JUDGMENT SHAM SUNDER, J 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction, and the order of release of the accused ( now appellants ), on probation, dated 09.12.1997, rendered by the Special Judge, Ambala, vide which he convicted the accused, for the offences, punishable under Sections 120-B and 477-A of the Indian Penal code (hereinafter called as 'the IPC' only) and released them on probation of good conduct, under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1858, for a period of one year each , on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.5000/-each with one surety, in the like amount each. They were also directed to pay costs of proceedings to the tune of Rs.3000/-each. They were, however, acquitted for the offence, punishable under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 2. The facts, in brief, are that Balwant Singh ( since deceased ), Branch Manager of the State Bank of Patiala, Kalka, along with other accused, at the relevant time, employees of the said bank, entered into a criminal conspiracy. In pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, Balwant Singh ( since deceased ) received a cheque dated 28.12.1978 for Rs.10.00 lacs, issued by Ram Kishan Bairagi, Chairman, Haryana Housing Board, Chandigarh, drawn at State Bank of India, Sector 22, Chandigarh, for the purpose of issuing five term deposit receipts of Rs.2.00 lacs each , in favour of Haryana Housing Board Payable on 26.03.1979. He, however, after encashment of the said cheque, from State Bank of India, on 1.1.1979, credited Rs.2,95,505.14 Ps in cash credit account of M/s Nardev Saw Mills. He also credited some amount in the name of other firms, belonging to Bhagat Singh, accused. He prepared five FDRs, and sent the same to the Housing Board, without opening their accounts. He, thus, played a fraud, on the Bank. All the accused, in conspiracy with each other committed criminal misconduct by falsification of bank accounts i.e. preparing false debit and credit vouchers and making false entries in the bank record. This all was done to cause pecuniary gain to Bhagat Singh, accused. During the course of investigation, various documents were taken into possession, by the Investigating Officer, vide a separate recovery memo. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. After the completion of investigation, the accused were challaned. 3. This all was done to cause pecuniary gain to Bhagat Singh, accused. During the course of investigation, various documents were taken into possession, by the Investigating Officer, vide a separate recovery memo. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. After the completion of investigation, the accused were challaned. 3. On their appearance, in the Court, the accused were supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. Charge under Section 120-B against all the accused, under Section 5(i)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, against S.K. Rai, N.K. Sharma, B.R. Ahuja and Balwant Singh ( since deceased ), and under Section 477-A IPC, against S.K. Rai, N.K. Sharma, and B.R. Ahuja, accused, was framed, which was read over and explained to them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed judicial trial. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined H.S. Sahni, Accountant, CBI Office, Chandigarh, (PW-1), who handed over a complaint dated 3.11.1979 from Assistant General Manager, State Bank of Patiala, addressed to Superintendent of Police SPE, Ambala, to Harbhajan Ram, Inspector, who took into possession the same through seizure memo Ex.P1, G.S. Bedi, Branch Manager, SBP, Sector 17, Chandigarh, ( PW-2 ), who produced the relevant record of this case, before Inspector CBI, who took the same into possession, through seizure memo Ex.P2, K.K. Mehra, Branch Manager, SBI, Sector 22 Branch, Chandigarh, ( PW-3 ), who produced some record of this case before Harbhajan Ram, Inspector, CBI, who took the same into possession, vide seizure memo Ex.P3, K.K. Mehta, Planning Manager, State Bank of Patiala, ( PW-4 ), who accorded sanction Ex.PW4/A and PW4/B for launching the prosecution against N.K. Sharma and B.R. Ahuja, accused, officials of the Bank, after applying mind to the relevant record, J.S. Kainth, Retired Chief Vigilance Officer, State Bank of Patiala, (PW-5), who identified the signatures on Ex.PW5/A, sanction order. He also stated that he produced the relevant record of this case before L.D. Khanna, for the purpose of according sanction against Balwant Singh, accused. Ashok Kumar Gupta, Accountant Housing Board Haryana, Chandigarh, ( PW-6 ), proved various documents. He also stated that he produced the relevant record of this case before L.D. Khanna, for the purpose of according sanction against Balwant Singh, accused. Ashok Kumar Gupta, Accountant Housing Board Haryana, Chandigarh, ( PW-6 ), proved various documents. S.K. Sareen, Chief Manager, State Bank of Patiala, (PW- 7), stated that if the loan falls within the powers of General Manager, it has to be reported to the Managing Director and if the same falls within the powers of the Managing Director, it has to be reported to the Executive Committee. He further stated that all limits have to be reported to the next higher authority. He further stated that the procedure was that the Manager takes an application, from the party, for granting limit and if it falls within the powers of the Manager, he sanctions the same and report is sent to the next higher authorities. He further stated that, on the submission of application, by a party, the Manager prepares the case along with balance sheet of the party etc. and submits the same, to the next higher authorities, unless it is within his discretionary