JUDGMENT: A-1 in C.C. No.8 of 1999 dated 22-12-2003 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Hyderabad, was found guilty of the offence 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 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple Imprisonment for six months. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, A-1 preferred this appeal questioning the legality or otherwise of the said conviction and sentence, inter alia, contending that the trial Court had failed to appreciate the evidence of prosecution witnesses and other material on record in proper perspective. 2. The appellant – A-1 is also accused (A-1) in C.C. No.12 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.12 of 1999 and 13 of 1999, appellant – A-1 preferred Criminal Appeal Nos.11 of 1999 and 466 of 1999 respectively. 3. The case of the prosecution as unfolded from the charge sheet, in brief, is as under: (a) That the appellant (K. Murali) – A-1 being Manager of the State Bank of Mysore, Mahindra Hills Branch, Secunderabad (hereinafter referred to as “Bank”), alleged to have conspired with A-2 (Gopal Agarwal) and A-3 (Pushpa Agarwal), who are Managing Director and Director of M/s. ISE Steels Private Limited respectively, to cause wrongful gain to them and thereby to cause wrongful loss to the Bank, by way of accommodating A-2 and A-3 during the course of banking business in violation of the banking procedure, by debiting their local clearing account and falsely showing them as having been paid, by detaining 39 cheques issued by them in inward clearing unauthorizedly, though they had no sufficient balance in their accounts. (b) The appellant – A-1 had also accommodated A-2 and A-3 in the case of outward clearing cheques i.e. the credits placed in the accounts of the parties (A-2 and A-3) pertaining to third party cheques lodged for realization in outward clearing had been allowed to be withdrawn on the same day. Thus, the local clearing accounts were misused in order to pass on the value of the returned cheques to the parties, A-2 and A-3, for which they are not entitled to. That the said modus operandi had been resorted to by the appellant – A-1 on several occasions. (c) That basing on Ex.P-174 - complaint preferred by the Vigilance Officer of the State Bank of Mysore, LW.65 - T.N. Rao, Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI, Hyderabad, had registered a case against the appellant – A-1 and A-2 to A-4 for the offences under Sections 120-B read with Section 420 IPC, Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of PC Act and issued FIR on 31-01-1997 under the cover of said Ex.P-174, wherein two methods i.e. outward clearing and inward clearing methods were stated to be adopted by A-1 in releasing funds in favour of the other accused in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy entered into by and between them in order to cause wrongful pecuniary gain to them and corresponding wrongful pecuniary loss to the Bank. 4. That after completion of the investigation into the case, LW.65 - T.N. Rao, Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI, Hyderabad had laid charge sheet into the Court on 17-02-1999 against the appellant – A-1 and A-2 and A-3 by deleting the name of another accused viz., Sri Nathmal Agarwal, father of A- 2 - Gopal Agarwal, as he was no more (died) by the time of laying charge sheet. The trial Court had framed three charges against A-1 to A-3, which are as under:- “ Charge U/S.120-B r/w 420 IPC That A1 to A3 of you while working as Branch Manager, State Bank of Mysore, Mahendra Hills Branch, Secunderabad, Managing Director (A2) of M/s. ISE Steels Ltd., and Director (A3) of M/s. ISE Steels Ltd., M.G. Road, Secunderabad respectively, have entered into a criminal conspiracy during the years 1995 and 1996 to cheat State Bank of Mysore, Mahendra Hills Branch, Secunderabad, by presenting and issuing cheques of various amounts totaling to Rs.4,42,92,715/-, in the Inward clearing 39 cheques and in the Outward clearing 44 cheques and thereby committed an offence punishable U/S 120-B r/w 420 IPC and within my cognizance. Charge U/S.420 I.P.C.That A2 and A3 of you had submitted 39 Inward clearing cheques and 44 Outward clearing cheques for a total sum of Rs.4,42,92,715/- during the years 1995 and 1996 to the State Bank of Mysore, Mahendra Hills Branch, Secunderabad in the account of M/s. ISE Steels Ltd., which were discounted by the said bank, and which were later dishonoured, resulting loss of Rs.4,42,92,715/- and causing wrongful loss to the bank and thereby committed an offence punishable U/S.420 IPC and within my cognizance. Charge U/S.