(1) BOTHTHE appeals have been preferred bythe State of Karnataka against a common judgment of the High court in Criminal Appeal No. 139 of 1976. the convictions of accused 1 under S. 5(2 read with Section 5(l)(d) ofthe Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and under Section 381 and S. 420 Indian Penal Code were confirmed butthe substantive sentence was reduced to imprisonment tillthe rising ofthe court on each count and fine of Rs. 1,000.00, in default to undergo RI for three months whilethe convictions of accused 2 underthe same charges were set aside. Hence, Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 1979 has been filed for enhancement of sentence to accused 1 and Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 1979 has been filed to set asidethe acquittai of accused 2. (2) ON being taken throughthe records ofthe case and hearingthe arguments of Shri K.L. Sharma, leamed counsel forthe appellant State, we do seethe High court has been very lenient in reducingthe sentence awarded to accused 1 to imprisonment tillthe rising ofthe court and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 forthe offences committed by him. As a bank employee, accused 1 had utilisedthe signed cheque leaves of accused 2 and drawn a sum of Rs. 8,400 even though accused 2 did not have more than Rs. 1,00.00 in his account.the offences committed by accused 1 did therefore warrant adequate sentence. Even so we do not feel persuaded to interfre withthe judgment ofthe High court at this belated stage. In addition tothe factors whichthe High court took into considration for reducingthe sentence, viz. the re-deposit of the money wrongfully drawn fromthe bank, the loss ofjob forthe accused and his young ge, the long passage of time afterthe appeal was filed has aiso to be taken into reck-oning. We do not therefore think that we should in exercise of our powers under Article 136 interfre withthe sentence awarded bythe High court after so many years have passed by. (3) INSOFAR as accused 2 is concemed,the High court had held that the charge of conspiracy between accused 1 and accused 2 has not been proved. Oncethe charge of conspiracy is held .disproved, then there is no vidence against accused 2 except his having handed over to accused 1 his cheque book containing several leaves with his signature in them. (3) INSOFAR as accused 2 is concemed,the High court had held that the charge of conspiracy between accused 1 and accused 2 has not been proved. Oncethe charge of conspiracy is held .disproved, then there is no vidence against accused 2 except his having handed over to accused 1 his cheque book containing several leaves with his signature in them. Accused 2 had takenthe stand that he was inthe habit of putting his sig-nature on ailthe cheque leaves and that he had not suspected thatthe signed cheque leaves would be misused when he gavethe cheque book to accused l when he offered to help him in closingthe bank account. The High court has acceptedthe explanation offered by accused 2. lt cannot be said thatthe view taken bythe High court is so manifestly wrong that it calls for interfrence by this court. At best it may be said thatthe view taken bythe High court is less commendable for accep-tance thanthe view taken bythe trial Judge for rejectingthe explanation given by accused 2 and finding him guilty along with accused 1. (4) FORTHE aforesaid reasons, boththe appeals fail and are dismissed accordingly.