Judgment Z.K. Saiyed, J.—Both the above Appeals are arising out of the one and similar Judgment and since the oral as well as documentary evidence is the same, they are decided and disposed of together by this common Judgment. 2. Criminal Appeal No. 1476 of 2009 has been filed by the appellant – (original accused No. 5), under Section 374 of Cr. P.C., challenging the Judgment and order dated 4th August, 2009, passed in Special Case No. 43 of 1992, whereby the learned Special Judge has held the appellant – accused No. 5 guilty for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B of I.P. Code and awarded sentence to the appellant – accused No. 5 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each i.e. aggregate amount of Rs.50,000/-, and in default of payment of fine the appellant – accused No. 5 was directed to undergo R.I. for one month. The learned Judge has ordered that all the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. 3. Criminal Appeal No. 1582 of 2009 has been filed by the appellant – (original accused No. 2), under Section 374 of Cr. P.C., challenging the Judgment and order dated 4th August, 2009, passed in Special Case No. 43 of 1992, whereby the learned Special Judge has held the appellant – accused No. 2 guilty for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B of I.P. Code and awarded sentence to the appellant – accused No. 2 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 (seven) years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each i.e. aggregate amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, and in default of payment of fine the appellant – accused No. 2 was directed to undergo R.I. for one year. The learned Judge has ordered that all the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. 4. Against the said Judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 4.8.2009, passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI Court No. 3, Ahmedabad, the appellant – original accused No. 5 has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1476 of 2009 and the appellant – original accused No. 2 has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1582 of 2009. 5. 4. Against the said Judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 4.8.2009, passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI Court No. 3, Ahmedabad, the appellant – original accused No. 5 has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1476 of 2009 and the appellant – original accused No. 2 has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1582 of 2009. 5. The facts of the prosecution case are that on the basis of information, on 30.4.1991, two FIRs being RC 14(A)/91 and 15(A)/91 came to be registered by Shri S.K. Kapoor, Police Inspector, Central Bureau of Investigation, Ahmedabad (for short “CBI”). In the FIR registered as RC 14(A)/91, it was alleged that Shri R.M. Shaikh (original accused No. 1), while posted and functioning as the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Bhavnagar, during the period 1990, entered into criminal conspiracy with Shri A.S. Kapadia and others by opening accounts in the name of fake firms, like M/s. Pal Steels Private Limited and M/s Ellis Steels Private Limited with the intention to cheat the Bank, It was alleged that fake letter of Credit No. 145/91-92 dated 11.5.1990 for Rs.48,00,000/- purported to have been opened by the United Commercial Bank, Ahmedabad in favour of M/s. Pal Steels Private Limited was presented to the SBI, Bhvnagar and the accused No. 1, without verification of the said L/C, asked his subordinate staff to accept the same. It is alleged that thereafter the accused No. 1 got discounted the bills worth Rs.33,98,460/- on 26.5.1990 and bills worth Rs.14,01,540/- on 2.6.1990, exceeding the entire value of the said L/C and that the amounts of the said discounted bills were credited in the account of M/s. Pal Steels Pvt. Ltd. which were subsequently withdrawn either in the form of cash or in the form of demand drafts. It was alleged that the accused No. 1, in furtherance of the conspiracy with other accused had obtained Rs.47,90,000/- for himself and for the other accused, abusing his position as the “public servant”. 6. It has been alleged in the FIR registered as RC 15(A)/91 that the accused No. 1, in furtherance of criminal conspiracy with Shri Kapadia and others, accepted the fake L/C No. 282/90-91 dated 12.6.1990 for Rs.57,00,000/- purported to have been opened by UCO Bank, Ahmedabad, in favour of M/s. Pal Steels Private Limited, and thereafter, he got discounted the bills worth Rs.16,48,920.50 ps. It is alleged that the amount of said discounted bills were credited in the current account of M/s. Pal Steels Private Limited, which was subsequently withdrawn in the form of cash or in the form of draft and thereby the accused No. 1, in conspiracy with others accused have cheated the SBI, Bhavnagar, and obtained Rs.16,09,314/- for himself and for the other accused, misusing his position as the “public servant”. 7. The Police Inspector, CBI Shri Kapoor carried out the investigation in connection with both the FIRs, and after collecting sufficient evidence against all the accused and thereafter filed common charge-sheet in the Court, which has been registered as Special Case No. 43 of 1992. 8. Thereafter, the charge against all the accused was framed vide Exh.11 for the offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 read with Section 471 and 204 of I.P. Code. The accused No. 1 was also charged for the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. 9. To prove the case against the accused, the prosecution has examined in all 24 witnesses and also produced and relied upon the documentary evidence. Thereafter, the further statement of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C., and after hearing the parties, the learned Judge has held the accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 guilty of the charges levelled against them. However, acquitted the original accused Nos.3 & 4 for the offences charged against them. 10. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment and order of conviction rendered by the learned Special Judge, the original accused Nos.2 & 5 have filed their Appeals. 11. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Manish Patel, appearing on behalf of appellants in above Appeals, Mr. Y.N. Ravani, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of C.B.I., and Mr. H.L. Jani, learned A.P.P., appearing on behalf of State. 