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988 That A1 of you being public servant working as Branch Manager, State Bank of Mysore, Mahendra Hills Branch, Secunderabad, abused your official position and committed criminal misconduct by obtaining a pecuniary advantage to a tune of Rs.4,42,92,715/- to A2 and A3 by discounting the said cheques and thereby committed an offence punishable U/Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988 and within my cognizance.” 5. The prosecution, in support of its case, had got examined PWs.1 to 37 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-174 on its behalf. However, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the defence. 6. The trial Court, taking the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and other material on record into consideration, found all the accused not guilty of the offences under Sections 120-B and 420 IPC and accordingly acquitted them for the said offences. 7. However, the trial Court had 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 the appellant – A-1 for the said offence and sentenced him as referred supra. 7. However, the trial Court had 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 the appellant – A-1 for the said offence and sentenced him as referred supra. Assailing the same, appellant – A-1 preferred this appeal. CASE OF THE APPELLANT – A-1: 8. That, though, A-2 and A-3 are stated to be the beneficiaries as per the charge sheet laid down by the CBI and as per the charges framed by the trial Court, however, in fact, if at all any benefit was alleged to have been extended to any person it was to M/s. ISE Steels Private Ltd., M.G. Road, Secunderabad, of which A2 and A-3 were Managing Director and Director respectively. However, the said company is not included in the array of the accused. 9. That even if the appellant – A-1 is alleged to have extended the facility of crediting cheques against clearance to A-2 and A-3 during the course of banking business, it cannot be said that it resulted in corresponding pecuniary wrongful loss to the Bank. In fact, no such facility was extended in favour of A-2 and A-3. If it is strictly construed, it may amount to extending such facility in favour of the company, of which A-2 and A-3 are parts being its Managing Director and Director respectively. That extending such a facility does not necessarily mean that a pecuniary advantage is extended to others. The whole thing is to be seen in the light of a banker and a customer relationship, and that too, with the eyes of a prudent businessman. When it is so seen, extending such a facility may not, in the business sense, cause corresponding pecuniary disadvantage or loss to the person, natural or legal. The alleged amount of wrongful loss caused to the Bank as stated in the charge sheet as well as the charges framed by the trial Court is incorrect and in fact it was not a loss at all. What is shown in the charge sheet is that the details of the amounts alleged to be involved in the accounts through the alleged two methods is incorrect. What is shown in the charge sheet is that the details of the amounts alleged to be involved in the accounts through the alleged two methods is incorrect. The figure that is sought to be projected as a loss is actually not a loss and in fact it is gain to the Bank since the said figure is a cumulative one by adding number of occasions and/or times the facility was extended. Therefore, it is a cumulative figure and it cannot be said that the facilities extended in favour of A-2 and A-3 caused pecuniary loss to the Bank to a tune of Rs.4,42,85,519/-, whereas the said figure is shown different in the charge sheet framed against the appellant – A-1 in the trial Court as Rs.4,42,92,715. Further, that none of the prosecution witnesses has spoken to the real and exact amount of the alleged wrongful loss having been caused to the Bank and in the business thereof, therefore it cannot be said that the appellant – A-1 had caused wrongful loss of any amount to the Bank. 10. That the appellant – A-1 always, as a Branch Manager, acted in good faith and to secure the best interest of the Bank. His honesty and hard-work were not in question. PW.1 stated in his cross-examination that during the course of investigation, he came to know that appellant - A-1 was posted in the Bank (Mahindra Hills Branch) to improve the business of the said branch. That, further, during the course of investigation, he could not come across any material to show that the appellant – A-1 had any pecuniary benefit for himself in the transactions. However, PW.1 has also stated in his evidence that the appellant – A-1 had accommodated the Bank customers against the procedure of the Bank and the same resulted in loss to the Bank. PW.1 has also admitted that he did not notice any evidence to prove conspiracy between the appellant - A-1 and A-2 & A-3. It is also in the evidence of PW.1 that while the appellant – A-1 was the Branch Manager, there was some improvement in the Bank’s efficiency and at the same time some instances resulted in cases like this. 