Judgment Amareshwar Sahay, J.- The appellant, GA Gandhi @ Gunwant Roy Amrit Lal Gaandhi, who was Accounts Assistant Central Finance Department, Banking Section, B.C.C.L.. was charged under Sections 120-B read with Sections 420 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of the Corruption Act, 1947 for entering into a criminal conspiracy with Jyotin Parkaria, Prakash Udeshi and other unknown persons, agreeing to do or cause to be done illegal acts of forgery for the purpose of cheating, forging valuable security and using the forged documents all genuine knowing them to be forged, in pursuance of the conspiracy for procuring blank delivery orders through Dasrath Paswan from Sale Section of the B.C.C.L. forged D.O. purported to be signed by the Sales Officers B.D. Singh. Further for showing issue of the D.O. in favour of fictitious firm M/s. Evergreen Engineering Works, Nelo Kharia, Haryana, false letter head pad printed by Jyotin Parkaria in the name of the firm, bogus bank draft purported to have been issued by the Indian Overseas Bank submitted in favour of the B.C.C.L., an authorization letter got to be issued by the partner of the firm signed as S.D. Parmar, one Kanti Lal Chadda worked as an authorized representative signed on the authorization letter assuming to be Jagdish Kar for lifting coal on the basis of the said forged D.O. and thereby managing to lift 251.600 M.T. of hard coke through Kantilal Chadda from Munidih Colliery without making any payment to B.C.C.L. and disposing of all the coke to various parties including M/s. S.Kumar and Company, Sahadra Delhi and B.B. Dhingra, Panipath, Gunwant Dagli and thereby received Rs. 15,500/- drawn in favour of M/s. Ektra Printer belonging to Jyotin Parkaria and thus dishonestly and fraudulently causing wrongful loss to the B.C.C.L. and wrongful gain to the accused persons. The appellant, above named, was further charged under Secti0ns 420 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for being a public servant dishonestly abusing official position procuring blank D.O. forms and getting it forged and on the basis of the forged documents obtaining pecuniary advantage putting B.C.C.L. in loss by facilitating the lifting of coal without payment. 2. 2. The learned Special Judge (C.B.I.) Dhanbad by impugned judgment dated 23.8.1996 found the appellant guilty under section 120-B read with Sections 420 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and accordingly convicted him thereunder. Being convicted under the aforesaid Section, the appellant was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years under section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and he was further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year under section 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of the Corruption Act. He was further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-. In default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months. Sentences were ordered to run concurrently. No separate sentence was passed under sections 420 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 4. The prosecution case in short is that C.B.I. Dhanbad received information that during the year 1980 Aloke Verma Sales Officer of Area-V, B.C.C.L. Sijua Dhanbad entered into criminal conspiracy with some coal merchants and .in furtherance of the said conspiracy about 275 MT of hard coke was released and lifted through forged delivery orders no. H/C/218/9/125/197 dated 27.10.1980. The C.B.I., after instituting the case, started investigation in which it would appear that by forged delivery orders non-existent firm M/s. Evergreen Engineering Works, Nelo Khari, Haryana was favoured for release of 275 M.T. hard coke. On 11.11.1980 Aloke Verma being the Sales Officer of the area released the hard coke against the spurious and forged delivery order in question. 5. Further case of the prosecution is that episode was master minded by the appellant, G.A. Gandhi, Accounts Assistant posted in Central Finance Department, B.C.C.L. Koyla Bhawan, Dhanbad in collusion with Dasrath Paswan, Jyotin Parkaria, Prakash Udeshi and others. Blank formats of the delivery orders were procured from the sales department of the B.C.C.L. with the help of Dasrath Paswan working under the appellant. After procuring blank formats of the delivery orders, the relevant entries were typed by Prakash Udeshi on the typewriter of the M/s. Agarwalla Udeshi and Company, Jharia and then he forged the signature of the Sales Officer B. D. Singh, on the delivery orders. After procuring blank formats of the delivery orders, the relevant entries were typed by Prakash Udeshi on the typewriter of the M/s. Agarwalla Udeshi and Company, Jharia and then he forged the signature of the Sales Officer B. D. Singh, on the delivery orders. The letter head pad in the name of the firm M/s. Evergreen Engineering Works were printed by the accused, Jyotin