JUDGMENT Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.—Both these appeals are directed against the conviction of Joginder Pal Dhiman, the accused-appellant recorded by the Special Judge on charge under Sections 420, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(i) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In criminal case No. l-S/7 of 1995, he was sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 420 IPC and pay fine of Rs. 2,000. In default of payment of fine he shall suffer imprisonment for two months. For offence under Section 467 IPC he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 2,000. In default thereof he shall undergo imprisonment for two months. For offence under Section 471 IPC he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs. 2,000. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo further imprisonment for two months. The appellant was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and pay fine of Rs. 5,000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for six months. In Case No. 3-S/7 of 1995 the appellant was to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and six months under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000. For offence under Section 420 IPC he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay fine of Rs. 5,000 and for offence under Section 467 IPC he was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 5,000. He was also held guilty under Section 471 IPC and he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 10,000. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall further undergo imprisonment for six months. The substantive sentences of imprisonment were, however, directed to run concurrently. 2. The brief facts leading to the Criminal Appeal No. 372/1997 are as follows : 3. The appellant at the relevant time was employed as Assistant Manager (Cash) and was functioning as officiating Branch Manager of United Commercial Bank, Sadhupul Branch in District Solan during the year 1990-92. It was the prosecution case that the appellant abused his official authority as a Public Servant and thereby caused wrongful loss of Rs. The appellant at the relevant time was employed as Assistant Manager (Cash) and was functioning as officiating Branch Manager of United Commercial Bank, Sadhupul Branch in District Solan during the year 1990-92. It was the prosecution case that the appellant abused his official authority as a Public Servant and thereby caused wrongful loss of Rs. 84,000 approximately to the Bank by way of changing the value of three Fixed Deposit Receipts No. 755660/240/91/92 dated 9.12.1991 for Rs. 2,000 in his name (hereinafter referred to as First FDR); FDR No. 755663/244/91/92 dated 17.12.1991 for Rs. 2,000 in favour of his minor son Master Ankush Kumar as his guardian (hereinafter referred to as second FDR); and FDR No. 755673/255/91/92 dated 30.12.1991 for Rs. 2,000 in favour of his second son Master Abinav Dhiman as his guardian (hereinafter referred to as Third FDR). The appellant knowingly, deliberately with mala fide intention changed face value of above said three FDRs to Rs. 20,000, Rs. 30,000 and Rs. 40,000 respectively, which he himself prepared and appended his signature thereon as Manager of the Bank. He while preparing the FDRs forged signature of second signatory on first two FDRs. It was further case of the prosecution that the appellant raised a loan of Rs. 15,000 and Rs. 25,000 from UCO Bank Dharamshala on 3.1.1992 on First Two FDRs and loan of Rs. 30,000 from UCO Bank, Birta Branch District Kangra on 6.3.1992 against third FDR. All vouchers and other documents pertaining to those FDRs and loan raised thereon were written and signed by the appellant which were proved in his hand writing and signatures by the Government Examiner Questioned Documents, who also opined that the signatures of second signatory on first two FDRs were forged by the appellant. On these allegations, the investigation was conducted by the CBI against the appellant. The necessary documents were seized by the Investigating Officer and after completion of the investigation and after obtaining the necessary sanction the charge sheet was laid against the appellant. 4. The learned Special Judge framed charges against the appellant for offences under Sections 420, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(l)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the Act). The appellant denied the charges and claimed trial. 5. 4. The learned Special Judge framed charges against the appellant for offences under Sections 420, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(l)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the Act). The appellant denied the charges and claimed trial. 5. In support of its case, CBI produced thirteen witnesses out of whom PW 4 Shri D.K. Sharma; P.W. 5 Shri Babu Ram; P.W. 6 Sh. K.S. Pathania and P.W. 11 Shri S.K. Ganjoo were formal witnesses. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellant admitted that he was officiating as Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Sadhupul Branch during the year 1990-92. He denied having prepared the three above said FDRs dated 9.12.1991 and 30.12.1991 for Rs. 2,000 each in his name or in the name of his minor sons Ankush Kumar and Abinav. He also denied having committed forging of signature of the second signatory on first and second FDRs. However, he admitted that the face value of all the three FDRs were changed from Rs. 2,000 each to Rs. 20,000, Rs. 30,000 and Rs. 40,000 respectively. It was also admitted by him that he raised loan of Rs. 15,000 and Rs. 25,000 from UCO Bank Branch Dharamshala on 3.1.1992 against first and second FDRs and Rs. 30,000 from UCO Bank Branch Birta on 6.3.1992 against third FDR. He denied the allegations that vouchers and other loan documents were filled in by him and claimed that he only put his signatures thereon. He showed ignorance about preparation of counter foils of the FDRs and also about Ledger of the FDRs. He denied making entries in his hand in the FDRs Register or changing FDRs from Rs. 2,000 each to Rs. 20,000, Rs. 30,000 and Rs. 40,000 or sending letter Ext. P-4 to UCO Bank Dharamshala Branch. However, he admitted that when Shri Trilok Sirigh Thakur, Branch Manager, Sadhupul Branch proceeded on leave, he officiated as Branch Manager between 13.11.1991 and 27.11.1991, 9.12.1991 to 17.12.1991. His plea was that he committed no offence. In his defence he examined five witnesses to show that when he was officiating as Branch Manager at Sadhupul, he increased business of the Branch and obtained appreciation letter from his superior authority. 6. His plea was that he committed no offence. In his defence he examined five witnesses to show that when he was officiating as Branch Manager at Sadhupul, he increased business of the Branch and obtained appreciation letter from his superior authority. 6. The learned Special Judge on appreciation and scrutiny of the entire oral and documentary evidence on record found the appellant guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(l)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act, hence convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. Criminal Appeal No. 200 of 1998. (Criminal Case No. 3-S/7 of 1995) on the file of Special Judge, Shimla. 7. In this case the appellant and his wife Smt. Rewa Kumari were charge sheeted under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code whereas the appellant was also charged under Section 13(l)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the Act). The prosecution case against both the accused was that during the year 1990-92 when the appellant was officiating Manager at UCO Bank Branch, Sadhupul, District Solan he removed demand draft leaves bearing Nos. 453504, 453506, 453507, 453509, 453514 and 144779 and falsely issued the said demand drafts in his own name or in the name of his wife Smt. Rewa Kumari. Both of them got the Drafts encashed by depositing them in Saving Bank Account No. 9544 of UCO Bank Shimla, Saving Bank Account No. 1589, of UCO Bank Birta Branch, Saving Bank Account No. 4470, of New Bank of India, of Shimla (Now Punjab National Bank) and Saving Bank Account No. 3062, Shimla Urban Co-operative Bank, Shimla. Demand draft No. 453504 dated 22.11.1991 for Rs. 41,715 drawn in favour of Smt. Rewa Kumari was deposited in UCO Bank, Shimla, Demand Draft No. 453506 dated 10.12.1991 for Rs. 22,000 drawn in favour of Smt. Rewa Kumari was deposited in Account No. 3062 of Shimla Urban Co-operative Bank, Shimla; Demand Draft No. 453507 dated 9.12.1991 for Rs. 34,000 drawn in favour of Smt. Rewa Kumari was deposited in Shimla Urban Co-operative Bank, Shimla, Demand Draft No. 144763 dated 30.4.1991 for Rs. 20,000 was deposited in Account No. 3062 of Shimla Urban Co-operative Bank and Demand Draft No. 144779 dated 1.11.1991 for Rs. 34,000 drawn in favour of Smt. Rewa Kumari was deposited in Shimla Urban Co-operative Bank, Shimla, Demand Draft No. 144763 dated 30.4.1991 for Rs. 20,000 was deposited in Account No. 3062 of Shimla Urban Co-operative Bank and Demand Draft No. 144779 dated 1.11.1991 for Rs. 34,917 drawn in favour of Smt. Rewa Kumari was deposited in Account No. 4470, of New Bank of India, Shimla. Demand Draft No. 453509 dated 3.3.1991 was deposited in Account No. 1589 in UCO Bank Birta, Demand Draft No. 453514 dated 17.1.1992 for Rs. 29,000 was deposited in Account No. 9544, of UCO Bank, Shimla in the name of the appellant. All the Demand Drafts were issued by the appellant in the capacity of officiating Manager posted at Sadhupul Branch, without depositing the amounts in the Sadhupul Branch of the Bank and got all those drafts presented for crediting the amounts in his account numbers and in the account numbers of his wife knowing them to be false and fake and subsequently they withdrew the entire amounts from their accounts thereby