JUDGMENT 1. - All these three appeals are inter-connected on facts and in law. These are, therefore, disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 1982, N.N. Mathur v. State ; 2. During the period between 1973 and 1976 Narender Narain Mathur appellant was working as an Assistant in the New Business Department in the Divisional Office of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (the 'LIC') at Ajmer in Rajasthan. It is alleged that in the year 1977 the Superintendent of Police, Delhi Special Police Establishment (SPE), Jaipur Branch received an information that during the aforesaid period the appellant had entered into a criminal conspiracy with one Hari Ram, typist in his said office, to cheat the LIC by way of manavouring false payments through crossed cheques issued by the Divisional Office of LIC at the said Branch office, on account of the loans on the lapsed policies, discounted value of the lapsed policies, medical examination fees and loans on regular policies in the record of the LIC and in furtherance of such criminal conspiracy the appellant dishonestly and fraudulently opened accounts in different banks at Ajmer in the names of different doctors/persons with the help of co-conspirators and received payments of the crossed cheques with the help of Hari Ram Agarwala, typist, afore mentioned, who had a current account in the name of his wife Sm Shakuntala Sriya, Proprietor M/s Neel Kamal Enterprises, Cumendespara, Ajmer, thereby putting the LIC to wrongful loss to the tune of Rs. 43,523,81 and corresponding wrongful gain to himself and other co-conspirators. On this information Crime No. 26 for offence punishable under section 120-B r.w. 420, 468, : 477-AIPC and S. 5(2) r.w. Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 (the 'PC Act of 1947') was registered at CBI, SPE, Jaipur. After completion of investigation charge-sheets were submitted against the appellant in the following manner: 1. Charge sheet No. 6/78 (Case No. 3/78 and Appeal No. 30/82): In this case the facts found on investigation were that during the period between 1974 and 1975, the appellant was working as an Assistant in the New Business Department of LIC at its Divisional Office Ajmer. Charge sheet No. 6/78 (Case No. 3/78 and Appeal No. 30/82): In this case the facts found on investigation were that during the period between 1974 and 1975, the appellant was working as an Assistant in the New Business Department of LIC at its Divisional Office Ajmer. In that capacity his duties, inter alia, were to check the medical fee bills with regard to medical examiners, the sums assured and the genuineness and correctness of the medical fees payable to the medical examiners and then to put the same to the A.O., N.B. Deptt. for getting the same passed and thereafter to forward the same to the Accounts Deptt. for release of payment through cheques to the concerned medical examiners. In his aforesaid capacity the appellant, fraudulently and dishonestly and by abuse of his official position or by corrupt means, obtained/got issued in favour of Dr. A.N. Mathur (Code No. 58194), an approved medical examiner/the following six cheques : S.No. Cheque No. with date Amount 1. 567530/4.9.74 820/- 2. 334799/9.9.74 195/- 3. 568639/7.5.75 580/- 4. 360556/31.10.75 325/- 5. 567801/18.11.74 580/- 6. 910667/1.5.75 843/- 3343/- instead of sending the aforementioned cheques to the payee, namely, Dr. Amar Narain Mathur the appellant opened a fictitious Saving Bank Account No. 5489 in the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd., Station Road, Ajmer on 23.9.74. The appellant then presented the afore-mentioned cheques either himself or through his men in the said Bank and got the amounts credited in his said fictitious account and after some time withdrew the amounts of these cheque leaving a nominal amount in the said Bank Account. The aforesaid acts of the appellant were stated to be constituting offices punishable Under sections 420/419, 467/468, 477-A IPC and Section 5(2) r.w. Section 5(1 )(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. It was further mentioned in the police report submitted Under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. that since the appellant had already been dismissed from the service no sanction for his prosecution from the competent authority was required. A list of 23 witnesses to be examined at the trial and a list of 38 documents to be tendered in evidence, to prove the above facts against the appellant, were filed along with the police report. 2. A list of 23 witnesses to be examined at the trial and a list of 38 documents to be tendered in evidence, to prove the above facts against the appellant, were filed along with the police report. 2. Charge sheet No. 18/78 (Case No. 10/78 Appeal No. 30/82): In this case the appellant was alleged to have committed the same nature of offences in respect to the amounts of 21 cheques drawn on Punjab National Bank, Ajmer, in favour of and payable to Dr. H.N. Mathur, another medical examiner of the LIC totalling to Rs. 7039/- by opening a fictitious Saving Bank Account No. 9202 in the United Commercial Bank (UCO), Purani Mandi, Ajmer in the name of the said Dr. H.N. Mathur and thereafter withdrawing the same in the manner stated above. In this case a list of 18 witnesses and 18 documents had been filed along with the police report. 3. Charge-sheet No. 18/78 (Case No. 11/78 : Appeal No. 30/82): In this case the appellant, working in the same capacity during the years 1974 and 1975, was alleged to have committed the same nature of offences, by abusing his official position or by corrupt means, in respect to the amount of 15 (fifteen) cheques totalling to Rs. 10,978/- drawn on Punjab National Bank, Ajmer, in favour of Dr. S.C. Mathur, (Dr. Satish Chandra Mathur), another approved medical examiner of the LIC by opening fictitious Saving Bank Account No. 5379 In the name of Dr. Satish Chand Mathur in the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd., Station Road, Ajmer. It was further alleged that there were three other approved medical examiners of the LIC with their short names of Dr. S.C. Mathur but their full names were Dr. Swami Charan Mathur, Dr. Sugan Chand Mathur and Dr. Suresh Chandra Mathur. Along with the police report a list of 20 witnesses and a list of 21 documents had been filed. 