11. It is also in the evidence of PW.1 that while the appellant – A-1 was the Branch Manager, there was some improvement in the Bank’s efficiency and at the same time some instances resulted in cases like this. 11. That the loan application of M/s. ISE Steels Private Limited was also pending consideration before the Regional Office of the Bank at Bangalore and that certain document of immovable property was placed by the said company as a collateral security, but the loan was not sanctioned, therefore taking the said factual position into consideration, the action of the appellant – A-1 in extending the facility of discounting cheques to M/s. ISE Steels Private Limited cannot be said to have been done in mala fide. Moreover, there is a practice of charging interest in cases of the facility of overdraft and the same was extended in favour of the said company i.e. M/s. ISE Steels Private Limited and the same also goes to show that the action of the appellant – A-1 in extending the facility of discounting cheque to the said company cannot be said to be mala fide. 12. That none of the remaining witnesses has stated anything against the appellant – A-1 and they only spoke about the transactions wherein the cheques issued to M/s. ISE Steels Private Limited and vice versa were being cleared by the Bank. It is only PW.32, who has stated that the said company was having a credit facility from the Bank of India. Therefore, the appellant – A-1 tried to attract the said company to be its customer. Whereas, PW.33 has testified that his inspection revealed that the appellant – A-1 had violated the instructions issued by the Bank. PW.35 has stated that the CBI had sent its report to the Bank, however, there was no specific reference in the said report that the appellant – A-1 had any pecuniary advantage for himself. Lastly, it is in the evidence of PW.37, the investigating officer, that his investigation revealed that 39 inward and 44 outward cheques were honoured by the appellant – A-1. However, he has admitted in his cross-examination that he did not notice any evidence to prove any conspiracy between the appellant - A-1 and A-2 and A-3. However, he volunteered that the way he had accommodated the parties gave him an inference for such conspiracy. However, he has admitted in his cross-examination that he did not notice any evidence to prove any conspiracy between the appellant - A-1 and A-2 and A-3. However, he volunteered that the way he had accommodated the parties gave him an inference for such conspiracy. He has also stated in the beginning of his cross-examination that his investigation revealed that all the cheques were genuine and they were not forged and all the cheques deposited in the account of M/s. ISE Steels Private Limited were from business houses and corporations connected with either manufacturing or marketing steel. Therefore, even as per the evidence of PW.37, the investigating officer, there were 39 inward clearing transactions and 44 outward clearing transactions. However, the action of the appellant – A-1 in all the transactions was irregular but not illegal as no criminal element like mens rea was involved. It has come to light from the evidence of many of the witnesses that the appellant – A-1 was posted as Branch Manager of the Bank to improve its business and, in fact, there was improvement after his assuming charge as such. That, in all such transactions, Bank stood benefitted by interest and commission etc. All the transactions were banking business transactions between the banker and the customer, and, as such, it cannot be said that the appellant – A-1 had indulged in criminal misconduct with a view to extend pecuniary benefits to any of A-2 or A-3 and also with a view to cause pecuniary corresponding loss to the Bank. That, in fact, all the transactions did not result in any pecuniary benefit to any of A-2 or A-3 and none of the witnesses has spoken to it that they only happened to be the Managing Director and Director respectively of M/s. ISE Steels Private Limited; that it cannot be said that even the said company has enjoyed such a pecuniary benefit since it is not the case of the prosecution to that effect. 13. That initially appellant – A-1 along with A-2 and A-3 charged for the offence under Section 120-B read with 420 IPC as they are alleged to have conspired by and between them to cause pecuniary benefit to A-2 and A-3 by the appellant – A-1 by causing corresponding pecuniary wrongful loss to the Bank. 13. That initially appellant – A-1 along with A-2 and A-3 charged for the offence under Section 120-B read with 420 IPC as they are alleged to have conspired by and between them to cause pecuniary benefit to A-2 and A-3 by the appellant – A-1 by causing corresponding pecuniary wrongful loss to the Bank. However, as the prosecution had failed to prove the offence of conspiracy against them, the trial Court had acquitted the appellant – A-1 along with A-2 and A-3 for the said charge. Therefore, the charge against the appellant – A-1 for the offence under Section 13(1) (d) read with 13(2) of PC Act, which is corollary to the first charge of conspiracy under Section 120-B read with 420 IPC should have no legs to stand. 