Judgment : This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant – A-1 assailing the judgment in C.C. No.12 of 1999 dated 22-12-2003 passed by the learned Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder appellant – A-1 was found uilty of the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘PC Act’) and accordingly he was convicted for the said offence and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one (1) year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) months. However, the appellant – A-1 was not found guilty for the offence under Section 120-B read with Section 420 IPC and therefore acquitted him for the said offence. 2. The appellant – A-1 is also accused (A-1) in C.C. No.8 of 1999 and C.C. No.13 of 1999 before the trial Court for similar offences alleged to have committed by him and in those matters also he was convicted and sentenced by the trail Court vide separate judgments for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of PC Act, while acquitting him for the charge under Section 120-B read with 420 IPC, and directing to run the sentence against him in all the three matters concurrently. Assailing the conviction and sentence in C.C. No.8 of 1999 and 13 of 1999, appellant – A-1 preferred Criminal Appeal Nos.12 of 1999 and 466 of 1999 respectively and the same are disposed of separately. 3. The case of the prosecution as unfolded from the charge sheet, in brief, is that the appellant - A-1 was Branch Manager of State Bank of Mysore, Mahindra Hills Branch, Secunderabad (hereinafter referred to as “Bank”). A-2 is proprietor of M/s. Saikrupa Enterprises, Secunderabad and he was having a current account bearing No.CA/OD/202 in the said Bank. 3. The case of the prosecution as unfolded from the charge sheet, in brief, is that the appellant - A-1 was Branch Manager of State Bank of Mysore, Mahindra Hills Branch, Secunderabad (hereinafter referred to as “Bank”). A-2 is proprietor of M/s. Saikrupa Enterprises, Secunderabad and he was having a current account bearing No.CA/OD/202 in the said Bank. A-2 approached the appellant - A-1 for purchase of two cheques bearing Nos.147599 and 147560 dated 19-9-1995 for Rs.75,000/- each, amounting to Rs.1,50,000/-, issued by Smt. Annamaneni Padmavathi, who is wife of A-2, in favour of M/s. Saikrupa Enterprises, the proprietor of which is A-2, drawn on State Bank of India, Ganapavaram Branch, knowing fully well that there is no outstanding balance in the account of the party, and the appellant – A-1 discounted the said cheques and credited proceeds of the same into the account bearing No.CA/OD/202 of A-2 with the Bank on 28-09-1995. That the appellant - A-1 purchased these two cheques transgressing his discretionary powers and sent them for collection to State Bank of India, Ganapavaram Branch for realization, after giving credit to the account of A-2. The cheques were returned unpaid by State Bank of India, Ganapavaram Branch vide cheque return memo dated 10-10-1995 “for want of sufficient funds”. After receipt of the cheque return memo, appellant - A-1 kept those cheques in his custody from 10-10-1995 to 01-12-1995 without responding to the account and deliberately omitted to debit the amount to the account bearing No.CA/OD/202 of A-2 and did not take any action against A-2, and thereby misled the Bank. On 05-12-1995, the cheque purchase account was credited and debit was wrongly posted to another account bearing No.CC1-44 of M/s. Shanmukha Marketing Agency, basing on a debit voucher prepared by Sri Sathaiah and passed by Smt. N. Santhosh, Accountant of the Branch. Appellant - A-1 instructed the accountant to debit this voucher to cash credit account bearing No.CC1-44 which is a blatant irregularity and thereby misled the Bank by debiting another account instead of party’s account. The fact of debiting the amount of Rs.1,50,578/- is not even known to M/s. Shanmukha Marketing Agency. Further, at the time of issuance of cheques, the party was not having sufficient balance in her account at State Bank of India, Ganapavaram Branch. The fact of debiting the amount of Rs.1,50,578/- is not even known to M/s. Shanmukha Marketing Agency. Further, at the time of issuance of cheques, the party was not having sufficient balance in her account at State Bank of India, Ganapavaram Branch. On 16-12-1995, M/s. Shanmukha Marketing Agency, deposited a cheque for Rs.86,010/- in the clearing for credit to its account, but the amount covered by that cheque was credited to a different account. Thus, the total amount due to M/s. Shanmukha Marketing Agency, was aggregating to Rs.2,41,588/-. The appellant - A-1 in conspiracy with A-2 did not report as to return of the cheques to the Controlling Authority, and instead on 15-12-1995, vide a transfer credit voucher for Rs.2,41,588/- instructed the accountant to prepare a voucher for the same and he himself passed the same for payment and thus adjusted the earlier debit raised to M/s. Shanmukha Marketing Agency by ultimately raising a debit to branch local clearing account. This act was done by him in order to screen his earlier criminal act. Further, the appellant - A-1 by abusing his official position as Branch Manager of the Bank in connivance with A-2 and in order to accommodate him, cheated the Bank by falsifying the accounts of the Bank and extended pecuniary advantage to a tune of Rs.1,50,000/- to A-2 and thereby caused corresponding loss to the Bank by misusing the funds of the Bank. However, except an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards interest, the remaining balance has been recovered by the Bank. Thus, appellant - A-1 and A2 committed the offences under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of PC Act. 4. The trial Court after taking charge sheet on file, registered a case as C.C. No.12 of 1999, and charges under Section 120-B read with 420 IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of PC Act were framed against appellant - A-1, and charges under Section 120-B and 420 IPC framed against A-2. 5. On appellant - A-1 and A-2 pleading not guilty for the said charges, they were put on trial, and in order to prove its case, the prosecution in support of its case had examined PWs.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-23. However, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the defence. 6. 5. On appellant - A-1 and A-2 pleading not guilty for the said charges, they were put on trial, and in order to prove its case, the prosecution in support of its case had examined PWs.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-23. However, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the defence. 6. That after taking into consideration, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and other material on record, the trial Court has found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case for the offence under Section 120-B read with Section 420 IPC against the appellant - A-1 and A-2 and acquitted them for the said offence. However, the trial court has found the appellant - A-1 guilty of the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of PC Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him, as stated herein above. 7. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of PC Act, appellant – A-1 has preferred this appeal questioning the legality or otherwise thereof, inter alia, on the ground that the trial court has erred in appreciating the evidence of prosecution witnesses and other material on record and thereby came to an erroneous conclusion in finding the appellant - A-1 guilty of the aforesaid offence. 8. It is the case of the appellant – A-1 that though the trial Court had framed, basing on the charge sheet, three charges against the appellant - A-1 and A-2, however, after conclusion of the trial, it has given a finding that the prosecution failed to establish the charges under Section 120-B read with 420 IPC against the appellant -A-1 and A-2, and, as such, the appellant - A-1 and A-2 were acquitted for the said offence. However, the trial Court has found the appellant - A-1 guilty of the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of PC Act and accordingly he was convicted and sentenced for the same. However, the trial Court has found the appellant - A-1 guilty of the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of PC Act and accordingly he was convicted and sentenced for the same. Referring to the third charge as framed against the appellant - A-1, it is contended that he is alleged to have abused his official position and committed criminal misconduct by extending pecuniary advantage to A-2 to a tune of Rs.1,50,000/- by discounting two cheques for Rs.75,000/- each, but to establish the third charge, the ingredients as contained in Section 13(1)(d)(iii) of PC Act have to be proved and are complied with. However, in this case, it cannot be said that the said ingredients are complied with and are proved since in the provisions of sub-clause (iii) of Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, the words “without any public interest” are used soon after the words “pecuniary advantage”. The words “public interest” is not defined in the Act. Therefore, it is difficult to understand the meaning of a public servant obtaining “any pecuniary advantage” without any public interest. Hence, it is contended that the appellant – A-1 cannot be said to have committed the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of PC Act. It is contended that the appellant – A-1 at the relevant time had acted for furthering the interest of the Bank bona fide. His intention was not to cause any wrongful loss to the Bank. That on the contrary, his intention was to cause pecuniary benefit to the Bank, as he has only followed the Banking practice that is in vogue. Discounting cheques by a banker is a common practice. It goes to help the banker. It is further contended that though the appellant - A-1 has alleged to have exceeded his financial powers in discounting two cheques in question, it is only an irregularity which he has intentionally done keeping the best interest of the Banking institution in mind. That his intention was not to cause pecuniary advantage to A-2, but to extend it to the Bank itself with a good intention of retaining its customer since it is the primary duty of every banker to maintain good relations with its customers and also to retain them as customers forever. 