Judgment 1. In the instant criminal appeal the appellant challenged a Judgement and order dated July 16, 1985 passed by the Learned Judge, Second Special Court, Calcutta in connection with Special Case No. 6 of 1975 sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 4,500/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months for his conviction under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 4,500/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months for his conviction under Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 2. The appellant was placed on trial in Special Case No. 6 of 1975 to answer a charge relating to an offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5 (1)(d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 3. By a judgement and order dated June 26, 1981 the Learned Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 5 (1)(d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 9,500/- and in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and further directed if fine is realised, a sum of Rs. 9,000/- be paid to the State Bank of India, Netaji Subhas Road Branch. 4. The appellant has not preferred any appeal against the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence, however in a criminal revision the order of sentence was challenged on behalf of the State. The said criminal revision was allowed by this Hon’ble High Court and order of sentence was set aside and the Trial Court was directed to pass appropriate sentence in accordance with law. 5. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble High Court a fresh hearing was given to both the prosecution and the appellant on the question of sentence and by an order passed on July 16, 1985 the Trial Court imposed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and a fine of Rs. 5. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble High Court a fresh hearing was given to both the prosecution and the appellant on the question of sentence and by an order passed on July 16, 1985 the Trial Court imposed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and a fine of Rs. 4,500/- in default, rigorous imprisonment for 3 months against the appellant for his conviction under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and further imposed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 1 year and a fine of Rs. 4,500/- in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months against his conviction under Section 5 (1)(d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The appellant in this criminal appeal challenged the said order of sentence. 6. Mr. Sobhendu Sekhar Roy, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, at the very outset, submitted before this Court that in this appeal he has not challenged the order of conviction and his only challenge is to the order of sentence. Mr. Roy submitted that the matter relates to an incident of 37 years back when the appellant was aged about 32 years and his present age is about 69 years. He further submitted that in connection with this case the appellant has already served out 6 months imprisonment and in consequence of his conviction has lost his job. Accordingly, Mr. Roy prays that the sentence imposed upon him be reduced to the period already undergone. 7. In response to the submission of Mr. Sobhendu Sekhar Roy, the learned Special Public Prosecutor, Central Bureau of Investigation Mr. Ranjan Roy as well as Mr. Swapan Kumar Mullick, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State, submitted that since the appellant has already suffered rigorous imprisonment for 6 months in connection with this case and already 37 years have been elapsed from the time of the alleged occurrence, a lenient view may be taken on the point of sentence. 8. Swapan Kumar Mullick, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State, submitted that since the appellant has already suffered rigorous imprisonment for 6 months in connection with this case and already 37 years have been elapsed from the time of the alleged occurrence, a lenient view may be taken on the point of sentence. 8. Be that as it may, this is a case where the appellant was charged under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 5 (1)(d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 on the allegations that while working at State Bank of India, Netaji Subhas Road Branch, Calcutta in the capacity of the public servant he cheated his employer-State Bank of India to the tune of Rs. 9,000/- and obtained a pecuniary advantage by corrupt and illegal means and abusing his position as a public servant. 9. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows; The appellant while employed in the State Bank of India, Netaji Subhas Road Brach, Calcutta as a Head Clerk in the Despatch Section of the said Bank, by corrupt and illegal means and abusing his position as a public servant and obtained a pecuniary advantage of a sum of Rs. 9,000/- during December 1970 to June 1971 December 1972 to June 1971 by inducing the said bank authorities to purchase three cheques issued to him drawn on an account maintained with the State Bank of India, Asansol Branch although he has no amount on his credit in the account in which such cheques were drawn and obtained the payment of the said amount of money by cheating the bank authority. 