JUDGMENT: Appeals against conviction. Originally the cases were numbered as C.C.Nos.1 to 8 of 1987 on the file of the Sessions Court, Trichy. Subsequently they were transferred to the file of the Special Judge, C.B.I., Madurai and re-numbered as C.C.Nos.10 to 17 of 1996. Except in C.C.No.17 of 1996, where there are two accused, in all other C.Cs. the first accused in C.C.No.17 of 1996 is the sole accused. For the sake of convenience, the accused in C.C.Nos. 10 to 16 of 1996 is also called as the first accused. 2. The first accused is charged for offences under Secs.409 and A77-A, Indian Penal Code and Sec.5(1)(c) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in C.C.No.10 of 1996; under Secs.420 and 477-A, Indian Penal Code and Sec.5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in C.C.No.11 of 1996; under Secs.420 and 477-A read with 467, Indian Penal Code and Sec.5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in C.C.No.12 of 1996; under Secs.420, 477-A, 468, 471 read with 468, Indian Penal Code and Sec.5(l)(d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in C.C.No.13 of 1996; under Secs.420, 477-A, 468 and 471 read with 468, Indian Penal Code and Sec.5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in C.C.No.14 of 1996; under Secs.420, 477A, 468 and 471 read with 468, Indian Penal Code and Sec.5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in C.C.No.15 of 1996; and, under Secs.420, 408, 467, 477A, 471 read with 468, Indian Penal Code and Sec.5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in C.C.No.16 of 1996. In C.C.No.17 of 1996, the first accused is charged for offences under Secs.420 and 471, Indian Penal Code and Sec.5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the second accused under Secs.468 and 467, Indian Penal Code; and both of them for the offence under Sec.l20-B, Indian Penal Code. 3. The Act complained of against the first accused is that he misappropriated the amounts in the credit of various Savings Bank Account Holders. To prove the charges P.Ws. 1 to 33 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-97 were marked. No defence witness was examined, Ex.D-1 was marked. 4. (a) The trial Court, after going through the evidence, found both the accused guilty of all the charges. To prove the charges P.Ws. 1 to 33 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-97 were marked. No defence witness was examined, Ex.D-1 was marked. 4. (a) The trial Court, after going through the evidence, found both the accused guilty of all the charges. As against the first accused- in C.C.No.10 of 1996 the trial Court imposed a sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500 in default six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Sec.409, Indian Penal Code, six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100 in default one month rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Sec.477-A, Indian Penal Code, and six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500 in default three months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Sec.5(1)(c) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act; in C.C.No. 11 of 1996, for the offence under Sec.420, Indian Penal Code, six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.200 in default one month rigorous imprisonment for offence under Sec.477(a), Indian Penal Code six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100 in default one month rigorous imprisonment, for the offence under Sec.5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500 in default three months rigorous imprisonment; in C.C.No. 12 of 1996, for the offence under Sec.420, Indian Penal Code six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.200 in default one month rigorous imprisonment, for the offence under Sec.477-A, Indian Penal Code six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100 in default one month rigorous imprisonment, for the offence under Sec.471 read with 467, Indian Penal Code one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.200 in default one month rigorous imprisonment, for the offence under Sec.5(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500 in default three months rigorous imprisonment; in C.C.No. 13 of 1996, for the offence under Sec.420, Indian Penal Code six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.200 in default one month rigorous imprisonment, for the offence under Sec.477-A, Indian Penal Code six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.100 in default of one month rigorous imprisonment, for the offence under Sec.468, Indian Penal Code six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.100 in default one month rigorous imprisonment, for the offence under Sec.471 read with 468, Indian Penal Code six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100 in default one month rigorous imprisonment, for the offence under Sec.5(l)(d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500 in default three months rigorous imprisonment in C.C.No.14 of 1996, for the offence under Sec.420, Indian Penal Code six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.200 in default one month rigorous imprisonment, for the offence under Sec.477-A, Indian Penal Code six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.100 in default of one month rigorous imprisonment, for the offence under Sec.468 six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.100 in default one month rigorous imprisonment, for the offence under Sec.471 read with 468, Indian Penal Code six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.100 in default one month rigorous imprisonment, for the offence under Sec.5(1)(d) read with 5(2) six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500 in default three months rigorous imprisonment; in C.C.No. 15 of 1996, for the offence under Sec.420, Indian Penal Code six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.200 in default of one month rigorous imprisonment, for the offence under Sec.477-A, Indian Penal