Judgment :- This Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred against the acquittal recorded by the Additional District Judge / Fast Track Court, Namakkal in favour of the first respondent herein, who was the Secretary of Pattanam Kongu Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank, Pattanam, Rasipuram Taluk. 2. The petitioners 1 and 2 herein are members of the aforesaid agricultural Co-operative Bank, Pattanam, who were examined as P.Ws.2 and 5 respectively before the trial court. The trial court, namely, Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram, had found the first respondent guilty and thereby convicted him under Sections 408, 467, 471 and 477A IPC and sentenced him to undergo one year RI and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for each of the offence under the aforesaid sections. Aggrieved by which, the first respondent / accused preferred appeal. The appellate court allowed the appeal and thereby set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the first respondent / accused and recorded acquittal. Against the Judgment of acquittal recorded by the appellate court, this criminal revision has been preferred. 3. The first respondent / accused herein, had been Secretary of the Pattanam Kongu Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank between the period 29.09.1989 and 24.03.1990. On the complaint, dated 28.01.1992, given by Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Atttur Circle, Salem, a case was registered against the accused by the second respondent, Inspector of Police, CCIW, Salem in C.C.No.289 of 1993 and charges were framed against the accused under Sections 408, 467, 471 and 477A IPC. 4. As per the prosecution case, while working as Secretary of the Co-operative Bank, the accused falsified, Savings Bank Account of the members of the Co-operative Bank and thereby misappropriated a total sum of Rs.47,660/-. Being the Secretary of the Primary Co-operative Bank, the accused was the authorised official to maintain the accounts, and also custodian of cash and other properties of the bank. As per the prosecution case, between 29.09.1989 and 010. 1989, the accused had withdrawn a total sum of Rs.10,000/- from the S.B.Account of witness S.M.Mani, by effecting false entries in the account books and also made use of the members withdrawal slips, though the said person had insufficient funds in his account on the said date. On 16.05.1990, the accused withdrew a sum of Rs.10,000/-from the bank account of witness P.Sadasivam, a member of the said bank, who had only a meagre amount in his account on that date. On 16.05.1990, the accused withdrew a sum of Rs.10,000/-from the bank account of witness P.Sadasivam, a member of the said bank, who had only a meagre amount in his account on that date. On 112. 1989 and 24.03.1990, the accused withdrew a total sum of Rs.17,000/- from the S.B.Account of witness Soundararajan by effecting false entries, by making use of withdrawal slips purported to have been withdrawn by the said witness Soundararajan, though he had insufficient funds in his account on the said date. 5. It has been alleged that between 14.02.1990 and 02.03.1990, the accused withdrew a sum of Rs.6,000/- from the S.B.Account of witness P.K.Mani (second petitioner herein), who had insufficient funds in his account, by making false entries and using withdrawal slips. Between 211. 1989 and 20.01.1990, the accused misappropriated a sum of Rs.4,660/- out of Rs.7,350/-drawn from the account of witness Pappathi, by effecting false entries and making use of withdrawal slips purported to have been drawn by the said witness Pappathi. 6. The Criminal Revision has been preferred against the acquittal recorded by the court below. Though the second respondent was the complainant before the trial court and also contested the appeal, admittedly, no appeal has been preferred by the second respondent. It is not in dispute that any aggrieved party can prefer appeal or revision, in case of acquittal recorded against their interest, however, there should be bonafide grounds for preferring such appeal or revision. In the instant case, the first petitioner was examined as P.W.2 and the second petitioner was examined as P.W.5 before the trial court. 7. The first petitioner, as P.W.2 has stated in his chief that as requested by the first respondent, he handed over his signed blank cheque to him, as a member of the Cooperative Bank. According to him, on 24.03.1990, as requested by the first respondent, he handed over a signed blank cheque, which was filled up by the first respondent. He has stated that the first respondent subsequently informed that he had deposited amount and withdrew Rs.14,500/-by using the cheque given by him. He has further stated that in Cheque No.110, dated 17.01.1990, the signature available on the front and back side of the cheque were not his signatures. He has stated that the first respondent subsequently informed that he had deposited amount and withdrew Rs.14,500/-by using the cheque given by him. He has further stated that in Cheque No.110, dated 17.01.1990, the signature available on the front and back side of the cheque were not his signatures. However, he has admitted that he gave a statement before the enquiry officer, as if he had signed in the cheque in order to safeguard the first respondent. 