Judgment :- This appeal is filed against the conviction and sentence for the offence under Sections 120-B, 420 and 447-A I.P.C. and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. Before the trial Court, there were three accused. A.1 was working as an officer in Canara Bank Extension Counter at Parasakthi College, Courtallam. The second accused is the elder sister of A.1. The third accused is the mother of A.1 and A.2. During the year 1980-83, these accused entered into criminal conspiracy whereby by manipulating the accounts of Canara Bank, A.1 issued Fixed Deposit Receipts in the name of accused-2 and 3; the figures in the original were inflated and misused the procedure followed in the bank for grant of loans based on the security of Khamadhenu Deposit Receipts and thereby, they siphoned off a sum of Rs.9,30,500/-. Charge sheet was filed for having committed the offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 477-A I.P.C. and Section 5(2) and 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 3. The Special Judge for C.B.I. cases (First Additional Sessions Judge), Madurai framed charges (in C.C.No.3 of 1986) for the offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 447-A I.P.C. and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 4. To prove the charges, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.21, marked Exs.P.1 to P.508 and M.O.1. 5. Considering the evidence on record, the trial Court found A.1 and A.2 guilty of the charge under Section 120-B I.P.C., found A.1 guilty under Section 420(69 counts)I.P.C., found A.2 guilty under Section 420(33 counts)I.P.C., found A.1 guilty under Section 477(A)(11 counts)I.P.C. and Section 5(2) and 5(1)(d)(33 counts) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and imposed a sentence of three years imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/- for each count; in default to undergo one year R.I., in addition to the three years and the sentences were directed to be run concurrently. The Court found A.3 not guilty and hence, A.3 was acquitted of all the charges. 6. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, this appeal has been filed by A.1 and A.2. The appellants are referred to as the accused for the sake of convenience. 7. The first accused was working as an Officer at the extension counter of the Canara Bank at Sri Parasakthi Women's College, Courtalam, between 23.9.1980 and January, 1985. 6. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, this appeal has been filed by A.1 and A.2. The appellants are referred to as the accused for the sake of convenience. 7. The first accused was working as an Officer at the extension counter of the Canara Bank at Sri Parasakthi Women's College, Courtalam, between 23.9.1980 and January, 1985. She was also the given power of attorney by the bank. She was in possession of valuable securities like cheque book, D.D. forms and fixed deposit receipts. She was empowered to do all acts except granting of loans; this extension counter was attached to Shencottah branch of Canara Bank. During that period, she has cheated the bank by issuing demand drafts for a value of Rs.20,000/- in the name of her sister, A.2, and in the name of her mother A.3 S.Seethalakshmi without receiving any money. She has made entries in the records as if the amounts were received in subsidiary ledgers. Those demand drafts were encashed through the Canara Bank branches at Thirunagar, Grand Central and Gnanaolivupuram at Madurai and thereby A.1 she has enriched herself. 8. P.W.2 was working as Manager, Madurai Central Branch between 1972 and 1976. During that period, A.1 was also working as a clerk. He was acquainted with the signatures, initials and hand-writings of A.1. As directed by the superiors, he inspected the counter-foils of Kamadhenu Deposit Receipts and the ledgers at the Courtallam extension counter. During that period, he saw accidentally the Draft Issue Ledger. In that, he found that drafts were issued for huge sums in the name of S.K. Devi and in the meant for purchaser's name, no name was written; instead, the letters, "I.C.C." were written. I.C.C. means Internal Cheque for Collection. Normally, as per the bank procedure, drafts are issued in the name of another bank. But in these drafts, it was written as "I.C.C. Code". Therefore, he inspected the relevant slips to verify whether these drafts have been received from the bank; but, there were no such documents. Therefore, he suspected that irregularities should have been committed not only in the issue of draft, but also in the issue of Kamadhenu Deposit Scheme. Immediately, he informed the matter to the regional office at Madurai over telephone. As directed by the regional office, he took possession of the Kamadhenu Deposit Receipt counter-foils and Demand Draft Issue Registers. Therefore, he suspected that irregularities should have been committed not only in the issue of draft, but also in the issue of Kamadhenu Deposit Scheme. Immediately, he informed the matter to the regional office at Madurai over telephone. As directed by the regional office, he took possession of the Kamadhenu Deposit Receipt counter-foils and Demand Draft Issue Registers. Subsequently, he verified the records relating to Courtallam extension counter. P.W.2 has spoken the procedure how demand drafts are being issued and how the Kamadhenu Deposit Receipt are issued. 