Code six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100 in default one month rigorous imprisonment, for the offence under Sec.468, Indian Penal Code six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.100 in default of one month rigorous imprisonment, for the offence under Sec.471 read with 468, Indian Penal Code six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.100 in default one month rigorous imprisonment, for the offence under Sec.5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500 in default three months rigorous imprisonment; in C.C.No. 16 of 1996, for the offence under Sec.420, Indian Penal Code six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.200 in default one month rigorous imprisonment, for the offence under Sec.468, Indian Penal Code six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100 in default one month rigorous imprisonment, for the offence under Sec.477-A, Indian Penal Code six month rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100 in default one month rigorous imprisonment under Sec.471 read with 468, Indian Penal Code six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100 in default one month rigorous imprisonment; for the offence under Sec.5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500 in default three months rigorous imprisonment; and in C.C.No.17 of 1996, for the offence under Sec.120-B, Indian Penal Code six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.200 in default of one month rigorous imprisonment, for the offence under Sec.471, Indian Penal Code, six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.100 in default one month rigorous imprisonment, for the offence under Sec.5(1)(d) read with 5(2) six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500 in default three months rigorous imprisonment. The sentences in all the cases were ordered to run concurrently in respect of the first accused. In so far as the second accused is concerned, she was acquitted of the offences under Sec.468 and 467 Indian Penal Code, but, convicted only under Sec.l20-B, Indian Penal Code and imposed a sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the Court with a fine of Rs.200. 5. Against the conviction and sentence, the first accused has preferred these appeals. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the judgment of the trial Court against this accused is not based on legal and acceptable evidence and hence liable to be set aside. 5. Against the conviction and sentence, the first accused has preferred these appeals. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the judgment of the trial Court against this accused is not based on legal and acceptable evidence and hence liable to be set aside. There is no evidence except the interested testimony of the prosecution witnesses. 7. P.Ws.1 to 25 are the account holders from whose account the amounts were debited and each of them have deposed that the amounts have been debited in their accounts and signatures found in the debit vouchers are not theirs. P.W.26/General Manager of the Bank has stated that he sanctioned for the prosecution of the first accused. P.Ws.27 and 28 have deposed that the demand draft issued by the Branch in which the first accused was working has been encashed and the amounts were paid in the destination Branch. P.W.29 has identified the signatures and the handwritings of the first accused in Exs.P-33, 35, 44 to 46, 48, 49, 51 to 56 and also 34, 47, 59 and 60. Further, he has identified the initials found in Ex.P-6 at pages 2, 48 and 64, in Ex.P-7 at page 259 serial numbers 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 20, 21, and in Ex.P-1 at pages 400 and 401, and he has also identified the signatures and initials in Ex.P-2 at pages 102, 126, 254, 272, 290, 291, 294, 298 and 299 as also in S.B. Ledger/Exs.P-3 and Ex.P-5/Payment Scroll. P.W.30 has deposed that he received a demand draft of Rs.5,000 from the first accused and he encashed it at Ambattur Branch. P.W.31 is the hand-writing Expert, who has also certified the documents referred to him, and he has opined that the questioned documents contain the signatures and the initials of the first accused. Ex.P-82 is the report and the reason given by the handwriting Expert. P.W.32 Senior Scientific Officer has deposed that the person, who has written the specimen writing - marked as S-1 to S-40 to Ex.P-84, has also put the signatures in Exs.P-86, 87 and 91. P.W.33, who is the Investigation Officer, has deposed about the seizure of the documents from the house of the first accused and from a room of the first accused at Coimbatore. He has also spoken to about the examination of witnesses, manner of investigation, and filing of charge sheet. 8. P.W.33, who is the Investigation Officer, has deposed about the seizure of the documents from the house of the first accused and from a room of the first accused at Coimbatore. He has also spoken to about the examination of witnesses, manner of investigation, and filing of charge sheet. 8. From the evidence of these witnesses, the charges against the first accused as well as the second accused have been proved beyond all reasonable doubts. The trial Court has rightly found that the charges are proved against accused 1 and 2. There is no reason to alter the findings given by the trial Court. Therefore, the conviction of the accused 1 is legally sustainable and hence confirmed. 9. In so far as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned, considering the fact that the offence had taken place in 1985 and the fact that the entire amount has been paid to all the persons, who were defrauded, this Court is of the view that the request for reduction of sentence made by the learned counsel for the appellant may be considered. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the maximum sentence is reduced to till raising of Court and in addition the appellant is imposed an additional fine of Rs.52,000. 11. With the above observation, the criminal appeals are disposed of.