causing wrongful loss to the Bank. 8. The further case of the prosecution was that the appellant subsequently got issued demand draft Nos. 453513 dated 6.1.1992; 453516 dated 10.3.1992 and 453517 dated 12.3.1992 and also deposited Rs. 20,000 on 2.8.1991, but no demand draft was got issued to account for demand draft No. 144763 dated 30.4.1991 by depositing the amount in the UCO Bank, Sadhupul Branch. These drafts were got encashed and subsequently he got the amount adjusted against seven demand drafts unauthorisedly removed by him. The appellant thus adjusted a sum of Rs. 1>15,632 against demand draft Nos. 453504, 453514, 144763 and 144779 by depositing the amount of demand drafts which he never got encashed and he never deposited an amount of Rs. 96,000 against demand draft Nos. 453506, 453507 and 453509. All these demand drafts were found prepared under the hands of appellant by the Hand Writing Expert and that he also forged the signature of second signatory Shri Harish Chander Sharma on demand draft No. 144763. On the basis of these allegations, CBI investigated the case against the appellant and his wife Smt. Rewa Kumari and laid charge sheet against both of them for the offences under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 467 and 471 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 9. On the basis of these allegations, CBI investigated the case against the appellant and his wife Smt. Rewa Kumari and laid charge sheet against both of them for the offences under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 467 and 471 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 9. In this case the prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses and placed on record various documents to prove the charges against the accused persons. The appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has not disputed his appointment as officiating Manager at Sadhupul Branch during the year 1990-92 nor he denied issuance of demand drafts in his authority as Manager. According to him the demand drafts were prepared after vouchers were signed by the Cashier on receipt of the cash. He stated that the accounts were operated by him in his own name or jointly in the name of his wife Smt. Rewa Kumari by issuing cheques. His plea was that he has been falsely implicated in the present case by his colleagues or Branch Officials. 10. Smt. Rewa Kumari wife of the appellant took plea of denial simplicitor and stated that she never visited Sadhupul Branch where her husband was posted as officiating Manager; that she purchased the drafts when she was on duty in her office at Shimla and that the amounts were taken by her from many persons for preparing the drafts. In their defence, the accused persons examined as many as eleven witnesses. 11. The learned Special Judge found the appellant guilty of the offences under Sections 420, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. However, Smt. Rewa Kumari was acquitted by giving benefit of doubt to her. That acquittal has achieved finality as not challenged by anyone. The convict-appellant has filed these two separate appeals challenging the correctness and validity of his conviction and sentence recorded by learned Special Judge. 12. Mr. Vats, learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant has been falsely involved in the present cases by Bank officials who obtained his signatures on the FDRs and other documents in official routine manner and that he had actually invested Rs. 20,000, Rs. 30,000 and Rs. 12. Mr. Vats, learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant has been falsely involved in the present cases by Bank officials who obtained his signatures on the FDRs and other documents in official routine manner and that he had actually invested Rs. 20,000, Rs. 30,000 and Rs. 40,000 respectively for preparing the FDRs in his own name and in the names of his sons but some interested Bank Official to harm his reputation and image had reflected on counter foils and other record of the Bank showing Rs. 2,000 each only in three FDRs. He also contended that the demand drafts were got prepared by him in his name or in the name of his wife after depositing the amounts and obtaining the signatures of second signatory as required under the instructions /rules of the Bank and under rush of work the second signatory duped the appellant and made him a scape goat. 13. Per contra, the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel contended that the learned Special Judge has considered these very submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant and they were not found acceptable as the prosecution has proved on record that the appellant as a public servant mis-used his official authority by acting dishonestly, fraudulently and made forged entries in the record of the Bank by showing the face value of three FDRs deposited by him in his own name and in the names of his minor sons by showing larger amount instead of actual amount of Rs. 2,000 each. The appellant gained wrongfully by obtaining loans on the forged FDRs which guilt the appellant subsequently admitted by depositing the amount in the Bank through instalments to the tune of Rs. 1,42,000. He also contended that the appellant forged certain demand drafts, without depositing any amount in the Bank and used them as genuine drafts after getting those drafts encashed in his account and in the account of his wife and subsequently they withdrew the entire amounts and that when the matter was investigated, the appellant deposited part of the amount but balance sum of Rs. 96,000 was not deposited by him which also proves the case to the hilt against him. 14. 