10. This is a case entirely rests on documentary evidence and in support of the case the prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses and in course of trial exhibited several documents showing that a sum of Rs. 9,000/- was obtained by the appellant against three cheques in question. The P.W. 1 is the sanctioning authority. The P.W. 2 K.K. Banerjee is an employee of the State Bank of India, N.S. Road Branch, Calcutta. He proved the handwriting and signature of the appellant in the 3 cheques in question and on the demand draft purchase slip and also proved the signature of the appellant acknowledging payment against the said cheques. The P.W. 2 K.K. Banerjee is an employee of the State Bank of India, N.S. Road Branch, Calcutta. He proved the handwriting and signature of the appellant in the 3 cheques in question and on the demand draft purchase slip and also proved the signature of the appellant acknowledging payment against the said cheques. He also proved the original debit slip and payment of Rs. 3,000/- each against the said three cheques. He proved the specimen signature of the appellant as well as his signatures in his leave application. The P.W. 3 Paritosh Kumar Dutta, a bank employee proved the payment vouchers prepared by him against which payment was made to the appellant. The P.W. 4 Kanak Prasad Roy was the then accountant of the bank. According to this witness the appellant produced the cheques before him and wanted that those cheques be purchased by the bank and necessary payments be made against that. He also confirmed that he has sufficient balance in the account on which such cheques were drawn when he permitted the payment and after processing the accused received payment in cash by putting his signature on the back of the cheque. He also proved the signature of the appellant on the reverse of the cheque. The P.W. 5 Panchanan Gangopadhyay an employee of the said Bank proved that the cheques in question were issued from the State Bank of India, Netaji Subhas Road Branch but not by the branch of the bank on which such cheques were drawn. The P.W. 6 Bejon Banerji, one of the Head Clerks of Despatch Section of the said Bank deposed after referring the Despatch Register that the originating debit slip for total sum of Rs. 3,288/- was shown despatched on 15.5.72 in its Despatch Register by inserting another writing by the accused in respect of Exhibit 12. He deposed that the accused Amal Kumar Majumdar put the bracket to cover original entry made by Sri Sital Mitra. The original entry was initialed by him. He proved the originating debit list, marked Exhibit 13, was written below by the accused and the bracket extended to cover such writing. He deposed further that in absence of any dated stamp it seems that this Originating Debit list never reached Asansol Branch of S.B.I. P.W. 6 proved certified copies of those three entries in the Despatch Register marked Exhibit 16. He deposed further that in absence of any dated stamp it seems that this Originating Debit list never reached Asansol Branch of S.B.I. P.W. 6 proved certified copies of those three entries in the Despatch Register marked Exhibit 16. P.W. 6 Bejon Banerji proved Exhibits 2, 3 and 4 and its enclosure which were neither despatched nor received at Asansol Branch of State Bank of India. During the investigation of this case various banking instruments and documents relating to the transactions were recovered from the residence of the appellant Amal Kumar Mazumdar by the Investigating Officer of the case J.N. Chatterjee in the presence of two seizure witnesses P.W. 10 P.R. Prasad and P.W. 11 D.K. Mitra. P.W. 7 Sankar Ghosal, an employee of the bank proved the payment of Rs. 3,000/- in cash to the accused against the payment vouchers Exhibit 5, Exhibit 6 and Exhibit 7. P.W. 8 was the cashier in the bank also proved the payment by cash to the accused against the aforesaid vouchers Exhibit 5, Exhibit 6 and Exhibit 7. The P.W. 9 P.K. Roy, the then Manager of the State Bank of India, Asansol proved that at the relevant time in the account of the appellant only 74 paise was stood in his credit. The P.W. 12 is the handwriting expert, who examined and compared the specimen writings of the appellant with the question writings and opined the question writings are of the appellant. He also deposed as to the reasons for which he reached to such conclusion. The P.W. 13 was the Branch Manager of State Bank of India who made the complaint addressed to the C.B.I. and P.W. 14 was the Investigating Officer of the case. In his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the appellant admitted about the purchase of a D.D. of Rs. 9,000/- against the three cheques of Rs. 3,000/- each as also receipt of payment of a cash amount of Rs. 9,000-/ against the relevant vouchers. He also has not disputed that only 76 paise was lying to his credit in his account maintained with the State Bank of India, Asansol Branch. The aforesaid prosecution witnesses were cross-examined at length but defence was not able to elicit anything to impeach the credibility of their evidence. 11. 9,000-/ against the relevant vouchers. He also has not disputed that only 76 paise was lying to his credit in his account maintained with the State Bank of India, Asansol Branch. The aforesaid prosecution witnesses were cross-examined at length but defence was not able to elicit anything to impeach the credibility of their evidence. 11. I have carefully perused the depositions of the witnesses as well as the impugned judgement and other materials on record. I am satisfied the trial court has carefully appreciated and evaluated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and conclusion arrived at by it is based on correct appraisal of evidence on record, therefore, no interference is called for by this Court. 12. However, as regards to sentence, I find the incident occurred about 37 years ago when accused was hardly 32 years old and at present, he is more than 69 years. As a consequence of his conviction, the appellant has lost his job and in connection with this case he has already suffered 6 months imprisonment. In this background I am of the opinion justice will be met if the sentence of imprisonment be reduced to period already undergone and sentence of fine be reduced to Rs. 500/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 15 days each on his conviction under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 13. Thus with the aforesaid modification of sentence this appeal stands disposed of.