. The duty of the other appellant Bhulendra Ram was to carry books of accounts from one table to another as per the order of the official. The three accounts in question are savings Bank Accounts in the name of Badamia Devi and Mahesh Ram. Nand lal and Dinesh Kumar and that of Mahesh Ram. The duty of the other appellant Bhulendra Ram was to carry books of accounts from one table to another as per the order of the official. The three accounts in question are savings Bank Accounts in the name of Badamia Devi and Mahesh Ram. Nand lal and Dinesh Kumar and that of Mahesh Ram. On the basis of three ledger account sheets (Ext.13/1 to 13/3) it was alleged that in between 16-8-80 and 13-12-80 a sum ot Rs.1,300 was withdrawn from the account standing in the name of Badamia Devi and Mahesh Ram on the basis of forged and fabricated withdrawal slips (Exts 9 to 9/10 ). It was alleged that withdrawal slips were forged and none of the signatures were genuine. It was specifically alleged that they were forged by appellant Bhulendra Ram. Likewise a sum of Rs.2,400 was withdrawal from the account of Nand Lal and Dinesh Kumar on the basis of five forged withdrawal slips. The said account had been opened in which appellant Bhulendra Ram had introduced both the amount-holders in both these cases. It was alleged that the ledger (Ext.13) shows that withdrawal forms were in the pen of appellant Bhulendra Ram and none of the signatures were genuine on those withdrawal forms. The account standing in the name of Mahesh Ram had also been opened on the introduction given by appellant Bhulendra Ram. The ledger (Ext.13/2) shows that Rs.2,500 had been withdrawn. Thus the prosecution alleged that a total sum of Rs.8,000 was withdrawn between t6-8-80 and 23-9-1981 against these three accounts. It was further alleged that the entry in the log book (Ext.19) in so far as withdrawal of Rs.2,500 was concerned, had been scored through and covered with the black ink in order to sonceal and cover up the detection of the crime in respect of the withdrawal of paid Rs.2,500. In all there were 18 withdrawal slips and all of them were alleged to have been forged by appellant Bhulendra Ram. Appellant Narendra kumar was said to have passed these withdrawal slips. It was detected in the last week of September, 1981. After investigation, the experts opinion was taken and on sanction greated by the authorities the prosecution was started. 5. Appellant Narendra kumar was said to have passed these withdrawal slips. It was detected in the last week of September, 1981. After investigation, the experts opinion was taken and on sanction greated by the authorities the prosecution was started. 5. In defence, appellant Narendra Kumar pleaded in good faith and claimed that even if some of the withdrawal forms had been passed by him, it might have been due to mistake but there was no criminal intention behind it. Similar mistake has been committed by another officer of the said Bank who had operated the withdrawal slip contained in Ext. /1 and on account of mistake he was not charge-sheeted. The appellant also pleaded false implication on the ground of enemity and group rivalry. It was directly against the Manager of the Bank. It appears from the record that a proceeding under Sec.107 of the Code of criminal Procedure had been drawn up between the appellant and the Manager of the Bank and the members of the other union enjoyed the patronage of the manager. The vindictive order of the Manager transferring appellant Narendra kumar had been ultimately cancelled by the authority at the head office. It was claimed by appellant Narendra Kumar that the money withdrawn on the basis of several withdrawal slips were not taken away by him. 6. Appellant Bhulendra Ram claimed that he too was falsely implicated by the Bank officials. He denied his working on the withdrawal slips (Ext.9 series) and also denied to have forged the signatures of the account holders. About confessional statement contained in (Ext.2 series) he claimed that they were not voluntarily made but were obtained under duress and threat by the Bank officials. Under the same duress and pressure and threat given to him by the bank officials, he deposited a sum of Rs.1,400 out of the Savings Bank account of his father. His father was employed in the said Bank. The learned counsel appearing for appellant Narendra Kumar urged that there was no direct evidence and the circumstances taken against the appellant could not exclude all the hypothesis except the guilt of the appellant. In other words, the claim of circumstances taken into account will not be complete in itself so as to exclude all other hypothesis except to the guilt of the appellant. The circumstances taken against appellant Narendra Kumar were two folds. In other words, the claim of circumstances taken into account will not be complete in itself so as to exclude all other hypothesis except to the guilt of the appellant. The circumstances taken against appellant Narendra Kumar were two folds. That he had passed the withdrawal slips for payment and that he could not detect the differences in the writing over those withdrawal slips. In order to support the contention the evidence of pw 12 has been referred. He is cashier of the Bank and has categorically stated that first in time Ledger Clerk checks up the signature on the withdrawal forms with the specimen signature and then it is noted in the token register on the basis of which token is issued to the party concerned. This has been so stated by the ledger clerk. It was the duty of PW 12 and he has so stated in paragraph 1 of his deposition. The two ledger clerks are PWs.10 and 1x According to the Branch instruction book the mode of payment of cheques is provided in clause 25, according to