powers. He further stated that the credibility of a party, is to be looked into, by the Bank Manager. In case, the party stands the test of credibility and its requirements, are found genuine, the case is prepared. He further stated that the Branch Manager, cannot exceed the limit of the party, sanctioned by the head office. L.D. Khanna, retired General Manager, State Bank of Patiala, ( PW-8 ), proved Ex.PW5/A, sanction accorded by him. He also identified the signatures of Sardari Lal Shukla on the sanction order Ex.PW8/A. Vinod Seth, Clerk, State Bank of Patiala, Regional Office-3 , Chandigarh, ( PW-9 ), stated that unpaid cheques of the branch, remain with the Branch Manager, after the same are received back unrealized. He further stated that the demand draft realization register is maintained during the regular official business of the bank. He produced the demand draft realization register of their branch, for the period of 13.12.77 to 20.02.78 before the Investigating Officer of this case. He also proved other documents, on the record. Achhru Ram, Guard, Northern Railway, Headquarters, Kalka, ( PW-10 ), proved Ex.P4, delivery book from 2.3.1977 to 14.1.1979. He produced the demand draft realization register of their branch, for the period of 13.12.77 to 20.02.78 before the Investigating Officer of this case. He also proved other documents, on the record. Achhru Ram, Guard, Northern Railway, Headquarters, Kalka, ( PW-10 ), proved Ex.P4, delivery book from 2.3.1977 to 14.1.1979. He further stated that at page 91 there was an entry of RR No. 664032 dated 18.12.1978 Ex-Patiala to Kalka arrived on 19.12.1978 . The consignment of the same, was delivered on 23.12.1978 to one Mohan Lal. The said entry was in his handwriting and bore his signatures and it also bore the signatures of Mohan Lal, an employee of the State Bank of Patiala, Kalka Branch. He also proved RR Ex.P5. He further stated that one bundle, which was received, was weighing 20 Kgs. Ram Sarup Prasad, Chief Parcel Supervisor, Northern Railway, Chandigarh, ( PW-11 ), stated that one local delivery book of parcel office Kalka, two RR Nos. 664032 and 664033 were produced before the CBI Inspector, who seized the same, vide memo Ex.PW11/A. He also proved Ex.P4, the register. Ex. P5 and Ex.P6, the RRs. He also proved Ex.P5, vide which one bundle was received on 19.12.1978 from Ex.-Patiala to Kalka and the same was delivered on 23.12.1978 to a person of the State Bank of Patiala, Kalka Branch. He further stated that Achru Ram delivered the consignment and obtained his signatures at Page No. 91 of register Ex.P4, Phool Chand, Cashier-cum-Clerk, State Bank of Patiala, Parwanoo Branch, Parwanoo, District Solan, ( PW-12 ), stated that he remained posted as Peon, in the State Bank of Patiala, Branch Kalka, from 24.2.1972 to November 1979. He further stated that at page 100 of register Ex.P7, there were entries in respect of nine FDR books, which were handed over to him, by Balwant Singh, Branch Manager and he was asked to enter the same in the register. He further stated that he made entry and returned the books and the register to Balwant Singh. He further stated that FDR book bearing Sr. Nos. He further stated that he made entry and returned the books and the register to Balwant Singh. He further stated that FDR book bearing Sr. Nos. 813901 to 814000 was never handed over to him, by Balwant Singh and he, therefore, did not make any entry of this, in the register Mohan Lal, Gunman, State Bank of Patiala Branch, Bakhahiwala, Tehsil and District Patiala, ( PW-14 ), stated that at page No. 91 in the register Ex.P4, delivery of consignment was taken by Mohan Lal, against RR Ex.P5. He further stated that the signatures of Mohan Lal, in the relevant entry in Ex.P5 did not relate to him. He further stated that he never received consignment of the said RR. Madan Lal, Daftri, State Bank of Patiala, ( PW-14 ), stated that he did not take the delivery of the consignment, nor signed the same. Mohan Lal son of Madan Lal, ( PW-15 ), stated that RR was endorsed in his name and he had taken the delivery of the goods, vide entry Ex.PW4/1 and handed over the same to the Branch Manager, Kalka Branch. K. Bhaskar Shetty, Senior Manager, Vijay Bank, Zonal Office, Banglore, ( PW-16 ), also proved various documents. A.K. Dhingra, Deputy Manager, State Bank of India, Sector 22, Chandigarh, (PW-17), also proved various documents. M.L. Khanna, Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer, HSEB, Panchkula, ( PW-18 ), stated that a sum of Rs.10.00 lacs, was lying to the credit of Housing Board Haryana, in its current account at S.B.I., Sector 22, Chandigarh. No interest was payable on that current account, as per the practice. He further stated that after utilization of that amount, FDR was got issued. He further stated that they received five FDRs of Rs.2.00 lacs each. The FDRs, were in their custody, and duly entered in their register. Jaimal Singh, ( PW-19 ), who after seeing the account opening form Ex.PW19/A and authority letter Ex.PW19/B, stated that he had authorized Bhagat Singh, accused, to have dealings with the bank, on behalf of the firm. He also proved the other documents. Baldev Singh son of Jaimal Singh, ( PW- 20 ), also proved various documents. Ram Narain, Deputy Manager, Zonal Stationery Depot, State Bank of Patiala, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh, ( PW-21 ), also proved a number of documents. He also proved the other documents. Baldev Singh son of Jaimal Singh, ( PW- 20 ), also proved various documents. Ram Narain, Deputy Manager, Zonal Stationery Depot, State Bank of Patiala, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh, ( PW-21 ), also proved a number of documents. B.D. Singal, Manager, State Bank of Patiala, New Delhi, ( PW- 22 ), also proved various documents, and P.N. Arora son of Sham Narain,(PW-23), deposed with regard to the clearance of draft Ex.PW21/J by the bank. Thereafter, the Public Prosecutor closed the evidence. 