Judgment S.N.Pathak, J. 1. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 22.2.2000 in Cr. Appeal No. 58/97 confirming the judgment of the trial Court dated 21.7.1997 in complaint case No. 122C/91, Trial No. 7/97. The sole revisionist Ashok Kumar @ Ashok Kumar Singh @ Ashok Kumar Sinha was convicted under Sections 420, 406 and 467, IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years under Section 406, three years under Section 420 and three years for the offence under Section 467, IPC. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution in the lower Court was that the accused-revisionist was a Manager of the particular Private Financial Bank in the name and style of Sirjan Housing Finance Limited Bank. As a matter of fact, the aforesaid Bank was not a duly registered and recognised Bank, rather it was a Bank fraudulently to be represented such by the accused-revisionist along with the so-called proprietors of the Bank. On the pursuation of the revisionist and the others the complainant and some of his witnesses parted with Rs. 5,000/- each as security money on the plea that they will be employed permanently into the Bank. They also worked for some time for the Bank, but later on the Bank was wound up and its officials including the revisionist fled away without paying back the security money to the complainant and other witnesses. 3. On the evidence adduced by the complainant both the trial Court and the appellate Court came to the conclusion that the accused-revisionist was Manager of the concerned fraudulent Bank and on his pursuation, the complainant and others had parted with Rs. 5,000/- each which was never paid back to them. So the courts below held the revisionist guilty for the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 467, IPC as well. They were, accordingly, convicted and sentenced as stated above. 4. It has been submitted by the revisionists lawyer that the revisionist was simply a Manager and pass books were also opened in the name of the complainant and others. The revisionist was himself cheated of Rs. 10,000/- by the concerned Bank and, therefore, he was himself a victim of fraud and misappropriation by the Directors and Proprietors of the Company. It has been submitted by the revisionists lawyer that the revisionist was simply a Manager and pass books were also opened in the name of the complainant and others. The revisionist was himself cheated of Rs. 10,000/- by the concerned Bank and, therefore, he was himself a victim of fraud and misappropriation by the Directors and Proprietors of the Company. So, there was no question of his misrepresentation to the complainant to part with any amount of money nor there was any intention on his part to misappropriate the security money of the complainant. Whatever may be the case, it is apparent that the complainant and his witnesses supported the fact that their money was not returned to them by the concerned Bank which turned out to be a false and bogus Bank and the money deposited by them was not returned. It has not been denied in any suggestion to the PWs that the revisionist was not the Manager of the concerned Bank. So, he was very much responsible along with the so-called proprietors for misappropriating the complainants money. Therefore, there was no question of want of intention on his part to misappropriate the complainants money. 5. Hence, I think that the order of conviction recorded by the two courts below does not call for any interference by this Court. So far sentences are concerned, there was no necessity to award any sentence to the revisionist for the offence under Section 467, IPC because upon the same set of allegations all the three offences were found to have been made out and proved in view of the evidence on record. So, the sentences awarded by the trial Court and as confirmed by the Appellate Court under Sections 420 and 406, IPC will meet the ends of justice. 6. In the result, this revision is dismissed with the above modification in the order of sentence.