96,000 was not deposited by him which also proves the case to the hilt against him. 14. From an independent evaluation of the oral evidence adduced and having gone through the several documents available on record, I am satisfied that the prosecution has proved both the cases against the appellant and learned Special Judge has rightly appreciated and scrutinized the entire evidence on record holding the appellant guilty for the offences with which he was charged. 15. PW-1 Shri Trilok Singh Thakur was the Branch Manager at Sadhupul Branch. Between 13.11.1991 to 27.11.1991 and 9.12.1991 to 17.12.1991 he was on official tour and during this period the appellant was appointed as officiating Manager in that Branch. PW. 2 Shri Harish Chander Sharma was posted as Cashier-cum-Clerk at Sadhupul Branch of the Bank since 1988 and deposed that the appellant initially was posted as Chief Cashier at Sadhupul Branch of the Bank and from December 1988 to December, 1991 he was working as officiating Manager. The appellant has not disputed having prepared FDR No. 755660/240/91/92 dated 9.12.1991 Ext. P-3/ 7, FDR No. 755663/244/91/92 dated 17.12.1991 Ext. P-3/8 and FDR No. 755673/255/91/92 dated 30.12.1991 Ext. P-3/9 of the face value of Rs. 20,000, Rs. 30,000 and Rs. 40,000 respectively. His defence was that amounts mentioned in all the said three FDRs were actually deposited by him but some official in the Bank cheated him, obtained his signature on vouchers etc. in rush of work. Exts. P-3/4 to P-3/6 were counter foils of the aforesaid three FDRs showing face value of all the three as Rs. 2,000 each. The vouchers of the amount in respect of these FDRs were placed on record and mark Exts. P-3/10 and P-3/11 which would show that Rs. 2,000 each of two FDRs were deposited in the Bank. A sum of Rs. 2,000 was transferred from Saving Bank Account of the appellant opened at Sadhupul Branch as reflected in voucher mark Ext. P-3/12 for preparing third FDR. In voucher Ext. P-3/11 the appellant appended his signature as depositor whereas other two FDRs do not contain his signature. On perusal of the original documents it is proved that the appellant for preparing three FDRs, one in his name and other two in the names of his minor sons, the appellant deposited Rs. 4,000 in cash by two vouchers mark Exts. P-3/10 and P-3/11 and under voucher Ext. On perusal of the original documents it is proved that the appellant for preparing three FDRs, one in his name and other two in the names of his minor sons, the appellant deposited Rs. 4,000 in cash by two vouchers mark Exts. P-3/10 and P-3/11 and under voucher Ext. P-3/12 he got transferred a sum of Rs. 2,000 from his saving account. On voucher Ext.PW/3/11 the appellant appended his signature. The appellant has prepared those three FDRs. Exts. P-3/7, P-3/8 and P-3/9 by showing their face value of Rs. 20,000, Rs. 30,000 and Rs. 40,000 respectively and he appended his signature on all the three FDRs as a Manager. His signature on these FDRs were identified by PW-1 and PW-2 who were conversant with his hand writting and signature as both of them worked with him and saw him writing and signing. The writing and signature of the appellant on these three FDRs were also corroborated by PW 12 Shri M.L. Sharma, Government Examiner Questioned Documents who submitted his opinion Ext. PW. 12/30 after comparing specimen writing of the appellant with all these documents placed on record which were found in his hand writing. On the basis of the documentary evidence on record, the learned Special Judge has rightly held that the appellant with criminal intent mis-used his authority as officiating Manager and forged face value of the FDRs from small amounts to higher amounts of Rs. 20,000, Rs. 30,000 and Rs. 40,000 respectively whereas actual total amount deposited in the Bank was only Rs. 6,000. The criminal intention of the appellant was further corroborated by entries made in FDR Register Ext. P-l, FDR Ledger Register Ext. P-2 and Cash Scroll Register Ext. P-3/1 dated 9.12.1991, Ext. P-3/2 dated 17.12.1991 and Ext. P-3/3 dated 30.12.1991 in which a sum of Rs. 2,000 against each entry was recorded. Entire record was prepared by the appellant in his hand. Counter foils of the FDRs Exts. P-3/4, P-3/5 and P-3/6 have been