4. Charge-sheet No. 20/78 (Case No. 12/78: Appeal No. 30/78): In this case it was alleged that during the year 1966 LIC Policy No. 25240681 was issued in the name of the appellant himself but such policy had lapsed on 23.8.66. In the year 1974 the appellant applied for loan against his said lapsed policy and himself verified the payment of the premium up to January, 1974. Consequently a loan of Rs. In the year 1974 the appellant applied for loan against his said lapsed policy and himself verified the payment of the premium up to January, 1974. Consequently a loan of Rs. 1200/- was sanctioned to him and the appellant obtained Cheque No. 421449 dated 19.2.74 for Rs. 1198.50/-. The amount was got credited in his Saving Bank Account on 21.2.74. Thereafter, on 27.5.76 the appellant, with an intention to again play fraud on the LIC got the aforesaid policy surrendered so that after its surrender, the surrendered value of the policy might be paid to him, and the amount taken by him could get squared off leaving no clue for detecting the fraud played by the appellant. The game-plan of the appellant was, however, detected and the appellant was made to deposit the amount of loan taken by him against the lapsed policy. 5. Charge-sheet No. 21/78 (Case No. 12/78: Appeal No. 30/82): In this case, the appellant, during the years 1073 to 1975 and in the same capacity, committed same nature of offences in respect to 15 (fifteen) cheques drawn on Punjab National Bank in favour of Dr. Narender Kumr Bapna, another approved medical examiner, for a total amount of Rs. 7,233/- by opening fictitious SB Account No. 906 in the Allahbad Bank Ajmer on 29.6.73 in the name of said Dr. Bafna, then first getting the amounts of the aforesaid cheques credited in such Bank Account and thereafter withdrawing the same, leaving a nominal amount only therein. In this case a list of 17 witnesses to be examined at the trial and a list of 17 documents to be tendered in evidence was submitted along with the police Report. 6. Charge-sheet No. 22/78 (Case No. 14/78 : Appeal No. 30/82): In this case, during the years 1973 and 1974 the appellant, acting in the same capacity and in the same manner and adopting the same corrupt means, was alleged to have committed the same nature of offences in respect to the amounts of ten Cheques to-tailing to Rs. 7,056/- issued by LIC on Punjab National Bank Ajmer in favour of Dr. S.L. Gupta (Shanti Lal Gupta) and some other approved medical examiners with different Code Nos. 7,056/- issued by LIC on Punjab National Bank Ajmer in favour of Dr. S.L. Gupta (Shanti Lal Gupta) and some other approved medical examiners with different Code Nos. and getting fictitious SB A/C opened in the same Bank, getting the amount of the Cheques credited in such fictitious account and, therefore, withdrawing the same by himself or through his men leaving only a nominal amount therein. In this case a list of 17 witnesses and a list of 16 documents, to be relied upon at the trial of the appellant, were submitted along with the Police Report. 3. Before the commencement of the trial in all the aforementioned cases the appellant moved an application under section 218 Cr.P.C. in the Court of the learned trial Judge requesting him to consolidate the cases for the purposes of joint trial, recording of evidence and deciding all of them on the basis of the evidence so recorded. The learned trial Judge by his well reasoned order dated 7.5.1979 allowed such application of the appellant, framed charges relating to the commission of offence in all the six cases, recorded evidence by examining all the common witnesses in all the cases and also examining all such other witnesses who were not common to all cases and examined the appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating evidence and circumstances appearing on the record of the joint trial and having reference to ail the six cases. 4. On being examined under section 313 Cr.RC. the appellant accepted all. the evidence and circumstances incriminating as appearing in evidence against him in all the aforementioned six cases and as were relied upon by the prosecution. He even submitted a written application confessing his guilt in all the six cases and praying for leniency in awarding punishment to him. 5. The learned trial Judge, after having considered the prosecution evidence on the record of the joint trial, the statement of the appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C. and his written submission and in a well discussed and well reasoned judgment and order dated 2.11.1981 held the* appellant guilty, convicted him as such and sentenced him to punishments of imprisonment and fine in the following manner- S. No. Case No. (In the trial Court) Offences convicted of Punishment Imprisonment-Fine 1. 3/78 U/s 5(2) PC At U/Ss 420, 467 and 468 IPC 18 Months Rl 18 Months Rl for each offence 3000/- 200/- for each offence 2. 10/78 U/s 419 IPC U/s 5(1) r/ws 5(2) U/s 420, 467/468 IPC One Month Rl 18 Months Rl 18 Months Rl for each offence Rs. 7000/- fine Rs. 10/-fine for each offence 3. 11/78 U/s 5(1) r/w 5(2) PC Act U/SS 420, 467, 468 IPC -do- Rs. 10,000/-fine Rs. 300/- fine for each offence 4. 12/78 u/ss 5(1) r/w 5(2) PC Act -do- Rs. 10/-fine 5. 13/78 u/ss 5(1) r/w 5(2) PC Act U/ss 420, 467 and 468 IPC -do- Rs. 7000/- fine Rs. 50/- fine for each offence 6. 14/78 u/ss 5(1) r/w 5(2) PC Act U/ss 420, 467 and 468 IPC -do- Rs. 7000/- fine Rs. 20/- fine for each offence 7. 15/78 u/ss 5(1) r/w 5(2) PC Act U/ss 420, 467 and 468 IPC -do- Rs. 800/- fine Rs. 20/- fine for each offence. 