which the procedure will be that the ledger keeper will scrutinise each cheque, and satisfy himself that it is in order in every particular, that it is from the drawers current cheque book and the amount does not exceed the cred t balance of the account or that after payment the debit balance resulting will not exceed the available drawing power. He will also hand over to the presenter of a cash cheque a token, the number of which he will enter at the centre of the top of the cheque. Ledger keeper will be expected to make themselves familiar with the constituents signature and they must refer to the specimen signature cards. The cheque will immediately be sent to an authorised passing official only entered in the token register who after satisfying himself that it is in order in every particular, including signature of the drawer, will pass it or payment (with full signature in ink for cash payment and initials in ink for transfer payment ). The cheque will immediately be sent to an authorised passing official only entered in the token register who after satisfying himself that it is in order in every particular, including signature of the drawer, will pass it or payment (with full signature in ink for cash payment and initials in ink for transfer payment ). Clause 21 deals with the token and it provides :- "token must be issued in respect of all documents presented for payment in cash and although it is not strictly necessary that cashiers should identify persons presenting tokens, reasonable caution must always be exercised by them in effecting payments, one of the precautions being to obtain fresh signature of the token holder on the back of the instrument and tally with that already obtained by the clerk who issued the token. When any doubt is entertained as to the bona fide of the presenter of the cheque or other instrument either at the inital stage of presentation or after being passed for payment, the matter should be referred to the officer-in-charge. " 7 In accordance with Clause 9 of Chapter 5 of the Branch Instruction book, the instructions contained in Chapter 3 (paragraphs 25 to 30) relating to current and cash credit accounts, to the extent the same apply to Savings Bank accounts. Thus, in accordance with the procedure prescribed in paragraph 25 of the instruction. In the first place the ledger-keeper had to scruitinise each cheque and satisfy himself that it was in order in every particular. He will then post the amount in the ledger, enter the folio of index number on the top of the cheque, brand the cheque with the "pay cash" or "transfer date" stamp as the case may be, and initials the cheque against the word "entd" to signify that it is in order and has been posted. He will then have to hand over token to the presenter of the cheque and will enter token number on the top of the cheques. 8. The ledger keepers in this case are PWs.10 and 15. If these procedures would have been adopted by the ledger keepers, the infirmity in the forged signature over the withdrawal forms would have been detected. 8. The ledger keepers in this case are PWs.10 and 15. If these procedures would have been adopted by the ledger keepers, the infirmity in the forged signature over the withdrawal forms would have been detected. May be that the appellant at a later stage, perhaps under the same impression that the token had been granted after scrutinising the cheques, were in order in every particulars, escaped his attention, and, thus, bonafidely approved its payment. It is strange that in this case the two ledger keepers were not tried as accused persons, in this situation how could it be held that the circumstance was complete in itself against the appellants. As stated earlier the other circumstance that it could not detect the difference in writing over the withdrawal forms was not a complete link of shown in the present circumstances. As it appears, in case there are many missing links in the chain of circumstances and only the appellant was made a victim of this well planned scheme to cheat the account holders. PW 15 had also approved the payment of a few cheques and stood in the same position, in respect of certain other withdrawal forms, as of this appellant. But in this case he appeared as a prosecution witness and not tried as on accused. He is PW 15. The same benefit of mistake was equally available to this appellant and should have been given the same treatment. In respect of a sum of Rs.2,500 there is no evidence whatsoever to show that entry in the cash scroll (Ext.18) was written by this appellant. Likewise, P. W.15 was to maintain token register on the date in question i. e.20-4-1981. Admittedly, the cashier (PW 12) had initialled the token register and there is no evidence to show that the appellant had initialled the token register. The initials of the cashier. on the other hand, is accepted. In the cash scroll register it was supposed to be maintained by this appellant, and it has been presumed that all the entries were made by the appellant. But the trial court over looked the fact that several pages in the cash scroll have been written by others in the absence of this appellant. The specimen signature of this appellant was never taken and it was never sent at all for experts opinion. But the trial court over looked the fact that several pages in the cash scroll have been written by others in the absence of this appellant. The specimen signature of this appellant was never taken and it was never sent at all for experts opinion. The definite case of the appellant was that the ledger was to be compared with the long book. The long book (Ext.19) is maintained by a clerk and when the appellant compared the ledger with the long book there was no obliteration of the overwriting