Parkaria in one printing shop of M/s. Delux Printers. The signature of S.D.P. Parmar was forged on the authorization letter purporting to be the partner of non-existent firm in question. Accused, Kantilal Chadd a functioning as an authorized, signed on the authorization letter in the name of Jagdish Kar by forging delivery orders which was handed over to Dasrath Paswan by the appellant for placing the same in the dispatch Section. Altogether 251.600 M.T. of hard coke was lifted on the forged delivery order by the accused persons through Kantilal Chadda from Munidih Colliery of B.C.C.L. without making any payment. The draft shown in the forged delivery orders was imaginary and in fact no draft was ever issued to any party for its delivery. Hard coke so lifted was sold to authorized parties including Sri. B. B. Dhingra, Panipat and M/s. Kumar and Company, Sahadra, Delhi. The two drafts one for Rs. 5,000 and the other of Rs. 10,500 were issued from Canara Bank in favour M/s. Ekta Printers and the accounts written in the name of M/s. Ekta Printer were found to be of Jyotin Parkaria Proprietor of the firm. On the basis of the statement of Jyotin Parkaria recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., recovery of the incriminating articles, such as type writer machine by which the forged delivery order was typed were made. The signature appearing in the delivery orders of the Sales Officers was also found forged. 6. It is relevant to state that co-accused namely, Prakash Udeshi and Jyotin Parkaria pleaded guilty and they had faced their guilt in totality after examination of some witnesses and accordingly they were convicted and sentenced for the offence charged levelled against them. From the statements made under Section 313 Cr.P.C. it appears that they categorically confessed all the charges and stated that they along with and in conspiracy with the appellant obtained blank formats of the delivery orders and forged the said delivery orders preparing the same D.O. no. From the statements made under Section 313 Cr.P.C. it appears that they categorically confessed all the charges and stated that they along with and in conspiracy with the appellant obtained blank formats of the delivery orders and forged the said delivery orders preparing the same D.O. no. H/C/218/9/125/897 dated 27.10.1980 in the name of the non-existent firm M/s. Ever Green Engineering Works and also forged bank draft no. 467425 dated 10.9.1980 purported to have been issued by Indian Overseas Bank in favour of the B.C.C.L. and thus without making any payment, 251.600 M.T. coal was lifted from Munidih Colliery and used forged delivery order as genuine. 7. In order to prove the charges altogether seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and apart from the oral evidence several documents were also adduced in evidence which were marked as Exts. 8. P.W. 1 Mridul Chandra was the Sale Assistant in the office of B.C.C.L. in the year 1980. He was dealing preparation of the delivery orders. According to him the delivery orders marked as Exts. X to XI 2 did not bear his signature. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to the statements of this witness and has stressed that this witness has not stated anything against the appellant and he further argued that this witness has not stated that the delivery orders were forged. On close scrutiny of the statements of this witness, I find that he has stated that the delivery orders did not bear his signature and it also did not bear the signature of the Sales Officer B.D. Singh and entries made in the sale register were fictitious. 10. P.W. 2 Ravi Ranjan Chatterjee was an Assistant in the Sale and Marketing• Department of B.C.C.L. and his duty was to sort out the delivery orders area wise and forward the same to the area office. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that this witness has not stated anything about the appellant but on close scrutiny of this witnesses it appears that he has stated that forwarding memo which was seized by the C.B.I., did not bear the signature of either the Sales Officer, B.D. Singh or of his own, which indicates that the delivery orders were not dispatched by him. 11. P.W. 3 Dasrath Paswan was the peon of Banking Section in the year 1980. 11. P.W. 3 Dasrath Paswan was the peon of Banking Section in the year 1980. He has stated that the appellant was the clerk in the office and on his order he brought blank delivery orders form and handed over it to the appellant. At that time the co-accused Prakash Udeshi, Harish Mehta and Jyotin Parkaria were also with appellant, G.A. Gandhi in the office who used to visit with the appellant in the office regularly. From his evidence it is clear that this witness was working under the appellant in the year 1980 and on his instruction he brought blank D.O. form from sales department and as per the order of the appellant sealed envelope was taken by him from Central dispatch section for dispatching. 