JUDGMENT 1. - That this appeal is directed against the order dated 13.11.1984 passed by learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Rajasthan Jaipur convicting the accused-appellants under Section 120 B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to one years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine further imprisonment of three months and under Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code to six months rigorous imprisonment on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal and also canvassed before me. 2. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the accused appellant to and learned Public Prosecutor I have scrutinised the evidence on record and re-appreciated the evidence on record. 3. On appreciation of the evidence on record the prosecution story stated briefly is that the accused appellant in corroboration with Shri B.L. Singhvi Manager of the United Commercial Bank, Jodhpur, Mandore Branch committed criminal conspiracy upon bank accounts in the Branch without proper introduction, obtained credit limit beyond Rs.10,000/- and for doing this Shri Sareen gave to the Bank Manager a piece of terricot suit. The accused appellants were, therefore, prosecuted along with Mr. Singhvi whose appeal is being decided today separately. On consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the accused has not committed any offence under Section 467, 171 of the Indian Penal Code and, however, convicting the accused under Section 120 B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code convicting them to suffer the sentence as aforesaid. It is this order which is challenged in this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal and also verbally canvassed before me. 4. During the pendency of the appeal Shri Om Prakash Sareen has expired and therefore, the appeal in relation to him abates. That leads the appeal of Shri Vimal S/o Shri O.P. Sareen. It is this order which is challenged in this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal and also verbally canvassed before me. 4. During the pendency of the appeal Shri Om Prakash Sareen has expired and therefore, the appeal in relation to him abates. That leads the appeal of Shri Vimal S/o Shri O.P. Sareen. On appreciation of the entire evidence on record it will be seen that everything is alleged to have been committed by Shri O.P. Sareen and there is no evidence of involvement of Shri Vimal Sareen in the absence of any such offence having been committed by Shri Vimal and in absence of any illegal act being done or either by Shri O.P. Sareen by Vimal which amount to conspiracy the conviction of this appellant Vimal Sareen either under Section 120 B or under Section 420 I.P.C. is not sustainable. 5. In the result the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order of conviction is set aside. The bail bonds if any are cancelled.Appeal Allowed. *******