9. That his intention was not to cause pecuniary advantage to A-2, but to extend it to the Bank itself with a good intention of retaining its customer since it is the primary duty of every banker to maintain good relations with its customers and also to retain them as customers forever. 9. Referring to the evidence of PW.1, who is the Assistant Manager of the State Bank of Mysore, Mahendra Hills Branch, PW.3, who is a cashier of the Bank, PW.5, who is a clerk of the Bank, and PW.7, who is Chief Manager of the Bank of Mysore and also Vigilance Officer between 1991-97, it is stated that A-2 was a regular customer of their Bank and that he had investments in the form of F.D.Rs. to a tune of Rs.5,00,000/-, therefore the appellant - A-1 has acted in good faith with an intention to retain a good customer (A-2) by extending cheque discounting facility to him which in his opinion was in furtherance of the interest of the Bank. Moreover, referring to the evidence of PW.5, the clerk, who is working with the Bank since 1987 and has testified that A-2 was a regular and good customer of their Bank and that he had paid the entire amount, it is contended that no wrongful loss is caused to the Bank. 10. The evidence of PW.7 - the Chief Manager of the State Bank of Mysore, who also acted as Vigilance Officer and investigated this case, is that during the course of investigation, he came across certain irregularities in respect of the cheque purchase account, which is subject matter of this case, and that “a cheque purchase” is unsecured clean advance extended to the parties of high standard depending on the custom of the Bank. Under this system, when outstation cheques are presented at the request of the party, such cheques will be purchased by the branch and value of the cheques is immediately placed to the credit of the party’s account, and on realization of the said cheques, it would be sent for collection to the paying branches and the cheque purchase entries will be reversed to the debit of the drawee branch. In case, the cheques are returned unpaid, the amount is to be recovered from the party immediately. In case, the cheques are returned unpaid, the amount is to be recovered from the party immediately. In view of the said evidence of PW.7, it is contended that since A-2 has already paid the entire amount, even if the appellant - A-1 is said to have committed any irregularity, it is in accordance with the Bank’s practice as spoken to by PW.7. Moreover, it is contended that the appellant - A-1 did not extend any wrongful pecuniary benefit to A-2, and A-2 did not receive any such benefit and that A-2 being a reputed and regular customer of the Bank, paid the entire amount. Moreover, it is seen from the evidence of PW.1 that due to the transaction, the Bank stood benefitted by receiving interest of Rs.975/-, commission amount of Rs.450/-and postage of Rs.45/-, and the same has been recorded in the long books concerned. Hence, it is contended that no wrongful loss to the Bank was caused and on the contrary, the Bank gained goodwill and good customer besides gaining pecuniary benefits by way of interest, commission and postage etc. Therefore, it is contended that the appellant - A-1 has acted in good faith and also in the best interest of the banking institution, which cannot be termed, in any manner, as criminal misconduct by abusing his official position. 11. Referring to the decisions in P. JAYAKUMAR v. STATE OF A.P. (2009) 6 SCC 77 , STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. SHEETLA SAHAI AND OTHERS (2009) 8 SCC 617 ,SUBASH PARBAT SONVANE v. STATE OF GUJARATH (2002) 5 SCC 86 and K.R. PURUSHOTHAMAN v. STATE OF KERALA (2005) 12 SCC 631, it is contended that the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of the offences with which the appellant - A-1 was charged. That appellant - A-1 did not have any dishonest intention to cause wrongful gain to A-2 and wrongful loss in terms of Section 13(1)(d)(iii) of PC Act. Moreover, it was not the specific case of the prosecution to that effect. It was the bounden duty of the prosecution to prove its case by proving the ingredients of Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act which it has failed to do so. Moreover, it was not the specific case of the prosecution to that effect. It was the bounden duty of the prosecution to prove its case by proving the ingredients of Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act which it has failed to do so. That the prosecution has also failed to make out a case that the appellant - A-1 had committed criminal misconduct by extending any pecuniary advantage to A-2 by corrupt or illegal means as a public servant in terms of Section 13(1)(d)(iii) of PC Act. It is also contended that once the appellant - A-1 along with A-2 was acquitted for the offence under Section 120-B read with Section 420 IPC, he ought to have been acquitted for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of PC Act since it was stated to be a sequel to the charge under Section 120-B read with 420 IPC, and the trial Court has come to an erroneous conclusion by not appreciating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and other material on record in proper perspective and erroneously held that the appellant - A-1 was guilty of the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of PC Act, and, as such, the same is liable to be set aside. 