5. It is evident, from the record, that Bhagat Singh son of Lachhman Singh, accused, pleaded guilty to the charge of conspiracy, as far back as on 02.02.1995 and stated that he was suffering from various ailments and had been financially ruined, on account of facing the criminal proceedings. He further stated that he was not a previous convict and no loss had been caused to the Bank. He also stated that the entire amount had been re-paid to the Bank. He was held guilty and convicted under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, vide order dated 2.2.1995 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of the Court and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo RI for six months. 6. The statements of S.K. Rai, B.R. Ahuja and N.K. Sharma, accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were recorded. They were put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against them, in the prosecution evidence. They, however, led no evidence in defence. 7. After hearing the Public Prosecutor for the Central Bureau of Investigation, the Counsel for the accused, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and released the accused, on probation of good conduct, as stated above. 8. Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment of conviction, and the order of release on probation dated 09.12.1997, rendered by the trial Court, the instant appeal, was filed by the appellants. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record, of the case, carefully. 10. The Counsel for the appellants, challenged the judgment of conviction and the order of release on probation of the accused, on the sole ground that, in the statements, under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the material incriminating circumstances, appearing against them, were not put to them. 10. The Counsel for the appellants, challenged the judgment of conviction and the order of release on probation of the accused, on the sole ground that, in the statements, under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the material incriminating circumstances, appearing against them, were not put to them. He further submitted that the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of each of the accused, runs into half page, which clearly showed that the accused were not apprised of the incriminating circumstances, appearing against them, in the evidence and, thus, they were deprived of furnishing any explanation, to the same. He further submitted that the incriminating circumstances, appearing against the accused, in the prosecution evidence, which were not put to them, could not be used against them. He further submitted that the statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, in a slip shod manner, by the concerned Court. He further submitted that a great prejudice was caused to the accused, on account of the reason and they were entitled to acquittal. He further submitted that since the appellants have been facing the criminal proceedings, since long, it would not be, in the fitness of things, to remand the case to the Court concerned, for recording the statements of the accused, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in accordance with the provisions of law, by putting them all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against them, in the prosecution evidence, and thereafter decide the case afresh. He also placed reliance, in this regard on S. Harnam Singh v. The State (Delhi Admn.) (1976) 2 Supreme Court Cases 819, Machander v. The State of Hyderabad, AIR 1955 Supreme Court 792, Lattu Mahto and anr. v. The State of Bihar ( now Jharkhand ), 2008(3) RCR ( Criminal ) 467 ( SC ) and Municipal Committee Amritsar v. Om Parkash, 1969 Punjab Law Report, 793, in support of his contention. 11. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent, submitted that, if the Court concerned, did not record the statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., properly, by putting all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against them, in the prosecution evidence, the prosecution should not suffer for the act of the Court. He further submitted that nobody should suffer on account of the fault of the Court or its officials. He further submitted that the prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses. He further submitted that nobody should suffer on account of the fault of the Court or its officials. He further submitted that the prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses. He further submitted that it was the responsibility of the Court, to put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against the accused, in the prosecution evidence, so as to enable them, to properly explain the same. He further submitted that the Court took a very lenient view, against the accused, for the reasons best known to it. He further submitted that the mere fact that the appellants have been facing the agony of criminal proceedings, since long, in itself, was not sufficient to acquit them, when there was no fault of the prosecution. He further submitted that there was no universal formula, that the case cannot be remanded on account of the reason that the accused have been facing the agony of criminal proceedings, since long, even if, some lacuna was left therein, on account of the fault of the court. He further submitted that the duty of the Court, is to do substantial justice, and the mere hyper technicalities cannot sway its decision. 12. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, it is a fit case, in which the judgment of conviction and the order of release on probation, should be set aside, and the Court should be directed to decide the case afresh, after recording the statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by putting them all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against them, in the prosecution evidence, in a proper manner. I am not oblivious of the fact, that if one or two incriminating circumstances, appearing against the accused, in the prosecution evidence, are not put to them, then the Appellate Court is at liberty to put those questions, to them elicit their answers, and decide the appeal instead of remanding the case. However, in the instant case, only three questions to each of the accused, running into half typed page, were put in their statements, under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Elaborate exercise is required to be undertaken, for recording the statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., by putting them all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against them, in the prosecution evidence, in a proper manner. In S. Harnam Singh's case ( supra ), the principle of law, laid down, was to the effect that Section 342 Cr.P.C., 1898, casts a duty on the Court to put, at any inquiry or trial, questions to the accused for the purpose of enabling him to explain any circumstance appearing in the evidence against him. It follows, as a necessary corollary, therefore, that each material circumstance, appearing in evidence, against the accused, is required to be put to him, specifically, distinctly and separately. Failure to do so amounts to a serious irregularity, vitiating the trial, if it is shown to have prejudiced the accused. If the irregularity does not, in fact, occasion a failure of justice, it is curable under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. In Machander's case ( supra ), it was held that the Judges and Magistrates must realize the importance of the examination, under Section 342 Cr.P.C. It is their duty to question the accused properly, and fairly bringing home to his mind, in clear and simple language, the exact case, he has to meet, and each material point, that is sought to be used against him, and of affording him a chance to explain the same, if he can do so. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case, the Apex Court came to the conclusion that it was not a fit case, in which the retrial should be ordered. In Lattu Mahto and Anr.'s case ( supra ), the examination of the accused, under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was defective and thereby a serious prejudice, had been caused to him. In the peculiar facts and circumstance of the case, the judgment of conviction was set aside. In Municipal Committee Amritsar 's case ( supra ), it was held that if the material incriminating circumstances, appearing against the accused, in the prosecution evidence, are not put to the accused, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., then prejudice is caused to him. In none of these authorities, which were relied upon, by the Counsel for the appellants, it was held that, in each and every case, where the material incriminating circumstances, appearing against the accused, in the prosecution evidence, had not been put to him, either partly or at all, the accused should be acquitted and re-trial could not be ordered. In none of these authorities, which were relied upon, by the Counsel for the appellants, it was held that, in each and every case, where the material incriminating circumstances, appearing against the accused, in the prosecution evidence, had not been put to him, either partly or at all, the accused should be acquitted and re-trial could not be ordered. The accused committed very serious offences, in the capacity of public servants, and betrayed the faith of one customer, who deposited his hard earned money, by intentionally/willfully falsification of records to cause pecuniary gain to another customer. No doubt, a great prejudice, was caused to the accused, on account of the fault of the Court, yet it a fit case, in which the re-trial, from the stage of recording the statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., by putting them all the material incriminating circumstances, appearing against them, in the prosecution evidence, should be ordered to be held, so as to meet the ends of justice. The case is liable to be remanded for afresh decision, after recording the statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in a proper manner, in accordance with law. 13. For the reasons, recorded above, the appeal is accepted. The judgment of conviction and the order of releasing the accused, on probation, are set aside. The case is remanded back to the Court concerned, with a direction, to record the statements of the accused, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., by putting them all the material incriminating circumstances, appearing against them, in the prosecution evidence, so as to enable them to explain the same, and, thereafter, affording them an opportunity to lead their defence evidence, and decide the case afresh without being influenced by any observation, made hereinabove. The entire exercise, shall be completed by the Court of Special Judge, Ambala, within a period of three months, commencing from 28.01.2009. The appellants are directed to appear, in the Court of Special Judge, Ambala, on 28.01.2009. The trial Court record be sent back immediately. 14. The Registry shall comply with the judgment, forthwith, by all modes of communication.