JUDGMENT K.S. Garewal, J. - Kewal Krishan was tried by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Patiala for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and related offences under Indian Penal Code for having defrauded United Commercial Bank during the year 1981-1985. The appellant was found guilty and convicted for various offences. The details of the conviction and sentence may be found in the judgment of the learned Trail Court. The maximum sentence imposed on the appellant under five different counts was rigrous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/- on each count, in default he was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. All sentences of imprisonment were to run concurrently. The judgment of the trial Court dated December 15, 1995 has been challenged in this appeal. 2. During the years 1981 to 1985 N.S. Bath was working as Manager of United Commercial Bank, Lasuri (Nakodar), Jalandhar. N.S. Bath entered into a conspiracy with the appellant who was proprietor of Punjab Agriculture Works, Nakodar and also of Sharma Khad Store, Nakodar. N.S. Bath advanced tractor loans and crop loans by abusing his official position as an officer of the bank and he obtained pecuniary advantages himself and for the appellant while causing corresponding loss to the bank to the tune of Rs. 36,000/-. The modus operandi which N.S. Bath and the appellant employed was to use the appellants firms for the purpose of crediting loan amounts advanced to Balkar Singh, Ramesh Kumar, Jasbir Singh and Mohinder Singh. The appellants firms and the four above named persons were all bogus and fictitious. N.S. Bath in his capacity as Manager of the bank would transfer the money to the appellants firms and then withdraw the money from those accounts and thereby he cheated the United Commercial Bank of Rs. 36,000/- in all. 3. The case was registered against the accused on July 30, 1990 and was investigated by Central Bureau of Investigation. During investigation accused were arrested and released on bail. N.S. Bath jumped bail and was declared as Proclaimed Offender by learned Special Judge, Patiala on June 7, 1993. Thereafter the appellant faced trial. Charge was framed against him on June 12, 1993 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined 25 witnesses. During investigation accused were arrested and released on bail. N.S. Bath jumped bail and was declared as Proclaimed Offender by learned Special Judge, Patiala on June 7, 1993. Thereafter the appellant faced trial. Charge was framed against him on June 12, 1993 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined 25 witnesses. The appellant was examined without oath under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code and denied the various items of evidence which appeared against him. He pleaded false implication and innocence. The appellant examined one witness in defence. 4. Learned Special Judge concluded that charge had been established against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and awarded sentence to him. 5. In appeal learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the judgment of the trial Court was based on uncorroborated evidence which was insufficient for bringing (being ?) relied upon. The entire case depended upon the evidence of Handwriting Expert. The person who committed the fraud was N.S. Bath who was Manager of the Bank. The evidence against the appellant was not enough to hold him guilty. 6. It would be appropriate to consider the evidence that was presented against the appellant at the trial in order to determine whether he had been justifiably convicted or not. According to the prosecution two fictitious/bogus firms had been set up with the appellant as proprietor of the firms. N.S. Bath advanced loans to four non-existent persons for various purposes. The appellant issued fictitious quotations and bills and after the loans were sanctioned the drafts were transferred to the two accounts which were in the name of the appellant with United Commercial Bank, Nakodar and Bank of India, Nakodar and thereafter the amounts were withdrawn by N.S. Bath. The prosecution presented evidence of the loans advanced to the four fictitious personalities namely Jasbir Singh, Balkar Singh, Mohinder Singh and Ramesh Kumar. The files pertaining to the request for loans and all related documents like loan application, agreement of hypothecation of crop, hypothecation of plant and machinery, debit vouchers, credit vouchers etc. showed that in all the four fictitious transactions bore the signatures of N.S. Bath. This was stated by Satnam Singh (PW-4) who was the Filed Officer of United Commercial Bank, Nakodar. This witness said nothing against the appellant and produced no documentary evidence which would connect the appellant to N.S. Bath. showed that in all the four fictitious transactions bore the signatures of N.S. Bath. This was stated by Satnam Singh (PW-4) who was the Filed Officer of United Commercial Bank, Nakodar. This witness said nothing against the appellant and produced no documentary evidence which would connect the appellant to N.S. Bath. Satnam Singh (PW-4) had been Assistant Manager at Lasuri Branch of the bank from July, 1982 to December, 1985 during the period when N.S. Bath was posted as Manager. Therefore, the witness had not only known N.S. Bath but also worked with him. However, the witness did not utter a whisper against the appellant. 7. The other important witness examined by the prosecution was Gurdev Chand Paul (PW-6), Manager of the concerned bank who testified that he produced the loan files before the Investigating Officer which were then taken into possession. He stated that he had seen loan file relating to Mohinder Singh and the debit vouchers therein had been filled in the handwriting of N.S. Bath. The amount had been credited to the account of Punjab Agricultural Works vide credit vouchers which bore the signatures of N.S. Bath. This witness also did not connect the appellant with the criminal activities of N.S. Bath. Likewise, M.K. Vashisht (PW-7) proved the loan files of Balkar Singh, Ramesh Kumar and Jasbir Singh and also testified that various documents in these files were in the handwriting of N.S. Bath and some of them also bore his signatures. 8. Ashok Kumar Gujral (PW-18) testified that a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was transferred to the account of Punjab Agricultural Works, Nakodar on December 3, 1982, Rs. 10,000/- was transferred to Punjab Agricultural Works through demand draft and credited to the account No. 588. There were also two entries one regarding transfer of Rs. 9000/- and the other regarding transfer of Rs. 19,000/-. 9. Mohinder Singh, Assistant Government Examiner of Questioned Documents appeared as PW-19 and testified that signatures of the appellant appeared on quotations Ex.PW-9/9 and Ex.PW.9/11, vouchers Ex.PW.9/6&7, account opening form of Sharma Khad Store PW-9/5. 10. In this case there were apparently four persons to whom loans were advanced by N.S. Bath but the prosecution has failed to produce those persons. Obviously these persons were not real parties. 11. A perusal of the prosecution evidence would certainly establish a very strong case against N.S. Bath. 10. In this case there were apparently four persons to whom loans were advanced by N.S. Bath but the prosecution has failed to produce those persons. Obviously these persons were not real parties. 11. A perusal of the prosecution evidence would certainly establish a very strong case against N.S. Bath. He was the manager of the bank who had issued cheques in favour of the four non-existent loanees and drawn the amount from the bank in his capacity as the Manager. The witnesses against N.S. Bath were Satnam Singh (PW-4), Gurdev Singh (PW-6) and V.K. Vashisht (PW-7). These witnesses had categorically stated that it was N.S. Bath who had passed the loans, credited the amount to the accounts of the fictitious persons and then withdrawn money therefrom. But about the complicity of Kewal Krishan these witnesses did not say anything. The only evidence against the appellant was the evidence of the handwriting expert which proves that quotations, vouchers and account opening form of Sharma Khad Store were in the handwriting of the appellant. If N.S. Bath was the main culprit to what extent was the appellant party to this scam ? 12. Opening an account is an innocent act. Thereafter giving quotations and signing vouchers can be equally innocent acts. It was the bank manager who was dishonest and who advanced the amounts to Balkar Singh, Ramesh Kumar, Jasbir Singh and Mahinder Singh and credited the amount to the appellants account. The evidence against N.S. Bath is very strong but the evidence against Kewal krishan regarding conspiracy and direct involvement in the scam does not appear to be sufficient to warrant conviction. Kewal Krishan made (may ?) have been used as a pawn or a puppet by the bank manager in his criminal activities but the handwriting evidence alone was not strong enough to establish direct involvement of the appellant in the case. 13. Consequently this appeal is accepted and the appellant is given benefit of doubt and is acquitted of the charges. Appeal allowed.