14. It is to be found in the evidence of PW.1 that the Bank recovered about Rs.1.23 crores from M/s. ISE Steels Private Limited Company and the balance amount is yet to be recovered, for which a civil suit was already filed. 15. That the appellant – A-1 had acted bona fide in his capacity as Branch Manager of the Bank. That he acted in the context of improving the business of the Bank, and, as such, no motive can be attributed to him. But, his actions may be construed as an irregularity but not illegal since the contract between the banker and the customer was under mutual obligation; the banker has to extend certain facilities including overdraft or credit facility, which the customer has obligation to repay. It has a legal sanctity. It is legally enforceable. That, the customer is liable in law to fulfill his part of contract in a given case since he has gained some pecuniary advantage as extended by his banker; that, in the case on hand, appellant – A-1 had acted in good faith and bona fide in improving the business of the Bank and he did not gain any monetary benefit. Therefore, the provisions of Section 13(1)(d) are not attracted. Moreover, since the appellant – A-1 along with A-2 and A-3 was already acquitted for the charge under Section 120-B read with 420 IPC, of which, the present case is stated to be a corollary as has already been stated hereinabove repeatedly, it cannot be said that he is liable for the charge under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of PC Act. 16. 16. In support of his case, learned counsel for the appellant – A-1 relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.P. BHATNAGAR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (1979) 1 SCC 535 , STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) v. N.S. GIANI AND OTHERS (1990) 3 SCC 325 , S.V.L. MURTHY v. STATE, REP. BY CBI, HYDERABAD (2009) 6 SCC 77 , and STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. SHEETLA SAHAI AND OTHERS (2009) 8 SCC 617 CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 17. On the other hand, it is the case of the prosecution that the appellant – A-1 had acted hand in glove with A-2 and A-3 and exceeded his official powers and financial limits in extending the overdraft facility i.e. clearing 39 inward cheques and 44 outward cheques, total amounting to Rs.4,42,92,715/-, without there being sufficient balance in the account and also against the instructions and advise of its controlling authority, to A-2 and A-3 and thereby facilitated wrongful gain to them and causing corresponding wrongful loss to the Bank. 18. The evidence of PW.1 - Vigilance Officer is to the effect that the appellant – A-1 had accommodated A-2 and A-3 by misusing the local clearing accounts of the Bank with dishonest intention, which squarely falls into the provisions of Section 13(1)(d) (iii) of PC Act. That the said action of the appellant – A-1 was in violation of the instructions issued by the Bank; that all the Branch Managers were to personally supervise and ensure that no entries were pending without reconciliation. That he had extended benefit to A-2 and A-3 by debiting local clearing account by misusing his official position. That likewise he had allowed withdrawals against the cheques deposited, which were subsequently dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. That, of course, the Bank had recovered about Rs.1.23 crores and the balance is yet to be recovered for which a civil suit has been filed. Further, the Bank has received about Rs.1.25 crores by way of one time settlement. 19. That likewise he had allowed withdrawals against the cheques deposited, which were subsequently dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. That, of course, the Bank had recovered about Rs.1.23 crores and the balance is yet to be recovered for which a civil suit has been filed. Further, the Bank has received about Rs.1.25 crores by way of one time settlement. 19. It is evident from the cheques in Exs.P-6 to P-8, P-13, P-14, P-18 to P-21, P-26, P-27, P-30, P-4, P-38, P-42 to P-46, P-50, P-51, P-55, P-56, P-57, P-59 to P-65, P70 to P-75, P-78, P-79 and P-87, that they are the instances, which can be referred to, as per which the appellant – A-1 could be said to have misused and/or abused his official position in extending pecuniary benefit to A-2. It goes without saying that the same has resulted in corresponding wrongful loss to the Bank. Thus, Ex.P-90 goes to show that the appellant – A-1 had also extended such monetary benefit to A-3 and the same resulted in corresponding wrongful loss to the Bank. 20. The above referred exhibits and transactions are the inward clearing transactions. So far as the outward clearing transactions are concerned, the same modus operandi was adopted by the appellant – A-1; that the pay-in-slips and the debit vouchers are under Exs.P-95 to 101, P-103, P-104, P-105, P-107 and P-108 to P-152. 