9. Further, P.W.2 has stated that A.1 was working as the Officer between 22.9.1980 and 25.1.1985 in the extension counter; it had one clerk and one peon, apart from the officer. Since this is a women's college, a woman officer was posted as manager. In the extension counter, all persons connected with the college had accounts. Apart from that, some contractors who had some connection with the college also had accounts. Fixed Deposits, Khamadhenu Deposit Receipts and demand drafts and cheque books were under the custody of the first accused. They are called security items; whenever the workload was heavy, somebody from Shencottah used to be deputed to the extension counter. The cashier in the extension counter was not given the power of supervisor. The power of signing in the fixed deposit, Khamadhenu Deposit Receipts and demand draft were given to A.1. To deposit amount in the Kamadhenu Deposit, an application form is to be filled up along with the specimen signature; After verifying that, credit challan should be filled up; after it is verified by the manager, credit challan should be filled up which will contain the name, amount and the number of years for which it is deposited; The amount should be remitted to the cashier; He will also enter the remittance in the Shroff books; Thereafter, it will be sent to the first accused. Deposit receipt will also have counter-foil; Thereafter, the deposit receipt will be written by the clerk; If the clerk has excess work, it will also be written by the officer; Thereafter, it will be entered in a ledger; all particulars regarding the name, amount, etc., will be entered. In the main deposit receipts, the other particulars regarding the period for which it is deposited, rate of interest, amount ultimately to be given on the date on which it can be received will also be printed. In the main deposit receipts, the other particulars regarding the period for which it is deposited, rate of interest, amount ultimately to be given on the date on which it can be received will also be printed. That receipts can be signed only by persons who had been given the authority by way of power of attorney. It should also be signed by the officer in the supervisory capacity. Thus, there should be two signatures on such receipts; where there is no other supervisor, the power of attorney has to sign at both the places. During the relevant period, A.1 was the manager in the extension counter. She would sign for both the authorities along with the rubber stamp and hand over the receipts to depositors. 10. It is also permissible to cancel Khamadhenu Deposit Receipt prematurely. After verification that there was sufficient amount in the account, Khamadhenu Deposit Receipts may be cancelled and amounts can be given. Canara Bank had introduced the facility whereby Khamadhenu Deposit Receipt holder can get loans by pledging the Khamadhenu Deposit Receipts deposit receipts. Normally, such loans would be given in the branch where Kamadhenu Deposit Receipts are issued. But loans can be obtained through other branches also. Since the extension counter had no power of granting loan, they can obtain loan from the main branch, Shencottah; Khamadhenu Deposit Receipts were considered as valuable security for the purpose of granting loan; A person can get 75% of the deposited amount as loan; That will be recorded in the relevant books of accounts. When the loans are sought to be obtained through some other branch other than the branch which issued Khamadhenu Deposit Receipts, it will be counter-checked from the bank which issued Khamadhenu Deposit Receipts and it will verify whether any loan had already been granted; after verifying all these and after satisfying that the loans can be granted, loans used to be granted on the basis of Khamadhenu Deposit Receipts; On maturity of Khamadhenu Deposit Receipts, the entire amount should be transferred to the branch which granted loan. After deducting the loan amount, the balance would be given to the depositors. Unless the original deposit receipts are submitted, the account cannot be closed. Exs.P.2 and P.3 are the instructions issued by the bank. 11. After deducting the loan amount, the balance would be given to the depositors. Unless the original deposit receipts are submitted, the account cannot be closed. Exs.P.2 and P.3 are the instructions issued by the bank. 11. Ex.P.4 is the counter-foil of the Khamadhenu Deposit Receipt issued by the extension