JUDGMENT V. P. Bhatnagar, J.—The learned Special Judge, Simla, by his judgment dated June 5, 1985, convicted the accused for having committed offences under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sections 409, 467, 465/471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code. He sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one and a half years under various sections of the Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for the same period and a fine of Rs 1000 under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act In default of payment of fine the accused was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. Aggrieved from the said judgment, the present appeal has been preferred by the accused. 2. Two modes are stated to have been resorted to by the accused in committing embezzlement. The first is that the amounts deposited with the accused in his capacity as Incharge of Extension Counter of the State Bank of India, Snow on Hospital, Simla, by various account holders were duly reflected in their Pass Books but these amounts were not accounted for and instead converted by him to his own personal use. However, he made bogus entries curtaining to the deposit of these very amounts on later dates. In this way, he misused the said amounts during the intervening period. According to the prosecution, the accused embezzled a total amount of Rs. 12,500 by taking recourse to this mode wherein eleven separate items are involved. However, evidence has been led with respect to 5 items only having an amount of Rs 6,900/-. The second mode is that the accused withdrew certain amounts from various accounts by himself forging the withdrawal forms and making relevant entries in the record. These amounts were subsequently deposited by him in a similar manner by preparing fictitious Pay-in-slips. In this manner, he embezzled a total amount of Rs. 13,000 for various periods. The prosecution has, however, led evidence only with respect to 3 items having an amount of Rs. These amounts were subsequently deposited by him in a similar manner by preparing fictitious Pay-in-slips. In this manner, he embezzled a total amount of Rs. 13,000 for various periods. The prosecution has, however, led evidence only with respect to 3 items having an amount of Rs. 12,500 3 At the very outset, Shri TV R. Chandel, learned Counsel for the appellant-accused, has raised a preliminary point urging that an employee of the State Bank of India is not covered by the definition of public servant as given in clause 12th (b) of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code, His contention is that the State Bank of India is neither a Corporation established by or under a Central Act nor a Government Company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act. He has relied upon the provisions of section 3 (2) of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 and has argued that the State Bank of India is a Body Corporate as distinguished from a Corporation and further has drawn support from the provisions of section 46-A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, wherein the Bank employees are to be deemed as public servants for the purposes of Chapter IX of the Indian Penal Code. The contention is that such employees expressly stand excluded from the definition of public servant as given in section 21 (12) (b), which is not a part of Chapter IX of the Penal Code. He has cited Oriental Bank of Commerce and another v, Delhi Development Authority and others, 1982 Cri LJ 2230 and N. Vaghul and others v State of Maharashtra and others 198/ Cri LJ 385, in support of his argument. 4. The contention of Shri Chandel appears to be devoid of any merit. He has cited Oriental Bank of Commerce and another v, Delhi Development Authority and others, 1982 Cri LJ 2230 and N. Vaghul and others v State of Maharashtra and others 198/ Cri LJ 385, in support of his argument. 4. The contention of Shri Chandel appears to be devoid of any merit. To hold that a State Bank employee is a public servant for the purposes of Chapter IX of the Indian Penal Code as clearly postulated under section 46- A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and, therefore, punishable for at offence or corruption under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code butat the same time, not a public servant for the purposes of Prevention of Corruption Act being not covered under the definition of pubic servant given in section 21 (12) (b) and, therefore, not punishable section 6 of the Section of Corruption Act for an act of corruption would be apparently an incongruous proposition and amount to violating the intendment of the Legislature Section 46-A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 merely Lv8s Emphasis on the proposition that the bank employees would be public servant and, therefore, punishable for various offences under Chapter IX S the Penal Code but it under no