proved having been written by the appellant showing investment of Rs. 2,000 each in his name and in the names of his minor sons Master Ankush Kumar and Master Abinav. In Register Ext. P-l same amount of Rs. 2,000 each had been shown having been deposited for making FDRs. P-3/4, P-3/5 and P-3/6 have been proved having been written by the appellant showing investment of Rs. 2,000 each in his name and in the names of his minor sons Master Ankush Kumar and Master Abinav. In Register Ext. P-l same amount of Rs. 2,000 each had been shown having been deposited for making FDRs. The documentary evidence brought on record by the prosecution leaves no doubt that it was only the appellant who forged the FDRs Exts. P-3/7 to P-3/9 of the face value of the larger amounts, though lesser amounts were deposited by him in the Bank account and he falsely proclaimed to have deposited Rs. 20,000, Rs. 30,000 and Rs. 40,000 respectively for preparing these FDRs. Thus, the plea of the appellant that he deposited larger amount reflected in the FDRs was rightly found totally false and without substance by the trial Court. 16. It is provided in the Bank regulation and also orally stated by PWs 1 and 2 that FDRs are issued after putting signature thereon by two officers of the Bank. To fulfil this requirement of the procedural matter the appellant forged signature of second signatory on FDRs Ext. P-3/7 and P-3/8 whereas on F.D.R. Ext. P-3/9 he misled PW 3 who in good faith put his signature on the said FE>R. It is the say of PW-3 that he appended his signature on Ext. P-3/9 in good faith believing its correctness and that Exts. P-3/7 and P-3/8 do not bear his signature. According to PW-2 he appended his signature on the basis of voucher shown to him by the appellant who was his superior officer. Specimen hand writing and signature of PW-2 were taken during investigation and PW-12 Government Examiner Questioned Documents in his opinion Ext. PW- 12/30 stated that on FDRs Exts. P-3/7 and P-3/8 the signature of PW-2 did not tally with the admitted specimen signature. Thus, it was proved by the prosecution that the appellant forged the signature of PW-2 as second signatory on two FDRs. Exts. P-3/7 and P-3/8 and on FDR. Ext. P-3/9 he obtained his signature in good faith by misinterpretation. 17. The appellant undisputedly took loan from Dharamshala and Birta Branches of UCO Bank on furnishing three forged FDRs. As per procedure of the Bank, letter Ext. Exts. P-3/7 and P-3/8 and on FDR. Ext. P-3/9 he obtained his signature in good faith by misinterpretation. 17. The appellant undisputedly took loan from Dharamshala and Birta Branches of UCO Bank on furnishing three forged FDRs. As per procedure of the Bank, letter Ext. PW-3/O was written by Shri O.C. Kattan, Manager UCO Bank Dharamshala to his counter part at Sadhupul Branch for creating lien on FDRs. Exts. P-3/7 and P-3/8. In response thereto, the appellant wrote a letter Ext. P-4 to the Manager Dharamshala Branch intimating creating lien on those FDRs. The appellant has not made any corresponding entry of creating lien on those FDRs in the bank account nor there was any entry recorded in the despatch register about sending letter Ext. P-4. In letter Ext. P-4 the appellant forged the signature of PW-1 as stated by him and the contents of the letter written by the appellant were identified by PW-1. PW-12. Shri M.L. Sharma, Government Examiner Questioned Document took specimen signature of PW-1 and on comparison his signature with the signature appended on letter Ext. P-4 he opined that the signature of PW-1 on Ext. P-4 did not tally with his specimen signatures. The aforesaid discussions of the evidence on record proved to the hilt without any shadow of doubt that it was the appellant who committed forgery of the documents and signature of second signatory on first two FDRs and as such abused his official authority as officiating Manager of Sadhupul Branch of the Bank. The appellant has failed to bring on record any evidence to show that he was de-frauded or cheated by any employee of the Bank to take revenge against him. 18. So far the allegations about cheating Bank Manager Dharamshala and Birta Branches, on the basis of forged inflated amount in FDRs were concerned, the appellant has not denied or even disputed taking loan from the said two Branches of the Bank on the basis of the said FDRs. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. taking loan of Rs. 15,000 and Rs. 25,000 on FDRs. Exts. P-3/7 and P-3/8 showing their face value of Rs. 20,000 and Rs. 30,000 respectively was admitted by him in Answer to question No. 22. He also admitted having filed applications Exts. P-3/A, P-3/B and P-3/C for taking loan on FDR. Ext. P-3/7 allotting of Account No. 1623 and obtaining loan of Rs. 15,000 and Rs. 25,000 on FDRs. Exts. P-3/7 and P-3/8 showing their face value of Rs. 20,000 and Rs. 30,000 respectively was admitted by him in Answer to question No. 22. He also admitted having filed applications Exts. P-3/A, P-3/B and P-3/C for taking loan on FDR. Ext. P-3/7 allotting of Account No. 1623 and obtaining loan of Rs. 15,000, on 3.1.1992 and obtaining loan of Rs. 25,000 also as guardian of his minor sons by signing documents Ext. PW-3/E and PW-3/F as well as putting his signature on the debit voucher marks Exts. PW-3/H and PW-3/H-1. The appellant also admitted opening of Account No. 2866 by depositing Rs. 350 and later on by depositing draft of Rs. 40,000 which amount was subsequently withdrawn by him along with loan of Rs. 30,000 vide document Ext. PW-3/J. 19. PW-3 Shri O.C. Kattan Manager UCO Bank Dharamshala and PW-8 Shri Vinay Kumar, Assistant Manager Birta Branch have deposed that on the basis of FDRs Exts. P-3/7, P-3/8 and P-3/9 the loan amounts were taken from their Branches by the appellant which were kept as surety with their Branches. PW-8 sanctioned loan of Rs. 30,000 on the basis of an application Mark Ext. PW-8/A filed by the appellant on behalf of his minor sons against FDR Ext. P-3/9 and the appellant thereafter put his signature on documents Exts. PW-8/B, PW-8/C and PW-8/D in his presence. The appellant thereafter withdrew a sum of Rs. 70,000 inclusive loan amount of Rs. 30,000 from the Birta Branch of the bank. On March 26, 1992, the appellant deposited a sum of Rs. 30,300 as full and final payment of FDRs by paying slip Ext. PW-8/H. The loan amounts of Rs. 15,000 and 25,000 respectively could not have been granted by the Managers of Dharamshala and Birta Branches of the Bank without deposits of the FDRs by the appellant. Thus, the prosecution has proved that the appellant used the forged FDRs as genuine documents for raising loan whereas he knew at that time that those FDRs were not genuine. The prosecution has proved on record that sanction order Ext. PW-9/ A was validly accorded by PW-9 Shri H.M. Singh Roy, UCO Bank Head Office Calcutta for prosecuting the appellant who was competent authority to accord the sanction. The prosecution has proved on record that sanction order Ext. PW-9/ A was validly accorded by PW-9 Shri H.M. Singh Roy, UCO Bank Head Office Calcutta for prosecuting the appellant who was competent authority to accord the sanction. The plea of the appellant was that his conduct as public servant at Sadhupul Branch was very good and he increased the business of the Bank for which he received appreciation letters Ext. DA from Divisional Manager of the Bank. He has examined DW-1 Shri S.S. Thakur, DW-2 Shri Umed Ram, DW-3 Shri Tilak Raj and DW-4 Sh. Harbans Lal, DW-5 Harish and DW-6 Sh. Chet Ram to prove his good conduct as public servant at Sadhupul Branch. DWs 2 and 4 stated that one Bimla Devi was on inimical terms with the appellant who threatened him with dire consequences. This was not the specific plea of the appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or a suggestion to the prosecution witnesses. He has not proved as to how said Bimla Devi was connected with him in the affairs of his official duty and authority what was the occasion for her to have entertained enmity against him. The case of the prosecution for cheating and forgery etc. was entirely based upon the above referred documents which have been rightly relied upon by the learned trial Court and the defence plea of the appellant that he is a good person and increased the business of the Bank etc. will be of no help to him to discredit the documentary evidence proved on record. 20. In Case No. 3-S/7 of 1995 the procedure for making drafts etc. was stated by PW-1 Sh. CD. Karer. He deposed that draft amount along with form duly filled in has to be tendered to the Cashier of the Bank who will enter the money in cash receipt Register and then issue the receipt to the tenderer who will then contact the Clerk preparing the draft. The Clerk will hand over the draft to the tenderer after obtaining the signature of the Manager. If the draft is to be prepared by account holder then such person will fill in the form for transferring the amount of the account by way of withdrawal for preparing the draft and after debiting the amount from the account, the draft is prepared in similar manner. If the draft is to be prepared by account holder then such person will fill in the form for transferring the amount of the account by way of withdrawal for preparing the draft and after debiting the amount from the account, the draft is prepared in similar manner. According to him Security Stock Register mark Ext. PW-1/A of the UCO Bank, Sadhupul Branch along with demand draft book will be kept in custody of the Manager. He proved on record that bank draft Ext. PW-l/B dated 9.12.1991 for Rs. 34,000 was issued by the appellant as Manager in the name of his wife Smt. Rewa Kumari but no cash amount of the draft was shown in cash receipt book Ext. FW-l/C at page 114 wherein the entry ought to have been made. The amount of draft was not entered in Transfer Book mark Ext. PW-l/D dated 9.12.1991 which should have been made by the appellant as per the rule of the Bank. This draft was drawn in favour of Dhalli Branch of the UCO Bank but in demand draft issue register issuance of the draft was not recorded as no folio was allotted to Dhalli Branch of the UCO Bank. Further he deposed that the draft ^as presented at Shimla Urban Cooperative Bank which was sent to Dhalli Branch of UCO Bank for clearance where PW-1 CD. Karer was posted as Assistant Manager. It was said by him that the amount of Rs. 34,000 covered by draft Ext. PW-l/B was still outstanding against Sadhupul Branch of UCO Bank, as the Dhalli Branch of UCO Bank had made payment to Urban Co-operative Bank, Shimla on the basis of the said draft. 