12. P.W. 4 Harish Mehta hc1s stated in his evidence that Jyotin Parkaria has asked him in the month of October, 1980 to obtain D.O. form from the B.C.C.L. and instructed him to take help of the appellant in procuring blank D.O. form. He further stated that accordingly he met with the appellant in his office, who ordered Dasrath Paswan (P.W.3) to bring the format which was brought by the peon and then it was handed over to him. 13. P. W. 5 Baldeo Singh, who was the Sales Officer of B.C.C.L. at the relevant time, denying his signature on the D.O. no. H/C/218/9/25/987 dated 27.10.1980 has stated that the said D.O. was not issued under his signature and has categorically stated that the said delivery orders were forged. He has also denied his signature in the forwarding letter. 14. P.W. 6 Bishnu Manohar, was Director of the Personnel (Sale) of B.C.C.L. at the relevant time who has stated about the sanction for prosecution. P.W. 7 is the Investigating Officer. On the basis of the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. 15. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned trial court has wrongly convicted the appellant on the basis of the confession made by the other co-accused. It is submitted that confession of co-accused, can be used only for the purpose of corroboration. It cannot be used as substantive evidence against other accused. It is also submitted that on the basis of the confession of the co-accused the appellant could not have been convicted. It is submitted that confession of co-accused, can be used only for the purpose of corroboration. It cannot be used as substantive evidence against other accused. It is also submitted that on the basis of the confession of the co-accused the appellant could not have been convicted. In this regard he has placed reliance in the case of Haricharan Kurmi vs. State of Bihar reported in A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1184 and in the case of Ganeshmal Jashraj vs. Government of Gujarat reported in 1980 CRL LJ 208 = A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 264. 16. The proposition of law as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be disputed but at the same time it can be said that if there are other evidences available on the record against the appellant then for corroborating the said evidence, certainly the confession made by the other accused can be used. 17. The confession of the other co-accused cannot be made on sole basis for conviction of the other accused. 18. The Supreme Court in the case of Haricharan Kurmi (supra) has held: "It would be noticed that as a result of the provisions contained in section 30, the confession has no doubt to be regarded as amounting to evidence in a general way. ,Because whatever is considered by this Court is evidence; circumstances which are considered by the court as well as probabilities do amount to evidence in that generic sense. Thus, though confession may be regarded as evidence in that generic sense because of the provisions of section 30, the fact remains that it is not evidence as defined by section 3 of the Act. The result, therefore, is that in dealing with a case against an accused person, the court cannot start with the confession of co-accused person; it must begin with other evidence adduced by the prosecution and after it has formed its opinion with regard to the quality and effect of the said evidence, then it is permissible to turn to the confession in order to receive assurance to the conclusion of guilt which the judicial mind is about to reach on the said other evidence. 19. 19. From the judgment impugned, it appears that it is not a fact that the learned trial court has totally based his judgment of conviction and sentence against the appellant, on the confessional statement of the co-accused rather it appears that he has considered the entire oral as well as documentary evidence on record and after scrutinizing each and every evidence has used the confessional statement of the co-accused for the purpose of corroboration, therefore, in my opinion the learned trial court has not committed any error. 20. The evidence of the witness which has been discussed above, clearly establishes the guilt of the appellant and confessional statement of the co-accused fully corroborates the evidence adduced by the prosecution against the appellant. 21. In this view of the matter I hold that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellant and the learned trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant by the impugned judgment which needs no interference at all by this court. 22. In the result this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the Special Judge, (C.B.I.) Dhanbad is hereby affirmed. Consequently bail bonds of the appellant are• hereby cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the trial court to serve out the remaining period of sentence.