12. The prosecution has taken this Court through the charge sheet against the appellants – A-1 and A-2 for the offences under Sections 120-B, 420 IPC and 13(1) (d) read with 13(2) of PC Act, which is to the effect that appellant - A-1 being Branch Manager of the Bank during July 1994 and October 1996, in furtherance of conspiracy with A-2, proprietor of M/s. Sai Krupa Enterprises has cheated the Bank by committing an act of criminal misconduct, by discounting two cheques of Rs.75,000/- each and thereby, caused pecuniary gain (wrongful gain) to A-2 and wrongful loss to the Bank to the tune of the amount covered under the said two cheques in question i.e., Rs.1,50,000/-. 13. 13. That A-2 was having current account bearing No.CA/OD/2002 with the Bank; that wife of A-2 had issued the said two cheques for Rs.75,000/- each in favour of M/s. Sai Krupa Enterprises drawn on State Bank of India, Ganapavaram Branch at the behest of A-2and the appellant - A-1 purchased the said two cheques amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- knowing that there was no outstanding balance in the account of the wife of A-2; that after discounting, the proceeds of the cheques were deposited into the current account of A-2. 14. That both the cheques dated 19-09-1995 bearing Nos.147560 and 147599 respectively were issued in favour of M/s. Sai Krupa Enterprises drawn on State Bank of India, Ganapavaram branch; that appellant - A-1 has purchased the said two cheques transgressing his discretionary powers of purchase as per HOC 87 of 1987 and sent them for collection to the State Bank of India, Ganapavaram Branch, after giving credit to the account of A-2, proprietor of M/s. Sai Krupa Enterprises; that as per the said circular HOC 87 of 1987, the appellant - A-1 as Branch Manager of the Bank is empowered to purchase third party cheques up to Rs.50,000/- only. 15. That when the said cheques were presented for payment, returned un-paid by the State Bank of India, Ganapavaram Branch vide cheque return memo dated 10-10-1995, since there were no sufficient funds in the SB account (P-21/5038) of wife of A-2; that after receiving the cheque return memo along with two cheques, appellant - A-1 kept those cheques in his custody from 10-10-1995 to 01-12-1995 i.e., for two months, without informing A-2 and deliberately omitted to debit the amount to the account of A-2 (CA/OD/202) and did not initiate any action against A-2 and thereby misled the Bank. 16. That on 05-12-1995, the cheque purchased account was credited and debit was wrongly posted to a third party account bearing No.CC1-44 belonging to one M/s. Shanmukha Marketing Agency at the instance of the appellant - A-1, thereby misled the Bank by debiting Rs.1,50,578/- to a third party’s account (CC 1-44) belonging to M/s. Shanmukha Marketing Agency instead of debiting the account bearing No.CA/OD/202 of A-2, M/s. Sai Krupa Enterprises,and that the said fact was not even informed to M/s. Shanmukha Marketing Agency. 17. 17. That when M/s. Shanmukha Marketing Agency deposited a cheque for Rs.86,010/- into its account bearing No.CC1-44 on 06-12-1995, on scrutiny, it was realized, on 15-12-1995, that the said cheque of M/s. Shanmukha Marketing Agency for Rs.86,010/- deposited on 06-12-1995 was wrongly credited to a different account, and it had also come to light that Exs.P-1 and P-2 cheques in question purchased by the appellant - A-1 were wrongly debited to account bearing No.CC1-44 of M/s. Shanmukha Marketing Agency and the said mistakes were rectified by giving credit of Rs.2,41,588/- to the account bearing No.CC1-44 of M/s. Shanmukha Marketing Agency under Ex.P7 – transfer credit voucher dated 15-12-1995. That the said rectification was done at the instance of the appellant - A-1 in order to screen his earlier criminal misconduct i.e., wrongly debiting the proceeds of Exs.P-1 and P-2 cheques in question that were purchased by the appellant - A-1 into the account bearing No.CC1-44 of M/s. Shanmukha Marketing Agency in furtherance of conspiracy between himself and A-2 and thereby the appellant - A-1 resorted to commit the act of criminal misconduct by falsifying the accounts of the Bank by abusing his official position as Branch Manager of the Bank and it has resulted in wrongful gain to A-2 and wrongful loss to the Bank. It is contended that the action on the part of the appellant - A-1 amounts to criminal misconduct in falsifying the Bank accounts to carry pecuniary advantage to A-2 and the same does not involve any public interest except involving private interest, and therefore, the provisions of Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of PC Act are clearly attracted and the appellant - A-1 is liable thereunder. 