6. At the very outset the learned counsel for the appellant urged that save in one case (Trial Court No. 3/78) the learned trial Judge did not write the judgment and order convicting and sentencing the appellant in such cases and, therefore, all such cases be remitted to the learned trial Judge for writing the judgments afresh. It was submitted that in all such cases the learned trial court had held the appellant guilty of various offences, as mentioned above, and convicted and sentenced him simply on the basis of the examination of the appellant recorded under section 313 Cr.RC. and the written submissions filed by him in support thereof and, therefore, the judgment in those cases were not judgments in the eye of law. and the written submissions filed by him in support thereof and, therefore, the judgment in those cases were not judgments in the eye of law. The learned Public Prosecutor however pointed out that since all the afore-mentioned cases had been consolidated for the purposes of holding a joint trial in respect of all the offences alleged to have been committed by the appellant in all such cases, on the request of the appellant himself in order to save him from avoidable harassment and rigours of separate trials, and the evidence was recorded in one case and such evidence included not only the evidence common to all the cases but also to the evidence in each and every individual case, and after having recorded the evidence in that manner the learned trial Judge decided ail the afore-mentioned cases by his impugned consolidated and common judgment and order wherein evidence relevant to and incriminating against the appellant was discussed in sufficient detail and the appellant never objected against the mode and manner of recording the evidence and holding of the joint trial, there was no force in the objection raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. 7. On examination of the record of the trial court the facts sated by the learned Public Prosecutor were found correct and when the attention of the learned counsel for the appellant was invited to the relevant order of the learned trial court made in that behalf the learned counsel withdrew their objection. On going through the impugned judgment and order, I feel satisfied that the learned trial Judge has discussed the evidence which was relevant and material in each of the cases and it was after a long discussion made in more than 60 pages the learned Judge had arrived at his findings in respect of each and every offence which was alleged to have been committed by the appellant in each of the above mentioned 7 (seven) cases. Even when this court expressed its resolution to decided ail the cases in this court on the basis of the material available on the record of each case and that it does not feel inclined to remand the case for the purposes of writing judgment, when such judgment has already been written by the learned trial Judge, the learned counsel submitted that they were withdrawing their preliminary objection. 8. 8. When the learned counsel were invited to address the court on the merit of individual cases and individual offence in each of the cases they submitted that the findings recorded by the learned trial judge on each of the offences involved in each of the seven cases were not intended to be challenged by them and that they would confine their arguments to the sentence part only in each of the cases. In that behalf it was submitted that the appellant was dismissed from the Service for the acts of commission complained of by the prosecution against him; that he was a sick man of about 60 years of age; that he has social obligations and responsibilities to perform; that it would not be in accordance with the notion of criminal justice to send him-to jail after the lapse of a long period of more than two decades after the commission of the offences which have been found committed by him and, therefore, it would be appropriate to reduce the substantive sentences of imprisonment awarded to him in each case to the periods already undergone by him with some increase in the amounts of fine imposed. On being asked by the Bench whether the appellant had ever deposited the amount or amounts, involved in all or any case which amount(s) have been found to have been fraudulently obtained and misappropriated by him during the years 1973 to 1975 or so, it was submitted that the appellant had not deposited any amount in any of the cases. 9. In view of the accusations made against the appellant; the area of his activities relating to the commission of offences by him; the volume of evidence collected and produced at the trial; the time consumed in his trial; the admission of incriminating facts made by the appellant at the time of his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., his dismissed from service during the meanwhile and his counsel not challenging the finding recorded by the lerned trial Judge before this court, the state of health of the appellant coupled with his advanced age I examined the record of each and every case and the evidence recorded in the main file with a view to satisfying myself lest the rigours of long trial had not persuaded the appellant to make admission of ail incriminating evidence and circumstances appearing in evidence against him. On such examination I felt satisfied that the prosecution had examined as many as 44 witnesses and proved more than three hundred documents including the reports of the hand writing experts. Majority of the documents consisted of the copies and extracts from the record of the concerned Banks and the entires made therein have been proved in accordance with the provisions contained in the Bankers Evidence Book and the provisions contained in Section 34 of the Evidence Act. The relevant evidence was fully supported with the testimony of the concerned witnesses from the relevant organization. The learned trial judge has discussed all such documentary and oral evidence in sufficient detail and the findings recorded by him on each and every count of various and different charges stand fully established from the evidence on the record of the trial court. In view of the fact that no challenge was given to the reliability of the prosecution evidence and its connection with the appellant and the commission of various offences by him as also the clear findings recorded by the learned trial Judge recorded by him on each and every count of charge in each of the seven cases I do not fee inclined to enter into a discussion of all such evidence afresh. Suffice it to say that independent of the plea of guilt advanced by the appellant at a belated stage of examining him under section 313 Cr.P.C. all the charges of which he has been found guilty of, convicted as such in each and every case stand fully proved against him by cogent and reliable evidence. Consequently his conviction for the offences as mentioned above in each case, is confirmed and the judgment and order of the learned trial Judge in that behalf is hereby upheld. 