21. Thus, the plea raised on behalf of the appellant – A-1 that he might have extended pecuniary advantage and/or benefit by allowing the parties to draw more than the balance in their accounts in view of pendency of loan proposal of M/s. ISE Steels Private Limited with the Regional Office of the Bank at Bangalore, cannot be sustained since it was not accepted for want of sufficient clarification from the Bank. However, none of the witnesses has spoken as to what happed to such a loan proposal except PW.1. It is evident from the record that such proposal was rejected outright and the appellant – A-1 was instructed not to extend overdraft facility to A-2 and A-3. 22. Though the appellant - A-1 did not pass any cheque, he prepared voucher for the value of the returned cheque and debited its contents to the local clearing account, which is nothing but accommodating A-2 by abusing his official powers and the same resulted in corresponding loss to the Bank. 22. Though the appellant - A-1 did not pass any cheque, he prepared voucher for the value of the returned cheque and debited its contents to the local clearing account, which is nothing but accommodating A-2 by abusing his official powers and the same resulted in corresponding loss to the Bank. That it is only in the case of Class – I customers and where the proposal of overdraft is pending and also in the interest of the Bank, a facility in the nature of overdraft is extended, however that is not the case here. 23. It is in the evidence of PW.2, who at the relevant time had worked as Clerk of the Bank i.e. State Bank of Mysore, Mahindra Hills Branch, Secunderabad, that the vouchers in Exs.P-12, P-17, P-29, P-39, P-105 and P-129 are in his writings; that there was no sufficient balance to pass cheques and in spite of his reiterating the same to the appellant - A-1, he passed them. PW.3, who worked as Assistant Manager of the Bank i.e. State Bank of Mysore, Mahindra Hills Branch, Secunderabad, at the relevant time, has testified that A-3 was also having Current Account bearing Nos.6/328 and 6/330 for M/s. Basai Steels. Both the accounts had no overdraft facility. However, the appellant – A-1 had accommodated A-3 under Ex.P-90 cheque for Rs.7,196/- though there was balance of only Rs.1,070/-in the said account. That PW.3 has testified that when he questioned appellant – A-1 in this regard, he stated that the amount of accommodation would be adjusted in a day or two. 24. PW.4, who worked as cashier – cum – go-down keeper in the Bank i.e. State Bank of Mysore, Mahindra Hills Branch, Secunderabad at the relevant time, has testified that he had prepared 28 inward clearing cheques and 18 outward clearing cheques and all of them were passed by the appellant – A-1 including debit vouchers in Exs.P-37, 41, 49, 58, 68, 71, 77, 82, 86, 89, 112 and 148 pertaining to A-2 in the inward clearance and credit vouchers in Exs.P-116, 131, 140, 150 and 151 in the outward clearance. 25. 25. That PW.11, who also worked as cashier – cum – go-down keeper of the Bank i.e. State Bank of Mysore, Mahindra Hills Branch, Secunderabad, has testified that he prepared the debit voucher in Ex.P-118 as per the instructions of the appellant – A-1 and the same was passed by him. PW.32, the then Administrative Officer of the State Bank of Mysore, Central Zone, Bangalore, has testified that appellant – A-1 had sent a proposal for approval seeking credit facility for Rs.1.00 crore in favour of M/s. ISE Steels Private Limited; that, however, no detailed clarifications were sent by the appellant – A-1 when he was required to do so, as such, the proposal was not cleared. It is, in this regard, stated that the plea of the appellant – A-1 that he has accommodated A-2 keeping in view that the said proposal was pending with Central Zone, Bangalore, cannot be accepted. It is also in his evidence that the appellant – A-1 was advised by the Bank of Mysore, Central Zone, Bangalore not to make any commitment to the party with regard to the said proposal. In this context, it is stated that in spite of such advice and in spite of the said proposal not being considered and cleared, the appellant – A-1, in abuse of his official power, had accommodated A-2 and A-3 with a dishonest intention to cause pecuniary benefit to them and pecuniary corresponding loss to the Bank. 26. That the current account of M/s. ISE Steels Private Limited Company was recently opened with the Bank of Mysore, Mahindra Hills Branch, Secunderabad; that without knowing much about