21. PW-2 Shri Hari Singh, Assistant Manager of UCO Bank Branch HPMICD, Shimla has proved bank draft Ext. PW-2/A for Rs. 22,000 containing signature of the appellant. This draft was received by his Branch for the payment through Shimla Urban Co-operative Bank. The amount of Rs. 22,000 was paid by his Branch to the Shimla Urban Cooperative Bank and entries in demand draft payable register Ext. PW-2/B was made to that effect. He stated that the amount of the said draft was never reimbursed by Sadhupul Branch to his Branch at Shimla. The amount of Rs. 22,000 was paid by his Branch to the Shimla Urban Cooperative Bank and entries in demand draft payable register Ext. PW-2/B was made to that effect. He stated that the amount of the said draft was never reimbursed by Sadhupul Branch to his Branch at Shimla. PW-4 Shri Trilok Singh was the Branch Manager of UCO Bank Sadhupul Branch from 1991 to 1995 and during his absence from Sadhupul Branch the appellant was posted as officiating Manager. He stated that Security documents including draft book were under the dominion of the appellant. He deposed that demand drafts Ext. PW-4/A for Rs. 20,000, Ext. PW-4/B for Rs. 41,715, Ext. PW-4/C for Rs. 29,000, Ext. PW-2/A for Rs. 22,000 and Ext. PW-l/B for Rs. 34,000 were issued by the appellant who also prepared fictitious advise document Ext. PW-4/F-3. 22. PW-5 Shri Suresh Bhardwaj was Assistant Manager UCO. Bank, the Mall Shimla in the year 1990-91. According to him the appellant and his wife Smt. Rewa Kumari opened joint account No. 9544 in the Bank. He also stated that draft Ext. PW-4/C was deposited by the appellant in his account who subsequently vide cheques Exts. PW-5/B to PW5/ H withdrew the amount from his account. PW-8 Shri D.K. Sharma proved that from his account in UCO Bank Shimla the appellant withdrew Rs. 70,000 vide withdrawal slip Ext. PW-8/F and demand draft Ext. PW-8/C for Rs. 40,000 was credited to his account No. 1589 vide voucher Ext. PW-8/H by the appellant. PW-13 Shri Anand Lal was sent by Smt. Rewa Kumari to deposit the demand draft in her account of New Bank of India, Shimla which account was operated by her on recommendation of PW-14 Shri Hem Singh. PW 16 Shri O.P. Sharma, Manager of the UCO Bank, Legislative Assembly, Shimla has proved receipt of draft Ext. PW-4/D dated 25.11.1991 for clearance from Shimla branch of the Bank. A sum of Rs. 41,715 was credited in the account of Smt. Rewa Kumari in Shimla Branch. As he found some cutting on the document, he immediately wrote a letter Ext. PW-4/F/10 to the Manager Sadhupul Branch. PW 17 Shri Khem Raj Sharma, Manager Shimla Urban Co-operative Bank, the Mall Shimla has proved receipt of two bank drafts of the amount of Rs. 41,715 was credited in the account of Smt. Rewa Kumari in Shimla Branch. As he found some cutting on the document, he immediately wrote a letter Ext. PW-4/F/10 to the Manager Sadhupul Branch. PW 17 Shri Khem Raj Sharma, Manager Shimla Urban Co-operative Bank, the Mall Shimla has proved receipt of two bank drafts of the amount of Rs. 56,000 and credited the said amount to account No. 3062 opened in the name of Smt. Rewa Kumari on 14.12.1991 and that from this account a sum of Rs. 20,000 was received and debited to the account of Smt. Rewa Kumari. Further he proved withdrawal voucher Ext. PW-17/B for Rs. 16,000 and Ext. PW-17/C for Rs. 20,000 from the account of Smt. Rewa Kumari, PW-21 Shri Harish Chander Sharma was posted as Clerk-cum-Cashier in the Sadhupul Branch of the Bank where the appellant was officiating as Branch Manager and he stated the detailed procedure for making drafts issued by the appellant without depositing the amounts or making entries in the relevant register as deposed by PW-4. PW 22 Shri Gautam Majumdar, Manager UCO Bank Ram Bazar Branch, Shimla received demand draft Ext. PW-18/B for Rs. 34,917 bearing signature of the appellant made in favour of his wife Smt. Rewa Kumari. He sent the amount of the draft for payment to New Bank of India, Shimla. 