counter; The original is Ex.P.5; It was given on 10.10.1982 in the name of S.Seethalakshmi, third accused; All the particulars have been filled up by A.1. But the serial number contained in the original receipt is different from that found in the counter-foil, Ex.P.4. The counterfoil contains the serial number 27/82 whereas the original number is 22/82 and the date of issue is written as 7.10.1982 in the original and the amount is written as Rs.10,000/- in the original, whereas in the counterfoil, it is written as Rs.500/-. Further, the name noted in Ex.P.4, is S.Seethalakshmi, but it is written as S.K.Devi in the original. The period of deposit is written as one year in Ex.P.4 whereas in the original, Ex.P.5 it is written as seven years. Ex.P.6 is the counterfoil of another Khamadhenu Deposit Receipt; it contains serial number as 28/82 issued on 10.10.1982. The name of depositor is S.K.Devi of Madurai for a period of one year; but in the original of the same Khamadhenu Deposit Receipt, Ex.P.7, the serial number is written as 23/82, dated 7.10.1982 and the amount is written as Rs.10,000/- and the period of deposit is mentioned as seven years. This method has been adopted in Exs.P.4 to P.19 and number of other exhibits; This is the modus operandi adopted by A.1. The Khamadhenu Deposit Receipts were signed by in both the places, in dual capacity, one as the manager and another as the supervisor. The Khamadhenu Deposit Receipts were issued either in the name of A.2 or in the name of A.3. In some cases, both the names of S.K. Devi and S.Seethalakshmi were used. The amounts have also been corrected in the originals which do not tally with the counterfoils. Some of the originals are found tampered with; it is visible to the naked eye. 10.10.1982 was a Sunday which was a holiday for the extension counter, but Khamadhenu Deposit Receipt was issued on that date. 12. The amounts have also been corrected in the originals which do not tally with the counterfoils. Some of the originals are found tampered with; it is visible to the naked eye. 10.10.1982 was a Sunday which was a holiday for the extension counter, but Khamadhenu Deposit Receipt was issued on that date. 12. Further, the savings bank account No.1490 was opened in the name of A.2 in the same extension counter on 25.6.1981; Ex.P.21 is a ledger sheet relating to the document; The entries are made by A.1 in this ledger. In Ex.P.22, Rs.1,500/- has been debited from the savings bank for the purchase of Khamadhenu Deposit Receipts. Ex.P.23 is the voucher prepared by the accused; She has also initialled for issuance of Khamadhenu Deposit Receipts. Using these original Khamadhenu Deposit Receipts, A.2 had obtained loan from Madurai Gnanaolivupuram branch; loan application is Ex.P.28; the valuable securities were Khamadhenu Deposit Receipt Nos.14/82, 22/82, 23/82 and 24/82; each for a value of Rs.10,000/-; Rs.30,000/- was given as loan; A.2 received the amount of Rs.30,000/-; on 7.11.1982; Ex.P.29 is the debit voucher. On 9.11.1982, this fact of grant of loan of Rs.30,000/- was informed to the extension counter by Ex.P.30; On 17.11.1982, the first accused sent a reply, Ex.P.31 informing that the loan has been recorded in the original register. But in that different Khamadhenu Deposit Receipt numbers are written; These were written by the first accused; As seen from Ex.P.13, Exs.4, 6 and 8 receipts, there is no entry that loans had been granted based on those Khamadhenu Deposit Receipts and they were closed after one year and the amount of Rs.541.25 was credited to the account of the second accused. This account was closed by A.1. Similarly, another Khamadhenu Deposit Receipt-Serial Number 27/82 was closed on 10th October 1983 and the amount was credited in the S.B. Account of A.2. These particulars are written by A.1. Serial Number 29/82 was also closed on 10.10.1983 and credited in A.1's account. This is also written by A.1. It is also written in Ex.P.32 transfer list on 7.10.1983, though it is found that the bank had closed the accounts on 10.10.1983. Apart from that, as per Ex.P.32. Khamadhenu Deposit Receipt, Rs.30,000/- was closed and a sum of Rs.31,629.25 was credited in the account of A.2. In Ex.P.21, Rs.10,182.50 was credited in the account of A.2. on 7.10.1983. It is also written in Ex.P.32 transfer list on 7.10.1983, though it is found that the bank had closed the accounts on 10.10.1983. Apart from that, as per Ex.P.32. Khamadhenu Deposit Receipt, Rs.30,000/- was closed and a sum of Rs.31,629.25 was credited in the account of A.2. In Ex.P.21, Rs.10,182.50 was credited in the account of A.2. on 7.10.1983. This has been written by A.1 and she has also counter-signed after checking. The day book slip, Ex.P.34 for the dated 7.10.1983 was written by A.1, but in that only Rs.1,629.25 has been debited as amounts paid on the discharge of Khamadhenu Deposit Receipts. Similarly in Ex.P.35, the amount credited into the account