18. Relying on the decision reported in RUMI DHAR (SMT.) v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER 2009(6) SCC 364 , it is contended that payment of the entire amount covered under the two discounted cheques by A-2 does not, in any way, absolve the appellant - A-1 from criminal liability for his criminal misconduct. Lastly, it is contended that the appellant - A-1 had discounted the said two cheques and credited the proceeds thereof to the account of A-2 and that when the said two cheques were sent for collection, they were dishonoured. Lastly, it is contended that the appellant - A-1 had discounted the said two cheques and credited the proceeds thereof to the account of A-2 and that when the said two cheques were sent for collection, they were dishonoured. That after receiving the said cheques with the dishonoured memo, appellant - A-1 kept those cheques under his custody for about two months without debiting the amount thereof to the party’s account. That on the other hand, the proceeds of the said cheques were debited to the account of M/s. Shanmukha Marketing Agency and this has been done by the appellant - A-1 in furtherance of criminal conspiracy between himself and A-2. That though discounting cheques is a normal banking transaction, appellant - A-1 misused the same in the guise of exercising his discretion. That his discretionary power in doing so is limited to Rs.50,000/- only and not beyond; that after a gap of two months and when the matter came to light during the course of a scrutiny on 15-12-1995, appellant - A-1 got it rectified by preparing a separate voucher therefor under Ex.P-7. Therefore, it is contended that action of the appellant – A-1 ultimately amounts to criminal misconduct under Section 13 of PC Act for which he was rightly charge sheeted. It is further contended that the trial court, after appreciating the evidence and other material on record and also by taking an overall view, rightly convicted the appellant - A-1 for the said offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of PC Act, and, as such, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence as passed by the trial Court does not warrant any interference by this Court, and as such, the appeal may be dismissed. 19. This Court gave its earnest consideration to the submissions made by Sri C. Kodandaram, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant – A-1, and Sri C. Kesava Rao, learned Special Standing Counsel for CBI, perused the impugned judgment and other material on record. 20. Considering the rival contentions, the points that arise for consideration are: 1.Whether discounting of Exs.P-1 and P-2 cheques by the appellant – A-1 is in violation of the regulations issued by the Reserve Bank of India from time to time and also in violation of the banking circulars and procedures? 20. Considering the rival contentions, the points that arise for consideration are: 1.Whether discounting of Exs.P-1 and P-2 cheques by the appellant – A-1 is in violation of the regulations issued by the Reserve Bank of India from time to time and also in violation of the banking circulars and procedures? 2.Whether the action of the appellant - A-1 in discounting Exs.P-1 and P-2 cheques amounts to criminal misconduct? 3.Whether the action of the appellant –A-1 in discounting the cheques amounts to causing wrongful gain to A-2 and thereby causing corresponding wrongful loss to the Bank? 4.Whether the payment of the amount covered under Exs.P-1 and P-2 cheques by A2would absolve the appellant-A-1 from criminal liability? 5.Whether such action of the appellant - A-1 amounts to illegality or irregularity? 6.Whether the trial Court has committed any error, infirmity or illegality in finding the appellant – A-1 guilty of the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of PC Act ? POINT Nos.1 to 6: 21. The main contention of the prosecution is that the appellant – A-1 by abusing his official position and in collusion with A-2 accommodated him to obtain pecuniary advantage to a tune of Rs.1,50,000/- by violating the banking normal practice and its regulations and thereby committed the offences of criminal conspiracy, cheating and criminal misconduct. However, the trial Court observing that there is no evidence of any kind for the alleged conspiracy and cheating, acquitted the appellant – A-1 as well as A-2 for the offence under Section 120-B read with 420 IPC, but convicted the appellant – A-1 for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of PC Act observing that the very act of passing cheques without sufficient funds and without taking sufficient security would definitely amount to dishonest intention and thus the charge of criminal misconduct against him is established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, appellant – A-1 preferred this appeal. 22. There is no dispute that the appellant – A-1 is a public servant as defined under Section 2(c) of PC Act being Branch Manager of the Bank (State Bank of Mysore, Mahindra Hills Branch, Secunderabad) and A-2, who is proprietor of M/s. Saikrupa Enterprises, Secunderabad, is its customer. 