10. Now coming to the sentencing part I have closely studied the case of Gurudev Singh v. State (1998 Cr.L.J. 3580 ); OP Athwal v. Union of India RLR 1988(1) 1007 ; D.S. Bhandwari v. State WLN 1978 765 rendered by this Court and Bhagwan Dass Keshwani v. State of Raj. A.IR. 1974 SC 898 ; B.C. Goswami v. Delhi Administration A.I.R. 1973 L.J. 3580 of the Delhi High Court, which all were relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant for lenient view of sentence to the appellant at this belated stage of the proceedings. A.IR. 1974 SC 898 ; B.C. Goswami v. Delhi Administration A.I.R. 1973 L.J. 3580 of the Delhi High Court, which all were relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant for lenient view of sentence to the appellant at this belated stage of the proceedings. In all the above mentioned cases it was held that the mitigating circumstances like sickness of the accused, his health, his social liabilities, the rigours of long trial should be taken into account while finally dealing with his case/appeal by the trial/appellate Court. There car.not be any dispute to the proposition propounded in these case. I respectfully agree with the views expressed therein. But at the same time, i would like to refer to the change reflected of late in the field of penology and sentencing, particularly in the area of socioeconomic offences adversely affecting the national economy and causing erosion in the faith of the people at large in the judicial system of the country. 11. In the case of State of H.R V, Prithvi Chand (1996) 2 SCC 37 , the Apex Court observed that: "The accused involved in an economic offence de-establis the economy and causes grave incursion on the economic planning of the State. When the Legislature entrusts the power to the police officer to prevent organised commission of the offence or offences involving moral turpitude or crimes of grave nature and are entrusted with power to investigate into the crime in intractable and secretive manner in concert, greater circumspection and care and caution should be borne in mind by the High Court when it exercises its inherent power. Otherwise the social order and security would be put in jeopardy and to grave risk. The accused : will have a field day in de-establing the economy of the State regulated under the relevant provisions." 12. Again in the case of Rajiv v. State of Rajasthan (1996) 2 SCC 175 , the Apex Court observed as under: "it is the nature and gravity of the crime but not the criminal which : are germane for consideration of appropriate punishment in criminal trial. The Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the Society to which the criminal and victim belong. The Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the Society to which the criminal and victim belong. The punishment to be 3 awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it should "respond to the Society's cry for justice against the criminal." 13. In the case of State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma (1996) 3 SCC 364 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that: "Justice means justice between both the parties. The interest of justice equally demand that the guilty should be punished and that technicalities and irregularities which do not occasion failure of 4i justice are not allowed to defeat the ends of justice. Principles of natural justice are but the means to achieve the ends of justice. They cannot be prevented to achieve the very opposite end. That would be a counter productive exercise." 14. Therefore, while considering the prayer of the appellant in this case 4 the above observations are also to be taken into account before permitting delay to consume the very purpose behind crime and punishment. 15. The factual position relating to the dismissal of the appellant from service, his facing trial for sufficiently long time, his advanced age and falling health at the present time, his social or family obligations his plea of guilt after the crime had been proved against him by tender of voluminous documents and testimony of a number of witnesses, is not in dispute. These all may go to make mitigating circumstances requiring leniency in sentence at this stage. These all may go to make mitigating circumstances requiring leniency in sentence at this stage. Along with if the aggravating circumstances are that the appellant held a fiduciary position visa vis his organisation and the consumers of the services of such organization, in his such capacity and position he repeatedly committed the offences of forging documents, opening accounts in different Banks, misappropriating the property of other in a calculated manner with all dishonest and fraudulent intention, allowed the prosecution to collect and produce with great efforts the relevant evidence, which he very well knew to be existing in the relevant records, denied the existence and genuineness of such record at the time of first opportunity of pleading guilty and then in the course of the lengthy trial, but ultimately admitting all the incriminating evidence and circumstances coming on the record of the case against him, and at no stage of the proceedings since after the commission of offence in the year 1973 to 1975 trying to deposit the wrongfully obtained gains by corrupt means and continuing multiplying the wrongful gain to himself by retention of the amount involved, correspondingly causing multiplied wrongful loss to the organisation and the concerned rightful claimants of the amounts in question. Weighing all these pros and cons for and against the appellant whereas, in my opinion, the mitigating circumstances should go to reduce the substantive sentences of imprisonment, as recorded by the learned trial Judge for each offence and in each case, to the period(s) of such sentence already undergone by him during investigation, trial and appeal, the aggravating circumstances should go to increase the amounts of fine imposed for each of the offences in each of the cases in a manner that may not only rob him of the wrongful gains earned by him by retention of the dishonestly and fraudulently earned money belonging to others but may also create in him and others like him that the mode of enriching oneself at the cost of wrongful loss to others is never a way to an affluent life. 16. In the result the conviction of Narender Narain Mathur appellant for all the offences in ail the cases, which make the subject matter of S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 1982 is upheld. 