12. Learned Advocate Mr. Patel has not much argued the matters on merit and contended that looking to the facts and circumstances and the appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 1476 of 2009, being the lady accused, some sympathy may be shown towards the appellants and the sentence awarded by the learned Judge is very harsh. He has contended that the case is registered against the present appellants and others on a source of information received by the Investigating Officer. He has contended that the case is registered against the present appellants and others on a source of information received by the Investigating Officer. He has also read the evidence of witnesses and contended that the statement of witness is based on photocopies which cannot be taken into consideration. The statements of the prosecution witnesses do not disclose any material against the accused No. 2. He has contended that the prosecution has not recorded the statement of the person from whom the documents have been seized and merely the documents in possession of the prosecution does not conclude that the documents have been seized by the Investigating Officer. Learned Advocate has contended that the appellant has not committed any misconduct in his official duty. He has contended that the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of Sections 415 and 416 of I.P. Code He has contended that the appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 1476 of 2009 is the wife of appellant – original accused No. 2 in Criminal Appeal No. 1582 of 2009 and from the evidence it is only established that the cheque was deposited in her account and, therefore, she has been wrongly booked by the Agency. Looking to the role of present appellant – lady she is not covered within the meaning of conspiracy with the other accused. However, he has not argued much on the merits of the matter, but, has contended that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded by the learned Judge is very harsh and, therefore, some mercy may be shown towards the appellants of both the Appeals. 13. As against this, learned Counsel Mr. Ravani, appearing on behalf of CBI has contended that the appellants are the habitual offenders. He has contended that in this case the appellants have used the public money and in such type of serious offences, no leniency should be shown towards the appellants. He has supported the Judgment and order of the trial Court and has contended that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the evidence on record the learned Judge has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused, as aforesaid. 14. Learned APP Mr. Jani, appearing on behalf of the State, has supported the Judgment and order of the trial Court. 14. Learned APP Mr. Jani, appearing on behalf of the State, has supported the Judgment and order of the trial Court. He has also adopted the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of CBI. 15. I have gone through the Judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge and also gone through the documents produced before me. I have also considered the submissions made by the learned Advocates for the respective parties. I have gone through the record and proceedings of the case. I have also gone through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and other material evidence. I have also considered the Judgment of the trial Court. From the evidence on record it clearly appears that the learned Judge has not committed any error in holding the appellants – accused guilty of the offences charged against them. However, looking to the facts of the case, in my opinion, the sentence awarded by the learned Judge is very harsh. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants has also contended that the appellants – accused are wrongly booked in the commission of offences. The appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 1582 of 2009 (original accused No. 2 in Special Case) is the husband of the appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 1476 of 2009 (original accused No. 5 in Special Case) and, therefore, some leniency may be shown towards the appellants. I am, therefore, of the opinion that if the sentence awarded by the learned Judge is reduced to an extent that the appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 1582 of 2009 is ordered to undergo sentence of RI for (5) five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5 lacs i/d to further undergo RI for 3 months, instead of RI for 7 (seven) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5 lacs i/d to further undergo RI for one year for each of the offences charged against him, and the appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 1476 of 2009 is ordered to undergo sentence of RI for 1 (one) year and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- i/d to further undergo RI for 1 (one) month, instead of RI for 2 (two) years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- i/d to further undergo RI for 1 (one) month for each of the offences charged against her, the same would serve the ends of justice. 16. 16. In view of above, both the Appeals are partly allowed. The Judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 04.08.2009 passed by learned Special Judge, CBI Court No. 3, Ahmedabad, in Special Case No. 43 of 1992 is hereby confirmed. However, the sentence, awarded by the learned Special Judge to the appellants are reduced and modified to the following extent : The sentence awarded by the learned Special Judge to the original accused No. 5 – appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 1476 of 2009, for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B of I.P. Code is reduced and modified to the extent of RI for 1 (one) year, instead of 2 (two) years for each of the offences charged against her as awarded by the learned Judge. Rest of the Judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge, qua this appellant, is hereby confirmed. The sentence awarded by the learned Special Judge to the original accused No. 2 – appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 1582 of 2009, for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B of I.P. Code is reduced and modified to the extent of RI for 5 (five) years, instead of 7 (seven) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,00,000/- i/d to undergo further RI for 3 (three) months, for each of the offences charged against him, instead of sentence of RI for 7 (seven) years and to pay aggregate fine of Rs.5,00,000/- i/d to further undergo RI for 1 (one) year for the aforesaid offences each, awarded by the learned Judge. Rest of the Judgment and passed by the learned Special Judge, qua this appellant, is confirmed. If the appellants – accused in both the Appeals are on bail, their bail bonds shall stand cancelled and they are directed to surrender before the Jail Authority within a period of 4 (four) weeks to undergo their remaining sentence, if any, failing which the trial Court shall issue non-bailable warrant to effect their arrest. R & P to be sent back to the trial Court immediately.