22. There is no dispute that the appellant – A-1 is a public servant as defined under Section 2(c) of PC Act being Branch Manager of the Bank (State Bank of Mysore, Mahindra Hills Branch, Secunderabad) and A-2, who is proprietor of M/s. Saikrupa Enterprises, Secunderabad, is its customer. There is also no dispute that A-2 approached A-1 for purchase of Exs.P-1 and P-2 cheques, bearing Nos.147560 and 147599 dated 19-09-1995 for Rs.75,000/- each, total amounting to Rs.1,50,000/-, issued by Smt. Annamaneni Padmavathi, wife of A-2 in favour of M/s. Saikrupa Enterprises, drawn on State Bank of India, Ganapavaram Branch and the appellant -A-1 discounted those cheques by exceeding his financial powers/sanction limit. Admittedly, appellant - A-1 is empowered to purchase third party cheques up to Rs.50,000/- only as per the circular of the Bank in HOC 87 of 1987. 23. While so, the contention of the prosecution is that A-2, knowing fully well that there is no outstanding balance in the account of the party (wife of A-2), approached the appellant - A-1 for purchase of Exs.P-1 and P-2 cheques and the appellant – A-1 in conspiracy with A-2, discounted those two cheques and deposited proceeds of the same into the Bank on 28-09-1995 by crediting to the account bearing No.CA/OD/202 of A-2. Thus, appellant – A-1 purchased Exs.P-1 and P-2 cheques transgressing his discretionary powers of purchase and sent them for collection to State Bank of India, Ganapavaram Branch for realization after giving credit to the account of A-2. Further, when Exs.P-1 and P-2 cheques were sent for collection, they were returned unpaid by the State Bank of India, Ganapavaram Branch vide cheque return memo dated 10-10-1995 for want of sufficient funds. Even after receipt of the cheque return memo dated 10-10-1995, appellant – A-1 kept those cheques in his custody for a period of about two months i.e. from 10-10-1995 to 01-12-1995 without responding to the account and deliberately omitted to debit the amount to the account bearing No.CA/OD/202 of A-2 and intentionally did not take any action against the party and thus misled the Bank. Further, on 05-12-1995, the cheque purchase account was credited and debit was wrongly posted to another account bearing No.CC1-44 of M/s. Shanmukha Marketing Agency basing on a debit voucher prepared by Mr. Sathaiah and passed by Smt. N. Santhosh, accountant of the Bank. Further, on 05-12-1995, the cheque purchase account was credited and debit was wrongly posted to another account bearing No.CC1-44 of M/s. Shanmukha Marketing Agency basing on a debit voucher prepared by Mr. Sathaiah and passed by Smt. N. Santhosh, accountant of the Bank. Further, appellant - A-1 instructed the accountant to debit this voucher to cash credit account bearing No.CC1-44 belonging to M/s. Shanmukha Marketing Agency which is a blatant irregularity and thereby misled the Bank by debiting to another account instead of party’s account. 24. However, the main contention of Sri Challa Kodandaram, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant – A-1, is that the appellant – A-1 was posted to Mahindra Hills Branch of the Bank to improve the business of that Branch and he has acted bona fide to improve the business of the Bank and that discounting Exs.P-1 and P-2 cheques is not with an intention to cause any wrongful loss to the Bank but on the contrary his intention was to cause pecuniary benefit to the Bank. The learned senior counsel further contended that discounting cheques by a banker is a common practice, however, the appellant – A-1 exceeded his financial powers in discounting Exs.P-1 and P-2 cheques to improve the business of the Bank and keeping the best interest of the Bank in mind with a good intention of retaining its customer (A-2), who is a regular and high standard one, forever and as it is the primary duty of every banker to maintain good relations with its customers, and that A-2 has paid the entire amount covered by Exs.P-1 and P-2 cheques along with interest, as such, at the most, it can be construed as an irregularity but not illegality, and therefore, there is no criminal misconduct on the part of the appellant – A-1 in discharging his duties as a public servant. 25. No doubt, discounting cheques is a normal practice in banking institutions. In the present case, as seen from the material on record, appellant – A-1, admittedly, discounted Exs.P-1 and P-2 cheques of Rs.75,000/- each by exceeding his financial powers and credited proceeds of the same to the account of A-2. 