stretch of imagination, excludes these employees from the ambit of section 21 (12) (b) of the Indian Penal Code ff otherwise covered by the definition given thereunder. In fact, the point under discussion has been dealt with in depth in State of Maharashtra v. L. D Kanchan Kanchan & others, 1989 Cri LJ 697 by the Bombay High Court where in all the contentions raised by Shri Chandel have been negatived I am in respectful agreement with the reasoning given therein and find no hesitation in holding that the employees of the State Bank of India are public servants under section 21 (12) (b) of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore cab be tried for offences under the Prevention of Corruption, Act, 1947 The view has also been taken by Kerala High Court: in Kurian v. State of Kerala 1982 Cri LJ 780, Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) filial s State of UP., 1979 All LJ 922 and the Punjab and Haryana High Court Kundanlal Sharma v. State of Punjab, 1985 Cri LJ 1411. I am of the opinion that the contrary view taken by the Delhi High Court in the matter in Oriental Bank of Commerce v Delhi Development Authority, 1982 Cri LJ 2230 with all respect, is not good law. 5. I am also in agreement with the views expressed in State of Maharashtra v. L. D. Kanchan and others, 1989 Cri LJ 697 that the observations made in paras 20 and 21 of N. Vaghul and others v. State of Maharashtra Ta others in Cri LJ 385 which tend to support the argument of Shri Chander are in the nature of obiter and that the question whether Bank employees and public servants within the meaning of section 21 (12) (b) of the Penal Code was not finally decided upon therein. 6. The preliminary point raised by Shri T. R. Chandel is, therefore, rejected. 7. As regards the first amount of Rs. 500 stated to have been temporarily embezzled by the accused during the period from 6-3-1979/ 6-10-1979 to2-6-1980, the evidence adduced is somewhat confusing. Dr. M T Sharma (PW 2) has stepped into the witness box to prove his complaint at Ex. PW 2/4 with respect to his Savings Bank Account No. MC-180 with Extension Counter, State Bank of India Snowdon Hospital, Simla According to the contents of this complaint, a sum of Rs. 1000 had been deposed by him on 23-1-1979, another sum of Rs. 500 on 6-3-1979 and ?et another sum of Rs. 1200 on 6-3-1979 in his said account He further wrote in his complaint that he had been issued counter-foils pertaining to Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000 and that the sum of Rs. 1200 was posted in his Pass Book but that the correct entries had not been made in The Ledger K therefore, requested that the matter be looked into and the missing credits be restored. It is manifest that this compliant was procured from Dr. Sharma by the Bank authorities after financial irregularities had come to light. Now, in order to prove the prosecution case pertaining to the deposit of Rs. 500/-, Dr. M. L. Sharma has stated that he has seen entry Ex. PW 2/1/1 made on 6-3-1979 in Pass Book Ex. PW. 2/1 and that a sum of Rs. 500/- has been shown to have been deposited in his account on that day. Now, in order to prove the prosecution case pertaining to the deposit of Rs. 500/-, Dr. M. L. Sharma has stated that he has seen entry Ex. PW 2/1/1 made on 6-3-1979 in Pass Book Ex. PW. 2/1 and that a sum of Rs. 500/- has been shown to have been deposited in his account on that day. This part of his statement is not correct inasmuch as the entry Ex. PW. 2/1/1 is of Rs. 1200/- although it has been struck of with pencil and a sum of Rs 500/- written on top of it. The learned Assistant Advocate General, at the time of arguments, has explained that the sum of Rs. 500/- which was temporarily embezzled by the accused was deposited by Dr. M. L. Sharma on 6-10-1979 through Ms. Soma Wati (PW. 13) for which purpose he has relied upon entry Ex. PW. 2/2/1 in Pass Book Ex. PW. 2/1. This, however, militates against the testimony of Dr. Sharma while in the witness box. The case is that the sum of Rs. 500/-was deposited by him on 6-34979 and he is trying to connect the Pay-in-slip Ex. PW 2/2/1 with the said amount of Rs. 500 deposited on that date. What is being urged now is that the embezzlement of this item has nothing to do with the deposit of Rs. 50) on 6-34979 but that this amount was deposited on 6404979 but not accounted for by the accused who instead did so on 2-64980 by altering the date of Pay-in-slip Ex. PW. 2/2/2. The prosecution evidence with respect to this item being not very clear, it is difficult to hold that temporary embezzlement of Rs. 500 stands fully established. 