16. In the result the conviction of Narender Narain Mathur appellant for all the offences in ail the cases, which make the subject matter of S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 1982 is upheld. The substantive sentence of imprisonment as awarded by the learned trial Judges for the offences in all such case is, however, reduced to the period(s) already undergone by the appellant in connection with ail these cases. However, this is subject to the increase in the amount of fine, imposed by the learned trial Judge for each offence in each of the seven cases, in the following manner: 1. Case No. 3/78 for offence Under section 5(2) of the P.C. Act for offence Under section 420, 467, 468 IPC for offence U/s. 419 IPC from Rs. 3000/- to Rs. 6,000/-or in case of default to SI for six months. default SI for one month for each offence sentence of imprisonment reduced to the period already undergone. 2. 10/78 for offence U/s. 5(1) r.w. S. 5(2) of the P.C. Act for offence under section 420, 467, 468 IPC from Rs. 7000/- to Rs. 14,000/- or in case of default SI for six months. from Rs. 10/- to Rs. 100/- for each offence or in case of default to SI for one month each. 3. 11/78 for offence U/s. 5(1) r.w. Section 592 of the PC. Act for offence Under section 420, 467 and 468 IPC from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- or in case of default to SI for one year. from Rs. 300/- for each of the offences to Rs. 500/- each or in default to SI for two months. 4. 12/78 for offence U/s. 5(1) r.w. Section 5(2) of the PC. Act for offence Under section 420 IPC from Rs. 10/- to Rs. 100/- or in default to SI for one month. from Rs. 10/- to Rs. 100/- or in default to SI for one month. 5. 13/78 for offence U/s. 5(1) (d) r.w. Section 5(2) of the PC. Act for offence Under section 420, 467, 468 IPC from Rs. 7000/- to Rs. 14000/- or in default to SI for six months. from Rs. 50/- each to Rs. 500/-for each offence or in default to SI for two months each. 6. 14/78 for offence U/s. 5(1) (d) r.w. Section 5(2) of the PC. Act for offence Under section 420, 467 and 468 IPC form Rs. 7000/- to Rs. 14000/- or in default to SI for six months. from Rs. 50/- each to Rs. 500/-for each offence or in default to SI for two months each. 6. 14/78 for offence U/s. 5(1) (d) r.w. Section 5(2) of the PC. Act for offence Under section 420, 467 and 468 IPC form Rs. 7000/- to Rs. 14000/- or in default to SI for six months. from Rs. 20/- each to Rs. 200/- each or in default to SI for one month each. 7. 15/78 for offence U/s. 5(1 )(d) r.w. Section 5(2) of the PC. Act for offence Under section 467, 468 and 420 IPC from Rs. 800/- to Rs. 1000/- or in default to SI for two months. from Rs. 20/- each to Rs. 200/- each or in default to SI for one month each. 17. The appellant is allowed three months time to deposit the increased amount of fine. If the amount of fine is realised from him the principal amount in each case increased by 50% thereof shall be paid to the LIC and the balance amount shall go to meet the expenses of this litigation. 18. if the increased amount of fine is not paid or deposited, S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 30/82 shall be deemed to have been dismissed.S.B. Cr. Appeal No. 114/82 and 128/82 : 19. Both these appeals are interconnected. They are, therefore, taken up together for disposal. 20. Facts, relevant and sufficient to dispose of this appeal, are these : During the year 1975 Narender Narain Mathur (appellant in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 128/82) was working with the LIC, Divisional Office at Ajmer. At the relevant time Daulat Ram Maheshwari (appellant in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 114/82) was working as an accountant with the Indian Oversees Bank, Branch Office, Ajmer. The two are alleged to have entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat the LIC/the Indian Overseas Bank by manavouring to remove certain amounts payable by the LIC towards the claim of matured amount of LIC Policy No. 97575124 belonging to one Smt. Lahri Bai. It is alleged that in-persuance to the said criminal conspiracy Sh. N.N. Mathur appellant manuvorured the remove Cheque No. 261242 dated 31.3.75 issued in favour of the aforesaid Smt. Lahri Bai against the maturity claim of the aforesaid policy in the name of Smt. Lahri Bai. It is alleged that in-persuance to the said criminal conspiracy Sh. N.N. Mathur appellant manuvorured the remove Cheque No. 261242 dated 31.3.75 issued in favour of the aforesaid Smt. Lahri Bai against the maturity claim of the aforesaid policy in the name of Smt. Lahri Bai. Thereafter the said appellant, in connivance with and acts done by D.R. Maheshwari appellant opened SB A/C No. 652 in Indian Overseas Bank, Ajmer by forging the signatures of Smt. Lahri Bai on the account opening form in the knowledge of the appellant, D.R. Maheshwari, Sh. Maheshwari, it is alleged, made one Dwarka Prasad as the introducer of Smt. Lahri Bai and then he himself forged signature of the said lady on the Account-opening-form, knowing very well that the said lady had never appeared before him and not made her signatures on the Account-opening-form. In pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, it was further alleged, Sh. N.N. Mathur got the SB A/C so opened in the name of Smt. Lahri Bai credited with the amount of Cheque, issued by the LIC towards the maturity claim of her policy for Rs. 6548/- and thereafter withdrew Rs. 2000/- on 26.4.76, Rs. 3500/- on 5.5.76 and Rs. 1000/- on 31.3.76 totalling to Rs. 6500/- therefrom. On information received by the police authorities, SPE, Rajasthan Jaipur Crime No. 27 was registered against the two appellants on 13.10.78 for offences punishable Under section 120-B r.w. 420 IPC 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and Section 5(2) r.w. 5(1) of the PC. Act, 1947. Since Sh. N.N. Mathur