8. As per Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, where a person signs and delivers to another a paper stamped in accordance with law relating to negotiable instruments, either wholly blank or having written therein an incomplete negotiable instrument, he has thereby given prima facie authority to the holder thereof to make or complete the instrument. The same analogy is applicable for handing over a signed blank cheque. Therefore, the first petitioners evidence that he had handed over a signed blank cheque to the first respondent would show that he had authorised the holder to fill up the blanks and further, as per his evidence, subsequently, the first respondent met him and told that after depositing some amount in the said bank account, he withdrew Rs.14,500/-by using the cheque. In the chief, the first petitioner / P.W.2 has stated that he had only Rs.50/-in the aforesaid S.B.Account No.5, prior to his issuance of cheque. 9. As per the evidence of the first petitioner, he had admitted before the enquiry officer that he had signed the blank cheques on both sides. However, while adducing evidence in this case, he has changed his version saying that in order to safeguard the first respondent, at his request he had admitted the signatures available in the cheque, before the enquiry officer. I am of the view that such inconsistent statement of the first petitioner is unreliable to base the conviction. He has also admitted that he was arrayed as one of the accused in this case, at the initial stage and then came out on bail. 10. The second petitioner has been examined as P.W.5 before the trial court. According to him, he was a member in the Pattanam Kongu Agricultural Co-operative Bank and he has S.B.Account No.11. He had deposited money only till 110. 1988, as per his evidence. 10. The second petitioner has been examined as P.W.5 before the trial court. According to him, he was a member in the Pattanam Kongu Agricultural Co-operative Bank and he has S.B.Account No.11. He had deposited money only till 110. 1988, as per his evidence. According to him, the signatures available in the cheque bearing No.118, dated 14.02.1990 both sides, in Cheque No. 126, dated 27.02.1990 and in Cheque No.128, dated 02.03.1990, were not made by him. However, he has admitted that he had deposed before the enquiry officer, admitting the aforesaid signatures as that of his signatures, so as to safeguard the first respondent, as requested by him. 11. The Revision petitioners have not attributed any threat or coercion for admitting the signatures available in the disputed cheques before the enquiry officer, though they were not their signatures. Having admitted the signatures available in the cheques before the enquiry officer, subsequently, they have turned round, for the reasons best known to them and disputed the signatures available in the cheques before the trial court. The aforesaid attitude of the petitioners would show that they are unreliable witnesses and they could change their version without any hesitation, as submitted by the learned counsel for the first respondent. 12. In this case, as per the impugned Judgment, it is seen that 14 witnesses were examined, apart from marking 64 documents on the side of the prosecution. Out of the aforesaid witnesses, P.Ws.2 to 6 were members of the Co-operative Bank. They have adduced more or less similar evidence that they individually handed over their signed blank cheques, as requested by the first respondent for the purpose of depositing amount for his subsequent withdrawal. The petitioners have admitted the signatures available in the cheque leaves before the enquiry officer, however, before the trial court, changed their version and disputed the said signatures. The reason given by the petitioners for the change of version is that they wanted to safeguard the first respondent before the enquiry officer, as requested by him. They have not stated anything as to what made them to change their version before the court below. In such circumstances, it is strange as to why the petitioners have come forward and preferred this revision, against the first respondent, even in the absence of any appeal or revision preferred by the State or the Co-operative Bank. 13. They have not stated anything as to what made them to change their version before the court below. In such circumstances, it is strange as to why the petitioners have come forward and preferred this revision, against the first respondent, even in the absence of any appeal or revision preferred by the State or the Co-operative Bank. 13. It is seen that the appellate court, considering the vital discrepancy in the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses, has given benefit of doubt to the first respondent / accused and recorded acquittal. However, the Co-operative Bank is at liberty to take appropriate departmental action, if need be, according to law. 14. The Revision petitioners have taken contradictory stand, one before the Enquiry Officer and another before the Trial Court, according to them, they had admitted the signatures before the enquiry officer, in order to protect the first respondent. However, no threat or coercion has been attributed by them against the first respondent. There is no bonafide reason given by them to prefer this revision, even in the absence of an appeal by the State. The first petitioner was also originally arrayed as one of the accused in this case. In such circumstances, I could find no bonafide intention on the part of the petitioners, in preferring this revision and further, the appellate court has given cogent reasons for giving benefit of doubt in favour of the first respondent and recording acquittal. 15. Therefore, I could find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned Judgment to treat the same as perverse finding, so as to interfere with the same and hence, the Criminal Revision has to be dismissed as no merits. 16. In the result, the revision fails and accordingly, confirming the impugned Judgment of the Court below, the revision is dismissed.