8. The second item pertains to the joint account of Dr. B. K. Goal (PW. 5, and his wife Or Asha Goel. The number of the account is 11880 and the Pass Book is Ex. PW. r /I. As per entry Ex. PW, 5/1/1,-a sum of Rs. 3200 stands entered as having been deposited The deposit was made by Dr. Tirloki Nath (PW. 11) on behalf of the account-holders. On 1-14980, the last balance in this account was Rs. 11,951-02-P and after the deposit of Rs. 3,200 the balance amount was correctly shown as Rs. 15,151 02P. This is clean from the entry Ex. PW. 5/1/1- Dr. Tirloki Nath (PW. Tirloki Nath (PW. 11) on behalf of the account-holders. On 1-14980, the last balance in this account was Rs. 11,951-02-P and after the deposit of Rs. 3,200 the balance amount was correctly shown as Rs. 15,151 02P. This is clean from the entry Ex. PW. 5/1/1- Dr. Tirloki Nath (PW. 11) has proved his signatures on the Pay-in-slip Ex. PW, 5/2. It has been deposed by him that he deposited a sum of Rs. 3,200 on 1 14980 and further that the date of 144980 appears to have been over-written by 2-6-1980. This is corroborated by evidence of the Documents Expert examined in this case. Not only that, it is borne out by the manner forging has been done in the other record of the Extension Counter of the Bank Ex. PW. 15/3 is the true copy of the Ledger account book Entry at Ex PW 15/3/1 shows that the sum of Rs 3,200 was correctly recorded as having been deposited on 1-14980 and correct totalling done while showing the balance due. This amount was, however, dishonestly retained by the accused with himself on 14-1980 In order to account for it, he made a bogus entry of deposit of Rs. 3,200 on 2/3-6-1980 vide Ledger account Ex. PW. 15/5. That the entry of this amount was made fictitiously stands fully proved from the fact that it could not be and was not incorporated in the total showing the balance amount as on 2/3-54980, And then, the accused made no entry in the Day Book Ex. PW, 15/4 pertaining to deposit of Rs. 3,200 on 144980. Ha also made no entry in the Cash Scroll Ex. PW. 14/3, for the said date but showed this amount in the Cash Scroll Ex. PW. 15/10 on 2-64980 vide entry Ex. PW. 15/10/3. The above documentary evidence leaves no scope whatsoever from the conclusion that the sum of Rs. 3,200 deposited in this account on 144980 was retained with a dishonest intention by the accused who forged the record to show that this amount was actually deposited on 2-6-1980. Thus the temporary embezzlement of this amount for the period from 1-1-1980 to 2-6-1980 stands fully proved. 3,200 deposited in this account on 144980 was retained with a dishonest intention by the accused who forged the record to show that this amount was actually deposited on 2-6-1980. Thus the temporary embezzlement of this amount for the period from 1-1-1980 to 2-6-1980 stands fully proved. The answers given by the accused to Questions No. 9 to 14 in his statement recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also spell out his guilt through and through He has admitted his handwriting pertaining to all the entries mentioned above but has failed to give any explanation except a denial simplicitor as to why the amount deposited on 1-1-1980 was not duly accounted for on that date. 9. Coming to the second item of Rs. 700 deposited by Dr. P.K. Dutta (PW. 4) in his Pass Book Account No. C-l 3479 Ex. PW-4/1, the accused similarly made entry Ex. PW. 4/1/1 on 6 9-1979 showing the deposit of this amount of Rs. 700. While striking the balance, this amount was added by showing the balance amount as Rs. 720-32 P. from the previous balance amount of Rs. 20-32 P. Its Pay-in-slip is Ex PW 4/2 and it is not difficult to decipher that the date 6-9-1979 on it has been altered to 2-6-1980 by use of a rubber stamp twice, one of which has been put up side down. The corresponding entry in the Ledger Book Ex. PW 15/12/1 has been made which correctly shows the sum of Rs. 700 having been deposited on 6-9-1979 and the increase in balance amount from Rs. 20-32P. to Rs. 700 3 2. In the Ledger Book, this very amount of Rs. 700 was fictitiously shown as having been deposited on 2-6-1980 vide entry Ex. PW. 15/12/2 but the amount not reflected in the total while striking the balance amount, for the obvious reason that the previous total already included this amount. Now, Day Book Ex PW. 15/13 for the date 6-9-1979 does not show any amount of Rs. 700 having been deposited in the account of Dr. Dutta and the same is the position with respect to the Cash Scroll Ex. PW. 14/2 for 6-9-1979. But this amount is instead entered in the Cash Scroll Ex. PW. 15/10 on 2-6-19&) vide entry Ex. PW. 15/10/2. The above documentary evidence conclusively proves that the accused temporarily embezzled the sum of Rs. Dutta and the same is the position with respect to the Cash Scroll Ex. PW. 14/2 for 6-9-1979. But this amount is instead entered in the Cash Scroll Ex. PW. 15/10 on 2-6-19&) vide entry Ex. PW. 15/10/2. The above documentary evidence conclusively proves that the accused temporarily embezzled the sum of Rs. 700 on 6-9-1979 and accounted for it on 2-6-1980. The mode with respect to temporary embezzlement of a sum of Rs. 1500 for the period from 4-6-19:9 to 27-5-1980 deposited by Shri Lekh Raj Verma (PW. 6) and a sum of Rs. 1000 for the period from 17-9-1979 to 2-6-1980 deposited by Shri N. K. Gupta (PW. 7) is exactly the same as adopted in the earlier two cases discussed above and stands fully proved. Thus, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing that the accused misappropriated a sum of Rs. 6,400 by taking recourse adverted to above. 