appellant had been dismissed from the service with LIC, requisite sanction Under section 6 of the PC Act was obtained against D.R. Maheshwari appellant only and the police report was submitted against both accordingly.The learned trial judge framed charges against both the appellants at the joint trial for the aforementioned offences. Both pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them and claimed trial. The learned trial judge thereupon held a joint trial against both the appellants. On 26.9.81 the prosecution closed their evidence and both the appellants were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. Both the appellants entered upon their defence and examined themselves under section 315 Cr.P.C. The defence evidence was closed on 7.12.81 and the case was fixed for final hearing. The learned trial judge thereupon held a joint trial against both the appellants. On 26.9.81 the prosecution closed their evidence and both the appellants were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. Both the appellants entered upon their defence and examined themselves under section 315 Cr.P.C. The defence evidence was closed on 7.12.81 and the case was fixed for final hearing. On 18.1.82 the counsel of Maheshwari appellant closed his arguments but at the same time requested the court to permit him to produce certain rulings in support of his arguments and, therefore, the case was fixed for 23.1.82. On 23.1.82 the prosecutor prayed for amendment in the charges. The amendment sought was technical; neither of the two appellants objected against the amendment of charges sought for by the prosecution. It may be mentioned here that on 20.10.81, on being examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. N.N. Mathur appellant had admitted all the facts and circumstances, as had appeared against him in the evidence brought at the trial of the case and thereafter had recorded the statement of both the appellants under section 315 Cr.P.C.Any way, by his judgment and order dated 4.2.82 made in case No. 7/79 the learned trial Judge held the appellant Daulat Ram Maheshwari guilty, convicted him as such and sentenced in the following manner: Dault Ram Maheshwari Under section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) P.C. Act 18 months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 4000/-, in default, three mohths' Rl. U/s 471 IPC 18 months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, ten days R.I. U/s 120-B r/w 420 IPC r/w 5(1) and 5(1)(d) P.C. Act -do- 21. I heard the learned counsel for both the appellants at sufficient length and examined the record of the learned trial court particularly to find out whether at the time of his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. N.N. Mathur-appellant had genuinely admitted the incriminating fact and circumstances as had appeared against him in evidence recorded/produced at the trial. I feel convinced that the said appellant had admitted the incriminating facts and circumstances appearing in evidence against him voluntarily. I feel convinced that the said appellant had admitted the incriminating facts and circumstances appearing in evidence against him voluntarily. I have further noted that the learned trial judge has not convicted either of the two appellants on the basis of the statement recorded by him under section 313 Cr.P.C. in respect of N.N. Mathur appellant and that he has rendered his findings on all the relevant issues in this case on the basis of the evidence brought on his record by the prosecution against the two appellants. 22. In so far as the appeal of N.N. Mathur appellant is concerned his learned counsel advanced the same arguments as were advanced by him in his other appeal (S.B. Cr. Appeal No. 30/820) disposed of above. On my examination of the statements of 22 witnesses, as were examined by the prosecution at the trial, I am satisfied that the prosecution case against him stood fully proved beyond doubt. This conclusion is arrived at without taking into account his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. and his statement recorded under section 315 Cr.P.C. Since the learned trial Judge has discussed the entire evidence against him in sufficient detail and has recorded his findings in respect of each offence, alleged to have been committed by him and with which findings I fully agree on my own appreciation of the evidence relied upon by the prosecution, I see no necessity to enter into appreciation of such evidence at my stage particularly when the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge were not at all assailed before me. I, therefore, uphold the impugned judgment and order of conviction of N.N. Mathur appellant. 23. Now coming to the appeal preferred by D.R. Maheshwari (Appellant in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 14/82) it was vehemently urged by his learned counsel that his conviction has been based on the confessional statement of the co-accused N.N. Mathur (Appellant in S.B. Cr. Appeal No. 128/82) and apart from the fact that the confession made by a co-accused was not admissible in evidence against the other co-accused, the confession of the said co-accused was not recorded in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 164 Cr.RC. I find no substance in this arguments. 24. Appeal No. 128/82) and apart from the fact that the confession made by a co-accused was not admissible in evidence against the other co-accused, the confession of the said co-accused was not recorded in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 164 Cr.RC. I find no substance in this arguments. 