of A.2 is Rs.10,182.50. But in Exs.36 and 37, on 7.10.1983, a sum of Rs.31,082.50 was credited into the accounts of the second accused. This has been written by the first accused. Ex.P.38 is the credit slip for a sum of Rs.546.75 on 7.10.1983 is also filled up and verified by the first accused, according to which a sum of Rs.546.75 was transferred to her account No.1412. On 26.9.1990, A.1 opened Savings Bank Account No.1412 in her own name in the extension counter at Courtallam. Ex.P.39(series) is the ledger sheets. Ex.P.14 is the cheque used to withdraw Rs.14,000/- from the account on 24.4.1981. A.1 herself has passed this cheque. It is said to have been used for purchase of Khamadhenu Deposit Receipt, as proved by Ex.P.42 credit slip. In that, Khamadhenu Deposit Receipt serial No.5/81 to 7/81 were written as if those Khamadhenu Deposit Receipts were issued out of that. This was written by A.1. She has also verified it. In the counterfoil of Khamadhenu Deposit Receipts 5/81, Ex.P.46, it is written as Rs.2,000/- in favour of one Raghavan. Exs.P.47 and P.48 are the counter-foils and original of another Khamadhenu Deposit Receipts Serial Number 6/81. It was issued on 24.4.1981 in the name of Vasundara for a sum of Rs.10,000/-. But in the original, the date is stated as 24.3.1981. Apart from that, there is no change in the figures. In Exs.P.52 and P.53, Serial No.7/81, the counterfoil contains the figure, Rs.2,000/- whereas the original contains the figure Rs.20,000/-. The dates are also different. In the counterfoil, it is written as 24.4.1981, whereas in the original it is written as 24.3.1981. Apart from that, there is no change in the figures. In Exs.P.52 and P.53, Serial No.7/81, the counterfoil contains the figure, Rs.2,000/- whereas the original contains the figure Rs.20,000/-. The dates are also different. In the counterfoil, it is written as 24.4.1981, whereas in the original it is written as 24.3.1981. Even in the letters, one "0" has been added and the words, "two thousand" has been altered as "twenty thousand" and the correction is initialled by A.1; She has also mentioned his signature No.6645. In Ex.P.53, the witness, Gomathy Chockalingam has also signed; But where it was corrected, Gomathi Chockalingam initial is not found. These Khamadhenu Deposit Receipts were made used for obtaining the loans from Gnanaolivupuram branch as proved by Exs.P.57, P.58 and also number of documents proved that loans were obtained by using these Khamadhenu Deposit Receipts. The signatures of A.1 are found in the applications for loan from the Gnanaolivupuram branch, Madurai. Loans have been given on serial numbers, 20,21 and 23 Khamadhenu Deposit Receipts in the name of Saroja. A.1 has written letters confirming this by recording the same in the ledgers against these Khamadhenu Deposit Receipts. But in Ex.P.13, such entries are not found. Further, the signature of Saroja has been attested by A.1 as seen from Exs.P.85 and 98, even though there is no necessity to attest while obtaining loan under Khamadhenu Deposit Receipts. A.2 has received the money from the bank as it is proved by Ex.P.99. From Saroja's savings account, it is proved that on 9.10.1983, S.K. Devi was given Rs.60,000/- as seen from Ex.P.100. Thus, A.1 using her position as Manager as well as Accountant or Supervisor manipulated the books of records maintained in the bank as well as to enable her sister to get money after the amounts were credited in her own account or sombody else's account. 13. Further, on 26.9.1983, Rs.60,000/- has been received for the purpose of issuing two Khamadhenu Deposit Receipts in favour of R.Saroja. The credit slip is Ex.P.105. In Ex.P.106, Shroff Book, there is an entry for Rs.60,000/-. A.1 has also verified it and initialled it. Exs.P.107 and 108 are the counterfoils and original of Khamadhenu Deposit Receipts. But in Ex.P.107, the date is mentioned as 26.9.1983, but in Ex.P.108, the date is mentioned as 26.8.1983. All these particulars are filled up by A.1. In Ex.P.106, Shroff Book, there is an entry for Rs.60,000/-. A.1 has also verified it and initialled it. Exs.P.107 and 108 are the counterfoils and original of Khamadhenu Deposit Receipts. But in Ex.P.107, the date is mentioned as 26.9.1983, but in Ex.P.108, the date is mentioned as 26.8.1983. All these particulars are filled up by A.1. Further, on the reverse of Ex.P.107, A.1 has signed for having received the Khamadhenu Deposit Receipts. On the reverse of Ex.P.108, A.1 attested the signature of Saroja. Further, Ex.P.111 is an application for grant of loan on Khamadhenu Deposit Receipt No.21/83. A.1 has filled up this form; Rs.22,000/- was granted as loan and it was credited to the account of Saroja. Further the Serial No.21 Khamadhenu Deposit Receipt was transferred to Madurai Gnanaolivupuram Branch and singed by A.1 and that amount was closed on 21.10.1983 in the extension counter as proved by Ex.P.113. When Khamadhenu