its financial viability, how can the appellant – A-1 could satisfy himself in extending a pecuniary advantage to A-2; that it is obvious that he has done it with dishonest intention and much against the advice of Central Office of the Bank at Bangalore and the Bank’s instructions and circulars to the winds about dealing inward and outward clearings. He abused his official powers in extending such benefit to A-2 and the same amounts to criminal misconduct under Section 13 (1)(d) of PC Act. 27. He abused his official powers in extending such benefit to A-2 and the same amounts to criminal misconduct under Section 13 (1)(d) of PC Act. 27. It is also in the evidence of PW.33, who worked as Assistant General Manager of the Central Zone of the State Bank of Mysore at the relevant time, that when he inspected the Bank, he found that the appellant – A-1 had violated the instructions containing in Circular Nos.265 and 48 dated 18-05-1990 and 31-07-965 respectively, in which instructions were given in respect of clearing transactions of inward and outward as well as local clearance account. The witness has also stated that he was not aware whether the appellant - A-1 had obtained permission from the controlling authority of the Bank for giving credit on outgoing clearing cheques. That this part of the evidence of PW.33 falsifies the plea of the appellant – A-1 that he had extended pecuniary benefit to A-2 since the proposal for cash credit and bills purchase was pending with the above authority. 28. PW.37, the investigating officer, who investigated the case, has testified that his investigation had revealed that 39 inward clearing and 44 outward clearing cheques were dishonoured by the appellant –A-1 in spite of there being no sufficient balance in the accounts of the parties by debiting the amounts to local clearing account of his branch. That his investigation also revealed that he had done so in furtherance of the appellant - A-1’s conspiracy with A-2 to defraud the Bank. 29. To sum up, it is stated that the conduct of the appellant – A-1, althrough, has been dishonest and in abuse of his official power having accommodated pecuniary advantage to A-2 and A-3 and thereby caused wrongful loss to the Bank to a tune of about Rs.2.00 crore in spite of advise from the Central Office, Bangalore, not to make any commitment to the Bank with regard to proposals of cash credit and bills purchase, that he has committed the aforesaid dishonest acts in violation of the banking rules and instructions as already stated hereinabove. 30. That the case of the appellant – A-1 that he had acted bona fide in the interest of the Bank with a view to improve the business, cannot be a defence in any sense. 30. That the case of the appellant – A-1 that he had acted bona fide in the interest of the Bank with a view to improve the business, cannot be a defence in any sense. The implied contract between a banker and its customer is only in regard to the bank business transactions between them that take place according to banking rules and regulations and that the banking business transactions in question cannot be extended to that area as it is prohibited by the rules and regulations. 31. The learned Special Standing Counsel and Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in RUMI DHAR (SMT) v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER 2009(6) SCC 364 , BANI ARORA v. C.B.I. AND ANOTHER 2008 CrlLJ 2805 and also a decision of this Court in P.S. RAO v. STATE OF A.P. 1993 CRIMES 1-856 32. That the cases under Sections 120-B and 420 IPC are different and distinct and they are separate from the cases registered under the provisions of the PC Act. Therefore, the charges under Section 120-B read with Section 420 IPC has no relevance with the cases registered under the provisions of the PC Act. 33. 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. 34. Considering the rival contentions, the points that arise for consideration are: 1. Whether extending overdraft facility i.e. clearing 39 inward and 44 outward cheques total amounting to Rs.4,42,92,715/- without there being sufficient funds by the appellant – A-1 in favour of A-2 and A-3 is in violation of the regulations issued by the Reserve Bank of India from time to time and also the rules, circulars and procedures of the Bank? 2. Whether the action of the appellant - A-1 in extending overdraft facility to A-2 and A-3 amounts to criminal misconduct? 3.Whether the action of the appellant – A-1 in extending overdraft facility in favour of A-2 and A-3 amounts to causing wrongful gain to them and thereby, causing corresponding wrongful loss to the Bank? 4. Whether recovery of part of the amount absolve the appellant-A-1 from criminal liability? 5. 