24. While narrating the facts of the case it has specifically been pointed out that on both the appellants' pleading not guilty to the charges framed by the learned trial judge against them, the learned trial judge had commenced their trial. As many as 22 witnesses were examined at the trial by the prosecution and after the close of their case by the prosecution both the appellants were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. It was at that stage of the proceedings after the trial of the two accused in the case was over and on satisfaction of the learned trial Judge that certain facts and circumstances had appeared against the two accused and hence there was necessity of asking them to explain such incriminating facts and circumstances appearing in the evidence against them, that the learned trial Judge had proceeded to examine them under section 313 Cr.P.C. On being explained the incriminating facts and circumstances as appearing in the prosecution evidence against them, whereas N.N. Mathur, in his discretion and wisdom, admitted such incriminating facts and circumstances as correct and true and existing against him, D.R. Maheshwari did not. On the facts of it the admission of the facts and circumstance, as had appeared in the prosecution case and as were incriminating against N.N. Mathur by him at the stage of his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. did not amount to confession so as to fall within the purview of Section 164 Cr.P.C. The provisions contained in Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the safeguards prescribed, therein for observance in the manner of recording the statement of the accused are applicable at the stage of investigation and not at the stage of trial. Once the stage of investigation is over and a report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has been submitted in the Court of competent jurisdiction the provisions contained in Section 164 Cr.P.C. would not stand attracted. The accused may confess his guilt at the time of recording his plea by the trial court. Once the stage of investigation is over and a report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has been submitted in the Court of competent jurisdiction the provisions contained in Section 164 Cr.P.C. would not stand attracted. The accused may confess his guilt at the time of recording his plea by the trial court. In case he pleads guilty to the charges framed against him he may be convicted by the court unless it considers it necessary not to accept the plea of guilt of the accused for reasons recorded by him and to ask the prosecution to adduce evidence in support of charges levelled against. That is an exceptional position, particularly applicable in the cases involving heinous crimes. Based on the doctrine that "no innocent person be ever punished for an act which he has not committed" the court may, in its discretion, and for its satisfaction, require the prosecution to prove the accusation against the accused despite his plea of guilty. But once the trial has started and evidence has been adduced by the prosecution in support of the charges levelled against the accused, there remains no stage of pleading guilty to the charges framed against him. No doubt in the middle of the case an accused may inform the court that he intends to admit the accusation against him and the court, on finding that incriminating evidence has already come on record against the accused might not consider it necessary to require the prosecution to adduce further evidence in the case and may examine the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. at that stage of the proceedings. In adopting that course the Court would always be required to put to the accused ail such facts and circumstances as had appeared against him in the evidence brought on this record by that stage of the proceedings and thus give the accused opportunity to explain such incriminating facts and circumstances. In answer to the questions, relating to the incriminating facts and circumstances brought on the record of the case at the trial so far, the accused may admit the existence of such facts and circumstances. Admission of such facts and circumstances may constitute the confession of guilt by the accused but such a statement, recorded under section 313 or 315 Cr.P.C. would not be called a confessional statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 25. Admission of such facts and circumstances may constitute the confession of guilt by the accused but such a statement, recorded under section 313 or 315 Cr.P.C. would not be called a confessional statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 25. In the instant case, as stated earlier, it was after the completion of the trial against both the accused, who are now appellants before this court in their respective appeals, that they were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. and whereas N.N. Mathur admitted the existence of the incriminating facts and circumstances as had appeared against him in the prosecution evidence, D.R. Maheshwari did not. The statement of one recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., was not to be read against the other as their guilt was to be established on the basis of appreciation of the prosecution evidence against each of them individually. And that was actually done by the learned trial Judge. He did not base his judgment and order of the conviction of the present appellant either on the admission of certain facts by N.N. Mathur accused in his examination recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. nor on his statement recorded under section 315 Cr.P.C., though D.R. Maheshwari accused appellant had opted to cross examine N.N. Mathur accused-appellant, when he had examined himself as DW/1 in his defence. The learned Judge had appreciated the entire prosecution evidence before holding the appellant D.R. Maheshwari guilty of the charges found prove against him by prosecution evidence. The argument advanced by his learned counsel are not legally tenable and are hereby rejected as such. 26. I have critically examined the incriminating evidence appearing in the record of the lower court. PW 1 Dwarka Prasad is the man who had signed the relevant Account Opening Form Ex. P1 as an introducer of Smt. Lahri Bai. He has stated that since he had borrowed a loan of Rs. 5000/- from the Indian Overseas Bank he used to visit that Bank off and on in connection with repayment of the said loan and/or obtaining further loan. He further stated that D.R. Maheshwari was the accountant in that Bank and he often saw N.N. Mathur appellant sitting with Maheshwari. The witness further stated that on being asked by Maheshwari he used to sign the Account opening forms as an introducer to the person seeking opening of his account in that bank. He further stated that D.R. Maheshwari was the accountant in that Bank