Deposit Receipt was transferred from ;one branch to another branch, it must be recorded that it has been transferred to the head office in a column allotted to that. But, there is no such entry in that column. Therefore, that account was not transferred to the head office. Thus the first accused has taken Rs.5,00,000/- from the bank; in order adjust that amount, there is an entry as if Rs.50,000/- was transferred from her account. The accounts have been manipulated with false figures. P.W.2 has given details of those manipulations and he has stated that all these are in the hand-writing of A.1. P.W.2 has given in elaborate details with respect to the manner in which the accounts were be manipulated and amounts were withdrawn through Gnanaolivupuram branch in the account of Saroja and S.Kamala. P.W.3 is the person who knows the signature of A.1. He also speaks about the circumstances under which the malpractice were done. P.Ws.4, 5, 6 and 14 have identified the signatures and hand-writings of A.1. In the cross-examination, P.W.4 he has stated that the accounts were audited during 1982-84 and no irregularities were found out. 14. P.W.7 was working as a Manager in the Loan Issue Section in Madurai Grand Central Branch between 1984 October and April 1987. He has stated that during 1985 April, he had seen A.2, the sister of A.1; A.1 introduced her. 14. P.W.7 was working as a Manager in the Loan Issue Section in Madurai Grand Central Branch between 1984 October and April 1987. He has stated that during 1985 April, he had seen A.2, the sister of A.1; A.1 introduced her. In 1985 May, A.1 and A.2 approached him for loan and as per Ex.P.285, loan of Rs.15,000/- was granted; but the loan was not granted by him. A.1 has granted permission for the grant of loan. During that period, A.1 was working in that branch. On the same date, viz., 26.6.1985, another loan of Rs.21,800/- was granted to the second accused. That loan was also sanctioned by A.1 as per Ex.254 in the name of the second and third accused, for opening of a joint account. A.2 and A.3 were introduced by A.1. 15. P.W.8, Ramalingam, Manager of Canara Bank, Thirunagar between 1984 and 1987 has stated that A.1 came along with A.2 and introduced A.2 to him and also wanted loan on the basis of Exs.354, 358, 361 Khamadhenu Deposit Receipts; Rs.37,500/- was granted as loan by him; A.2 received that amount in cash. He intimated the grant of loan through letter Ex.P.368 to the Courtallam extension counter. To that, A.1 had sent a reply, Ex.P.369 on 9.1.1985. 16. P.W.10, Manager in Madras Thambu Chetty Street branch has stated that on 20.2.1984, A.1 came with A.2 and wanted loan of Rs.30,000/- and for that they gave Ex.212 Khamadhenu Deposit Receipts and wanted that to be cancelled and loan to be given. A.1 has also signed on the back of it and Rs.30,000/- was granted as loan to the second accused and A.2's signature was attested by A.1; Ex.P.229 is the letter signed by this witness to enter the lien on the basis of Ex.P.212 and as per Ex.230, he got information confirming the lien. 17. P.W.11 also knew A.1 and A.2. He has stated that Saroja was introduced by A.2. Saroja was granted loan on 6.10.1983 and he has also intimated the extension counter at Courtallam to make the entry about the grant of loan; Ex.P.206 was the reply informing that it has been entered. 18. P.W.12 was the Gnanaolivupuram Branch manager. On 28.6.1985 when he assumed charged he verified the the loan accounts and found that number of loans were given on the Khamadhenu Deposit Receipt receipts issued in Courtallam extension counter. 18. P.W.12 was the Gnanaolivupuram Branch manager. On 28.6.1985 when he assumed charged he verified the the loan accounts and found that number of loans were given on the Khamadhenu Deposit Receipt receipts issued in Courtallam extension counter. He got suspicion when the loan was granted to Saroja on 26.10.1983 depositing the Khamadhenu Deposit Receipt issued on 6.10.1983; that is because they collected 2% interest more than they allowed for Khamadhenu Deposit Receipt deposit and this Khamadhenu Deposit Receipt was deposited for long period. He also doubted as to how the person residing in Madurai could get loan from Courtallam extension counter. Therefore, he contacted the Branch Manager at Shencottah on 1.7.1985. Both of them proceeded to the extension counter and verified whether the lien was noted in the ledgers. There, they found out the irregularities. When the Divisional Manager met him on the next day, he explained the entire matter. 