at all. There is no evidence, whatsoever, as to who committed this overwriting and obliteration in the long book, when was it done and by whom. It was not the duty of the appellant to compare the ledger with the scroll book. His duty was only to compare the ledger book with the long book and the trial court has gone entirely wrong in recording its finding on this aspect. According to PW 13 the appellant had no hand in this episode. In the facts and circumstances, therefore, there are several missing links in the chain of circumstances and it cannot be said with certainty that the two circumstances taken against the appellant were no complete in itself that all other hypothesis could be excluded except his guilt. The admitted enmity between the Branch Manager and this appellant is an admitted fact and the Branch Manager had to admit in his evidence that a proceeding utder Sec.107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been contained between them. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, and the oral and documentry on evidence, it is difficult to uphold the conviction of this appellant and he is reasonably entitled to benefit of doubt and is accordingly acquitted of the charges. His conviction and sentence is, therefore, set aside. He is on bail and the bail bond is discharged. 10. In so far as appellant Bhulendra Ram of Criminal Appeal No.68/85 in concerned, admittedly, he was a peon in the Bank who had been temporaily employed and his appointment was yet to be finalised and confirmed. His father was an employee of this bank. His duty was to carry several books of account and other papers as directed by the high officials from one counter to the other. His father was an employee of this bank. His duty was to carry several books of account and other papers as directed by the high officials from one counter to the other. He had, of course, introduced Mahesh Ram, Bandamia and Nandlal and Dinesh kumar (PWs.6 to 9) who were account holders. They were residents of the same mohalla in which the appellant resides. On their persuation and out of familiarity he introduced them in a bonafide manner to the Bank authorities in order to help them in opening of their accounts. There was nothing wrong in it. The circumstances taken against this appellant are the three confessional statements made before the bank officials on different dates. The first one was obtained on 10-9-1981 (Ext.2) and the rest two on 16-10-1981 (Exts.2/1 and 2/2 ). Of course, these confessional statements are in the handwriting of this appellant but his categorical statement in his statement recorded under Sec.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that it was obtained under duress and on threat given by him he was made to write what the Bank authorities desired him to write. According to him out of this coersion and threat he also deposited a sum of rs.4,900 on 16-10-l981 itself which was deposited from the account of his father, who was a bank employee in the same branch. Helping out the account holders and keeping their (sic) the bank building, taking their pass books and getting their payment approved through the bank staff would not by itself constitute a circumstance to uphold that he had the intention to check the depositors. Now this appellant had rnanipolated the entries in the pass book has not been proved by cogent and reliable evidence. The facts cannot be overlooked that the matter of payment was not in the hand of this appellant. Under the instructions, several hands were required in order to pass the whole transanction of payment on the withdrawal forms, presenting of the cheques on behalf of the account holders, who were illeterates, and helping them out in getting their payment through the bank was not a strong circumstance to hold that the appellant used to dupe the innocent account holders. How could he have an access to those books of accounts, in which the alleged entries were made, has still remained a mystery and the same was to be resolved by consent and reliable evidence required to be led by the prosecution. It is difficult to accept that he alone could have had a hand in forging the withdrawal forms, the scroll register, cash entry in the ledger book, the long book and other such account books in order to complete the chain of payment. In the nature of things, the circumstances would not be complete to hold him guilty of the charges. The confessional statement, of course, were strong circumstances but in absence of other substantive evidence to prove that the books of accounts were operated by the peon alone it is difficult to convict him on the confessional statement. A peon, like the appellant who was not even confirmed and was lingering in the hope of being absorbed as a permanent employee, probably, succumbed to the threat and recorded his confessional statement in writing. The threat and duress was used by high officials on a weak person like the appellant who was looking forward for his confirmation in the service. He succumbed to coersion and made the payment of Rs.4,900 only because he had no capacity of paying more than what his father had in deposit with the bank. This by itself would not indicate that the appellant was guilty. There are several missing links in the chain of circumstances and the mystey has not been resolved in these circumstances, the conviction and sentence of this appellant for the charges alleged against him is set aside. He is reasonably entitled to benefit of doubt and is acquitted of the charges. He is on bail and he is discharged from the bail bond. In view of their acquittal, the payment of fine, which has not yet been deposited, would now be required to be made. 11. In the result, both the appeals are allowed. Appeals allowed.