and he often saw N.N. Mathur appellant sitting with Maheshwari. The witness further stated that on being asked by Maheshwari he used to sign the Account opening forms as an introducer to the person seeking opening of his account in that bank. He admitted that he used to sign such forms on asking of Maheshwari and sometimes the person in whose name the account was to be opened was there in the Bank premises and some times not. Regarding Ex.P/1 the witness stated that he had signed that form on being asked by Maheshwari to do so, although he had not seen any lady namely Lahri Bai in Bank premises at that time. The testimony of this witness though suffers from the blemish that he used to sign the Account opening Forms as introducer of the persons opening forms as introducer of the persons who did not appear before him and who did not put their signatures on such forms in his presence. But the learned lower court has found him to be truthful and reliable witness. At the investigation stage he had been found to have signed Ex.P/1 as an introducer in good faith. It is not disputed that this witness had his current and saving accounts in the Indian Overseas Bank and had obtained a loan of Rs. 5000/- from the said Bank for his business Dwarka Roadways. He had signed other such forms earlier also and, according to him, that was done by him on the assurance of D.R. Maheshwari appellant. In the facts and circumstances of the case his testimony may be relied upon. 27. It may be added that the co-accused N.N. Maheshwari has also admitted such facts and the statement of N.N. Mathur is not exculpatory but inculpatory. PW/2 Smt. Lahri Bai has stated that she never signed Ex.P/1, PW/4 Chander Prakash Jindal has proved the signatures of D.R. Maheshwari on Ex.P/1. He had put such signatures in verification of the signatures of Dwarka Dass and that fact has been admitted by D.R. Maheshwari in his statement recorded under section 315 Cr.P.C. 28. PW 7 Satyapal has also stated similar facts. Ramesh Kumar Tilak (PW 17) has also spoken in the same language. 29. He had put such signatures in verification of the signatures of Dwarka Dass and that fact has been admitted by D.R. Maheshwari in his statement recorded under section 315 Cr.P.C. 28. PW 7 Satyapal has also stated similar facts. Ramesh Kumar Tilak (PW 17) has also spoken in the same language. 29. All these witnesses were cross-examined at length on behalf of D.R. Maheshwari appellant but nothing beneficial could be obtained from them. Instead, it came out fully on record that Dwarka Dass was quite familiar with the said appellant. All these facts taken to gather fully established that this appellant was in criminal conspiracy with N.N. Mathur and it was in pursuance of such conspiracy that he had acted in that manner. 30. It was next urged by the learned counsel for Maheshwari appellant that there was no evidence on record to prove that this appellant had derived any wrongful gain from the transaction in question. The evidence on record and the circumstances of the case demolish any merits in this argument. The appellant was a party to a criminal conspiracy and had acted in the manner, he did, in pursuance of such conspiracy whereby deriving wrongful gain by one of the co-conspirator had been fully proved beyond doubt in the present case. The appellant has rightly been held guilty of the charges proved against him. 31. To sum-up the discussion I hold that the charges under section 5(1) (d) R/W S. 5(2) PC Act and under section 471, 120-B Section 42- R/W 5 (1)(d)/5 (2) PC Act stood fully proved beyond reasonable doubt against D.R. Maheshwari appellant also. His conviction on those charges is, therefore, upheld. 32. In so far as the sentence to this appellant is concerned the same mitigating as well as aggravating circumstances, as have been found existing for and against N.N. Mathur appellant, also exist in the case of D.R. Maheshwari. Therefore, reduction of the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to him for various offences to the periods already undergone by him, is called for in his case subject to substantial increase in the amount of fine. Therefore, reduction of the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to him for various offences to the periods already undergone by him, is called for in his case subject to substantial increase in the amount of fine. In his case this Court fails to overlook the fact that it was but for his active assistance as a co-conspirator that N.N. Mathur could be successful in carrying out his activities of getting wrongful gains to himself and causing wrongful loss to his organisation and customers of the services of his employer. 33. In the result in the respective appeals of N.N. Mathur and D.R. Maheshwari the conviction of N.N. Mathur under section 5(2) r/w 5 (1)(d), 467, 120-B R/w 420 IPC and 5(1 )(d) RW. 5(2) RC. Act are hereby confirmed and the impugned judgments and orders in that behalf in the two appeals are upheld. However, the substantive sentences of imprisonment imposed upon the appellants in their respective appeals are reduced to the period (s) already undergone by them. This is subject to the increase of fine in the following manner: N.N. Mathur: 1. Case No. 7/79 for offence U/s. 5(1) r.w. Section 5(2) PC Act from Rs. 4000/- to Rs. 8,000/- or in case of default SI for six months. for offence U/s 420, 467, 120-B r.w. Section 420 IPC from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 200 for each offence or in case of default SI for one month D.R. Maheshwari: 1. Case No. 7/79 for offence U/s. 5(1) (d) r.w. Section 5(2) of the PC Act from Rs. 4000/- to Rs. 20000/- (Twenty Thousand) or in case of default SI for six months. for offence U/s 471 IPC from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 2000 (two thousand) or in cash default SI for one month. for offence U/s. 120-B r.w. 420 IPC r.w. 5(1)(d) PC Act from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 200/- for each offence or in case of default SI for one month. 34. The appellants are allowed three months' time to pay the increased amount of fine, failing which their appeals shall stand dismissed. 35. All the three appeals stand disposed of in the manner stated above.Appeal No. 30/82 is disposed of as above. *******