3.Whether the action of the appellant – A-1 in extending overdraft facility in favour of A-2 and A-3 amounts to causing wrongful gain to them and thereby, causing corresponding wrongful loss to the Bank? 4. Whether recovery of part of the amount 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 13(2) of PC Act ? POINT Nos.1 to 6: 35. It is to be observed that for want of sufficient evidence to prove the charges of criminal conspiracy and cheating against the appellant – A-1 and A-2 & A-3, the trial Court has rightly acquitted them of the said charges under Section 120-B read with 420 IPC. However, the trial Court having found sufficient evidence against the appellant – A-1 to prove the charge under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13 (2) of PC Act, found him guilty of the said offence under the said provision of law and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as has already been stated hereinabove. 36. It is to be seen that the appellant - A-1 being Branch Manager of the Bank facilitated overdraft facility i.e. clearing 39 inward and 44 outward cheques, to A-2 and A-3 and thereby extended pecuniary benefit to them to a tune of Rs.4,42,92,715/- and causing corresponding wrongful pecuniary loss to the Bank, inter alia, in violation of accepted norms. Therefore, it has go to be held that he has thereby rendered himself liable for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of PC Act. The plea of the appellant – A-1 that he has not acquired any monetary benefit in extending the overdraft facility to A-2 and A-3 cannot be accepted. 37. It is further to be seen that the appellant – A-1 has not only exceeded his official powers and financial limits, he has also violated the banking procedures, rules and regulations and thereby rendered himself liable for the same. 38. It is also further to be seen that the appellant – A-1 has disobeyed and also failed to implement and / or follow the instructions given by its controlling authority on the application forwarded seeking overdraft facility for A-2 and A-3. 38. It is also further to be seen that the appellant – A-1 has disobeyed and also failed to implement and / or follow the instructions given by its controlling authority on the application forwarded seeking overdraft facility for A-2 and A-3. That not only such application was rejected by its Head Office/controlling authority the appellant – A-1 was instructed in clear terms not to extend any overdraft facility to A-2 and A-3 and thereby he has rendered himself liable for such acts in extending the overdraft facility to A-2 and A-3 which resulted in corresponding wrongful loss to the Bank. Therefore, extending overdraft facility by the appellant – A-1 in favour of A-2 and A-3 in violation of the regulations issued by the Reserve Bank of India from time to time and also the instructions, circulars and procedures of the Bank, landed himself in a place stands clearly covered under the provisions of Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act causing wrongful gain to A-2 and A-3 and thereby causing corresponding wrongful loss to the Bank. Therefore, his plea that he has acted with a bona fide intention in extending the overdraft facility to A-2 and A-3 keeping the business interest of the Bank in mind is unworthy of acceptance. 39. Thus the acts of the appellant – A-1 in extending huge overdraft facility in favour of A-2 and A-3 i.e. clearing 39 inward and 44 outward cheques total amounting to Rs.4,42,92,715/- without there being sufficient funds and against the instructions and advise of its Head Office/controlling authority i.e. the Bank of Mysore, Central Zone, Bangalore not to make any commitment to the party (A-2 and A-3) with regard to the said proposal, clearly show the dishonest intentionof the appellant – A-1 in extending wrongful pecuniary advantage to A-2 and A-3 and thereby causing corresponding wrongful loss to the Bank by violating the circulars, rules 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 caused wrongful gain to A-2 and A-3 and corresponding wrongful loss to the Bank. Further, even recovery of part of the amount from A-2 and A-3 also would not absolve the appellant - A-1 from his criminal liability as held by the Hon’ble Supreme 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. 40. Lastly, it has got to be said that the man who tries to swim against the main stream must be prepared to face consequences. In the same fashion, appellant – A-1 must face the consequences of his wrongful and illegal acts, which render him clearly liable for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of PC Act. 41. 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 has been 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 only circumstantial evidence. 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 – A-1 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. 42. 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.8 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.