10. As already noticed above, the prosecution has adduced evidence pertaining to temporary embezzlement of Rs. 12,500 with respect to three items through second mode. Herein, the accused used to forge withdrawal forms and draw money from the accounts of various depositors and misappropriated the said money till he was in position to pay back the said money in those very accounts. 11. One instance of embezzlement through second mode is from the Pass Book of Dr. B. S. Prashar (PW. 3). His Pass Book No. 20382 has been exhibited as PW. 3/1. A sum of Rs. 5,000 has been withdrawn from this account by form Ex. PW. 3/2 on 30-4-1979. Since the withdrawal was fictitious, it could not be and has not been duly reflected in the Pass Book on the relevant date, viz. 30-4-1979. All the same, perusal of entry. Ex. PW. 15/27/1 in the Day Book, entry Ex. PW. 14/1/2 in the Cash Scroll Ex. PW 14/1 and entry Ex. PW. 15/28/1 in Ledger Book Ex. PW. 15/28 clearly shows that accused made entries about withdrawal of this amount in all bank account books Now Dr. B. S. Prashar (PW. 3) has made a statement in unequivocal terms that he made no such withdrawal on 30-4-1979. For that matter, he did not deposit an equivalent amount on 28-6-1980 in his account as shown by Pay-in-slip Ex. PW. 3/3, This Pay-in-slip is not signed by the depositor which further strengthens the prosecution case. B. S. Prashar (PW. 3) has made a statement in unequivocal terms that he made no such withdrawal on 30-4-1979. For that matter, he did not deposit an equivalent amount on 28-6-1980 in his account as shown by Pay-in-slip Ex. PW. 3/3, This Pay-in-slip is not signed by the depositor which further strengthens the prosecution case. The deposit has been duty shown in the Cash Scroll Ex. PW. 15/10 having put to the accused in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he admitted having passed the withdrawal form Ex. PW. 3/2 though he stuck to his defence that he had not withdraw any such amount on 30-4-1979. This explanation holds no water in the face of the documentary evidence discussed above. What further cements the case against the accused is the manner in which the entry of deposit as also that of the withdrawal of Rs. 5,000 has been shown in the Pass Book Ex. PW. 3/1. Both these entries have been made on 28-6-1980 and against the withdrawal, the particulars given are to withdraw as on 30-4-79. The above evidence, oral as well as documentary, conclusively proves the case against the accused and there is not an iota of doubt that he fictitiously withdrew a sum of Rs. 5,000 from the account of Dr. Prashar on 30-4- J979 and deposited it back on 28-6-1980. The conclusion that he made use of this money himself during the intervening period is obvious. 12. The accused similarly converted a sum of Rs. 5,000 to his own use by withdrawing it from the account of PW. Dr. D. S. Upadhaya on 28-5-1979 and depositing it back in the bank on 28-6-1980. He further withdrew fictitiously a sum of Rs. 2,500 from the same account on 28-5-1979 and deposited it back on 4-8-1980. The oral as also the documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution with respect to these two items is on similar lines as pertaining to the sum of Rs. 5,000 withdrawn from the account of Dr. Prashar. This brings the guilt home to the accused without any shadow of doubt. 13. In view of the above discussion, I find no force in this appeal. 5,000 withdrawn from the account of Dr. Prashar. This brings the guilt home to the accused without any shadow of doubt. 13. In view of the above discussion, I find no force in this appeal. I have no hesitation in upholding the conviction of the accused for offences under section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sections 409, 467, 465, 471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code. On the point of sentence, however, I am prone to take a lenient view since the incident pertains to the year 1979 and 1980 and the trial commenced in the year 1983. During all this period, the sword of damocles had been hanging over the head of the accused. He has also lost his job with the Bank. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment awarded to the accused by the learned Special Judge, Simla is, therefore reduced to that of six months, but that of fine of Rs. 1000 is maintained. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. All sentences shall run concurrently. A copy of this order would be sent to the learned Special Judge, Simla, who would ensure that the accused is sent to the prison to suffer the sentence in accordance with the terms of this order. Appeal dismissed.