25. No doubt, discounting cheques is a normal practice in banking institutions. In the present case, as seen from the material on record, appellant – A-1, admittedly, discounted Exs.P-1 and P-2 cheques of Rs.75,000/- each by exceeding his financial powers and credited proceeds of the same to the account of A-2. But, when those cheques were sent for collection to the drawee bank, they were dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and in spite of receipt of cheque return memo, appellant – A-1 kept those cheques in his custody for about two months i.e. from 10-10-1995 to 01-12-1995 and omitted to debit the amount to the account of A-2 and intentionally debited the amount covered by those cheques to another account belonging to M/s. Shanmukha Marketing Agency by making a wrong entry on 05-12-1995 and even debiting the amount of Rs.1,50,578/- is not even informed to M/s. Shanmukha Marketing Agency. Further, on 06-12-1995, when M/s. Shanmukha Marketing Agency deposited a cheque for Rs.86,010/- in the clearing for credit to its account, the amount covered by that cheque was credited to a different account and instead of reporting the same to the controlling authority, on 15-12-1995 instructed the accountant to prepare a transfer credit voucher for Rs.2,41,588/- and he himself passed the same for payment and adjusted the earlier debit raised to M/s. Shanmukha Marketing Agency by raising a debit to branch local clearing account, which is nothing but falsifying the Bank’s accounts and same shows his dishonest intention. Further, discounting the cheques in question by the appellant – A-1 by exceeding his financial powers is in violation of the banking regulations of the Reserve Bank of India from time to time and also in violation of the Banking circulars and procedures. Therefore, the contention of the learned senior counsel that the appellant - A-1 has acted bona fide and in the interest of the Bank to improve its business as he was specifically posted there to improve the business of that Branch has no force and cannot be accepted. 26. Therefore, the contention of the learned senior counsel that the appellant - A-1 has acted bona fide and in the interest of the Bank to improve its business as he was specifically posted there to improve the business of that Branch has no force and cannot be accepted. 26. The above acts of discounting Exs.P-1 and P-2 cheques for Rs.75,000/- each, total amounting to Rs.1,50,000/-, by exceeding his financial powers, not debiting the account of A-2 in spite of dishonour of the discounted cheques, keeping the said dishonoured cheques with him for about two months without any intimation to A-2 except informing him orally as evident from the evidence of PW.1, and thereafter debiting the account of M/s. Shanmukha Marketing Agency for the amount of Rs.1,50,578/- and finally adjusting the entries in the account of M/s. Shanmukha Marketing Agency by raising debit to the branch local clearing account, which is nothing but falsifying the Bank’s accounts, clearly show the dishonest intentionof the appellant – A-1 in discounting the cheques by exceeding his financial powers and violating the circulars and procedures of the Bank and also regulations of the Reserve Bank of India from time to time by abusing his official position amounting to criminal misconduct since the same attract the provisions of Section 13(1)(d)(iii) read with 13(2) of PC Act as it has caused wrongful gain to A-2 and wrongful loss to the Bank. Further, even the payment of the amount covered by Exs.P-1 and P-2 cheques by A-2 also would not absolve the appellant - A-1 from his criminal liability as held by the Apex Court in RUMI DHAR’S Case (Supra 5). In that view of the matter, the contention of the appellant – A-1 that the alleged misconduct committed by him is only an irregularity and not illegality also cannot be accepted. Thus, the prosecution has proved the charge of criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of PC Act against the appellant – A-1 beyond reasonable doubt. 27. In that view of the matter, the contention of the appellant – A-1 that the alleged misconduct committed by him is only an irregularity and not illegality also cannot be accepted. Thus, the prosecution has proved the charge of criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of PC Act against the appellant – A-1 beyond reasonable doubt. 27. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that though the prosecution had failed to prove the charges under Section 120-B read with 420 IPC against the appellant – A-1 and A-2, there is sufficient material to find the appellant – A-1 guilty of the charge under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of PC Act as found hereinabove, and, as such, the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant – A-1 are not helpful to him as they deal with the matters relating to circumstantial evidence only. Thus, the trial Court has not committed any error, infirmity or illegality in appreciating the evidence and other material on record and finding the appellant – A1 guilty of the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of PC Act, as such, the impugned judgment does not require interference of this Court, and therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, all the points are answered in favour of the prosecution and against the appellant – A-1. 28. For the aforesaid reasons, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the impugned judgment, of conviction and sentence of the appellant – A-1, in C.C. No.12 of 1999 dated 22-12-2003 passed by the learned Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Hyderabad for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of PC Act.