19. P.W.13, the Accountant at Thirunagar, Madurai branch speaks about the opening of the account in the name of the second accused and getting of loans on the basis of Khamadhenu Deposit Receipts; Saroja was said to be a relative of the second accused. They were satisfied with the signature of Saroja as it was attested by A.1. Thereafter, an account was also opened in the name of Saroja on 21.9.1983 introduced by the second accused. Thereafter, loan was granted to Saroja and credited into Saroja's S.B.Account. This was informed through Ex.P.327 to enter the lien to Courtallam extension counter. Ex.P.328 is the letter intimating that the lien has been entered in the records. Ex.P.329 is a deposit transferred from Courtallam branch to Thirunagar Branch Manager for a sum of Rs.50,000/-. From this, it is seen that using the Khamadhenu Deposit Receipts , given in the name of Kamala, amounts were credited into Saroja's account. Second accused withdrawn Rs.1,12,000/- on 24.9.1983. In Ex.P.339 when the second produced the Khamadhenu Deposit Receipts and wanted Rs.7,500/- as loan, first accused has attested on the reverse of it. Satisfied with the attestation of the first accused, loan was granted which was received by the second accused. Like this, number of loans were received by the second accused and the loans were granted under the strength of attestation made by the first accused. 20. Satisfied with the attestation of the first accused, loan was granted which was received by the second accused. Like this, number of loans were received by the second accused and the loans were granted under the strength of attestation made by the first accused. 20. P.W.15 who was the owner of Door No.7, J.J.Road, Aarapalayam Cross Road, Madurai-10 has stated that A.1 and A.2 were residing in that house along with their mother. A.1 used to come to Madurai at the week ends. No one by name Saroja or Uma were living in that house. 21. P.W.16 another clerk in the branch who is also acquainted with the signatures of A.1 and A.2, identified the signatures of A.1 and A.2 and that A.2 opened an account in the name of S.K.Devi and in the account opening form, A.1 has signed. He has also stated that on 23.4.1981 and 24.4.1981 when he worked as a cashier, he has not received either Rs.2,000/- or Rs.20,000/- for issue of Khamadhenu Deposit Receipts and in Ex.P.281, he has also countersigned as an accountant. When he signed it was found written as Rs.2,000/-, but subsequently, it was corrected as Rs.20,000/- by A.1. He admits that it was his duty to enter the ledger relating to issue of Khamadhenu Deposit Receipts, but on many occasions, A.1 has written. He has also stated that the corrections found in two of the Khamadhenu Deposit Receipts were not made by him. 22. From the above evidence, it is seen that the witnesses have given a graphic picture as to how these accounts were manipulated; the Khamadhenu Deposit Receipts were used to get loans in different branches at Madurai and Chennai that the amount was received by the second accused with the active participation of the first accused. In the cross-examination though P.W.2 was subjected to strenuous cross-examination, there was nothing elicited to disbelieve or discredit the evidence of P.W.2. 23. The counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that these accused were made as scope goats where some others were also involved. All others escaped, only these appellants were trapped. This argument of the appellant cannot be brushed aside. 23. The counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that these accused were made as scope goats where some others were also involved. All others escaped, only these appellants were trapped. This argument of the appellant cannot be brushed aside. Going through the evidence of some of the witnesses, it appears that it is possible that some other employees of the bank also would have been involved in this matter; that cannot be the ground to disbelieve the evidence appearing against A.1 and A.2. 24. From the evidence available, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that A.1 has misused her power as Power or Attorney and signed the Khamadhenu Deposit Receipts systematically, gave inflated figures in the original of Khamadhenu Deposit Receipts, entered the actual lesser amount in the counter-foils maintained by the bank and also actively participated in helping A.2 getting loans from other branches; when information came from those branches to enter the lien, on the Khamadhedu Deposit Receipts, she has also replied as if it has been entered in the ledger, though, in fact, they were not entered; By not entering the lien in the Khamadhenu Deposit Receipts, subsequently, she has also closed some of the Khamadhenu Deposit Receipts on maturity, based on the particulars given in the counterfoils. so, it is a clever method adopted by the persons who are well-versed in the banking operations, thereby the bank has been cheated by these accused. 25. Therefore, the charge levelled against the accused has been rightly held to have been proved. There is no reason to alter the finding. It is true that there are some minor variations in the evidence of the witnesses and some mistakes with respect to the dates of assumption of office on promotion of some of the witnesses; but these minor variations or contradictions will not in any way affect the value of the evidence adduced by these witnesses. 26. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the sanction order passed by the Sanctioning Authority is not legal and valid and hence, on the basis of the Sanction Order, the accused cannot be prosecuted; since the Sanction Order goes to the very root of the order, the entire prosecution has to be thrown out. 27. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the sanctioning authority should have applied its mind before granting sanction. 27. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the sanctioning authority should have applied its mind before granting sanction. Therefore, there must be materials available in the sanction order itself to prove that the sanctioning authority applied its mind. He referred to the decision, Har Bharosey lal v. State of U.P. (Allahabad 1988, Criminal Law Journal, 1122). He also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. State of A.P. (A.I.R. 1979, S.C.677), according to which, the grant of sanction is not an idle formality and the grounds of satisfaction have to be specified in the sanction order itself. The Sanction Order, Ex.P.1 was passed by Chairman and Managing Director of the bank. The Sanction Order refers to the complaint against the accused, the circumstances leading to the conclusion that the accused have committed the offence and the manner of preparation of demand drafts by the first accused and the manipulation of the accounts of S.K.Devi alias S.Kamala, the second respondent herein and that she is the sister and S.Seethalakshmi is the mother of the first accused who ultimately withdrew money from other branches. From the Sanction Order, it is seen that the Chairman and the Managing Director who is competent to remove the accused, after fully and carefully examining the F.I.R., statement of witnesses, documents pertaining to the allegations and other connected records placed before him in the circumstances of the case, considered that all the accused should be prosecuted in the Court of Law for the said offence. The use of the word, "consider" does not in any way convey a meaning that the Sanctioning Authority was "not satisfied" that A.1 had committed the offence. It is not as if only the word, "satisfied" should be used; any other equivalent word which conveys the same meaning that the authority was satisfied is sufficient. Therefore, the use of the word, "consider" does not mean that the sanctioning authority was "not satisfied." Therefore, this argument of the counsel for the appellant is not acceptable. 28. A reading of the sanction makes it clear that the Sanctioning Authority was in fact satisfied that there are enough materials to prove that A.1 has committed the offence and therefore, she has to be prosecuted. 28. A reading of the sanction makes it clear that the Sanctioning Authority was in fact satisfied that there are enough materials to prove that A.1 has committed the offence and therefore, she has to be prosecuted. Further, the Supreme Court has held in Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.K. Sehgal (1999, S.C.C. (Cri) 1494), that " Section 465 Cr.P.C. debars a Court of appeal or revision from reversing a finding (or even an order of conviction and sentence) on account of any error or irregularity in the sanction for the prosecution, unless failure of justice had been occasioned on account of such error or irregularity. .....once the judicial filtering process is over on completion of the trial, the purpose of providing for the initial sanction would bog down to a surplusage." In the circumstances, the Sanction Order cannot be said to be defective. The prosecution has been validly launched. Therefore, there is no ground to interfere with the finding of the lower Court. Therefore, the conviction of A.1 and A.2 is confirmed. 29. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the first appellant is out of job and both the accused have aged parents and they are penniless and their parents have none to support them. The offence committed by these accused is serious in nature. This cannot be lightly treated. Considering the nature of the offence committed by the accused, this Court cannot show any sympathy in respect of sentence. The fact that the accused are women, does not warrant a lenient view while imposing sentence for such offence. The trial Court has imposed a lenient sentence on the ground that the accused are women. Punishment should be the same, irrespective of the fact whether the accused are male or female. The fact that the accused are women will not be a consideration in all offences. Offences like this, a while collar offence should not be treated leniently. Therefore, the sentence is also confirmed. 30. In the result, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court is confirmed. The appeal is dismissed.