23. The aforesaid discussions of the entire evidence proved on record will conclusively establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant while officiating as Branch Manager UCO Bank, Sadhupul, got issued in the name of his wife Smt. Rewa Kumari five demand drafts and two demand draft in his name without depositing any cash or getting cash equivalent of the demand draft transferred from any account and without showing in account books of the Bank got them encashed and credited in his account and in the account of his wife at Shimla and Birta Branch of UCO Bank. The amounts of the demand drafts which the appellant and his wife got deposited in their account were subsequently withdrawn or utilized by them either through withdrawal form or by issuing the cheques. The appellant subsequently deposited a sum of Rs. 1,15,632 in the Bank through demand drafts No. 453504, 453514, 144763 and 144779 which demand drafts he never got encashed. The appellant subsequently deposited a sum of Rs. 1,15,632 in the Bank through demand drafts No. 453504, 453514, 144763 and 144779 which demand drafts he never got encashed. The said amount was got adjusted by the appellant on different dates after he committed the offences for which he was charged by the trial Court. 24. After maticulously scanning both the oral and documentary evidence, as discussed hereinabove, the appellant was rightly found guilty by the learned trial Court. The appellants defence was found improbable and the evidence adduced at his instance was unbelievable and unfounded. For the reasons stated earlier, there is no ground for me to decide differently and to differ from the view taken by the trial Court in holding the appellant guilty to the offences with which he was charged. I therefore, confirm the conviction imposed on the appellant by the trial Court on all counts in both the cases. 25. Now coming to the question of sentence, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the entire amount involved in both the cases has been deposited by the appellant; he has been dismissed from service on 30.6.1997; he has to maintain his family consisting of his wife and two school going children studying in 5th and 6th standard and the period during which the appellant alleged to have committed offences pertain to the year 1990-92, the appellant shall be dealt with leniently by reducing his sentences imposed by the trial Court. In support of this submission, Mr. Vats learned Counsel has relied upon Ram Kishore v. State of M.P., 1994 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1136; Makhan Singh and another v. State of Punjab, AIR 1994 Supreme Court 266; Sudam Hari Patil v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1994 Supreme Court 1807; V.K. Chakravarthi v. Inspector of Police Madras, 1995 Cri. L.J. 3618; RN. Raghava Panicker v. State of Kerala, AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1001 and Ramesh Kumar Gupta v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1995 Supreme Court 2121. In all these cited decisions, their Lordships on consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the cases, have reduced the sentence imposed by the Courts below under Section 5 (l)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and other provisions of Penal Law. 26. In all these cited decisions, their Lordships on consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the cases, have reduced the sentence imposed by the Courts below under Section 5 (l)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and other provisions of Penal Law. 26. Considering all the above noted mitigating circumstances in the present cases, in my view while confirming the conviction of the appellant in both the cases under Section 13(l)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 420, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years in criminal case No. l-S/7 of 1995 is reduced to one year rigorous imprisonment. Fine and the sentence in default thereof as well as sentences imposed on him under Sections 420, 467 and 471IPC including fine and default sentences are maintained. Similarly, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years and six months for committing offence under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in case No. 3-S/7 of 1995 is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and no reduction is called for in the amount of fine imposed by the trial Court as well as for default clause. The other sentences including fine and in default of payment of fine imposed upon the appellant by the learned trial Court under Sections 420, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code call for no interference considering the gravity of the offences for which the appellant has been found guilty. All sentences shall run concurrently. 27. No other point is urged before this Court by the learned Counsel on either side. 28. For the aforesaid reasons, subject to the above modification of sentences, both the appeals are partly allowed. The appellant is on bail. His personal and surety bonds are cancelled and discharged. The appellant shall surrender forthwith before the Court of Special Judge, Solan to serve out the sentences imposed upon him in both cases. Appeals partly allowed. -