JUDGMENT : M.C. Garg, JJ. 1. All these appeals have been filed against the common judgment delivered on 25th January, 2004 in Sessions Trial No. 08/1994 by Special Judge, C.B.I. (Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988) and 6th A.S.J. Indore in which challans were filed separately based upon the investigation conducted by C.B.I. on R.C. No. 8 (A)/91-BPL and by which the accused Arun Khare, Prakash Nandedkar, Arvind Bhide, Pallavi Nandedkar, Ramesh Wankhede, Kaushal Ladia, Viney Majumdar, Murlidhar Demlani, Manohar Manglani and Girish Telang, were convicted under section 420 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years with fine of Rs. 1000/- each in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for three months each. All of them have also been convicted under section 120-B of IPC and sentenced to undergo one year R.I. with fine of Rs. 1000/- each; in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for three months each. Accused Arun Khare and Arvind Bhide were also convicted under sections 13(1)(D) read with section 13(2) of the P.C. Act and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year with fine of Rs. 1000/- each in default of payment of fine, to undergo R.I for three months. Details about the case number, appeal number, name of the accused persons who were involved, details of their conviction and sentence awarded to them are reproduced hereunder in the chart form:- Sr. No. Criminal Appeal No. S.T. No. Name of Accused/ appellants Conviction and Sentence Allegations 1 120/2006 08/1994 Arun Khare Branch Manager, Rambag Branch Indore of Bank of India for the period of 18.2.1988 to 197.1990 U/s 13 (2)(d) and 13(2) of P.C. Act R.I. for one year with fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo R.I. for three months on each count. U/s 420 of IPC to undergo R.I. for two years with fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for three months as well as U/s 120-B of IPC, one year R.I. with fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for three months Purchased nine cheques-50,000/- each 2. U/s 420 of IPC to undergo R.I. for two years with fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for three months as well as U/s 120-B of IPC, one year R.I. with fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for three months Purchased nine cheques-50,000/- each 2. 121/2006 -//- Prakash Nandedkar One of the Director of M/s Scholars Yard School, Indore U/s 420 of IPC to undergo R.I. for two years with fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for three months as well as u/s 120-B of IPC, one year R.I. with fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for three months Cheques were seized from his house and he admitted the liability vide letter P/68 dated 19.11.1990. The cheques were drawn in favour of Dinesh Sharma who is absconder, Pradeep Pallad who is being tried separately, Ramesh Wankhede and Koshal Ladia and infact, has entered into a compromise with the banks by also making payment 2. Investigation commenced after C.B.I. registered the FIR suo moto vide R.C. No. 8 (A)/ 91-BPL. The allegations made in the said FIR are as under: A credible information exists in these branch of C.B.I. Jabalpur to the following affect:- That Shri A.K. Khare, while functioning a branch manager, Bank of India, Rambag Branch, Indore, entered into criminal conspiracy with the Partners/Proprietors Associates and their relatives of the firm M/s. Sonex Construction Material Trading Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. Indore and other unknown persons/practices, during the period 1989-90, and in furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy Shri Khare fraudulently and dishonestly, purchased a huge number of bogus cheques unauthorisedly, drawn on 9 different parties of Indore of the said firm, aggregating Rs. 9 Lakhs (approx) beyond his delegated financial authority. It is alleged that all the said 9 different parties are interconnected with M/s. Sonex Construction Materials Trading Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. The bills so purchased by Shri Khare were returned unpaid by the drawee banks or were not sent for collection and are still outstanding. Many of the said cheques which returned unpaid were fraudulently handed over bank to the parties concerned and their already existing CD. Accounts and S.B. Accounts were debited to the tune of amount of the cheques i.e. Rs. Many of the said cheques which returned unpaid were fraudulently handed over bank to the parties concerned and their already existing CD. Accounts and S.B. Accounts were debited to the tune of amount of the cheques i.e. Rs. 9 lakhs, resulting in payment of heavy overdrafts as against no sanctioned limits in the aforesaid CD. Accounts and S.B. Accounts. Shri Khare, inspite of bad experience of return of cheques being unpaid, continued to purchase cheques from the aforesaid customers, who wee interconnected with each other and with M/s. Sonex Construction Materials Trading Company (Pvt.) Ltd. without safeguarding the interest of the bank. Shri Khare did not report the matter to the competent authority with mala-fide intention and fraudulently debited the said bogus cheques when returned unpaid, to their respective current deposit account resulting in heavy over-drawals from said account, whereas as per established rules the Branch Manager should have debited the "Returned Cheques to the General Ledger Account last due Bills Purchase Read." The customers were allowed full withdrawals against such cheques purchased by Shri Khare in connivance with the suspects mentioned above with the intention to cheat the Bank, dishonestly and fraudulently which gave rise to a probableless to more that Rs. 9 lakhs as the amount is still outstanding against those accounts and there is no likelihood of recoveries in these accounts as the firms are mostly fictitious in nature. The facts as stated above disclosed the commissions of offence punishable under section 120-B, 420, 461, 468 and 411 of IPC and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988. This Regular case, is therefore, registered and entrusted to Shri P. Baruah, Inspector, C.B.I. Jabalpur for investigation. 3. After completing the investigation, C.B.I. filed charge sheet against all the appellants. 4. This Regular case, is therefore, registered and entrusted to Shri P. Baruah, Inspector, C.B.I. Jabalpur for investigation. 3. After completing the investigation, C.B.I. filed charge sheet against all the appellants. 4. Case of the prosecution has been dealt in paragraph No. 4 of the impugned judgment, which reads as under: ^^4- vfHk;kstu dk i{k ;g gS fd vkjksih Ø-1 v:.k [kjs lu~ 1988 ls 1990 dh vof/k njE;ku cSad vkWQ bafM+;k dh jkeckx 'kk[kk esa 'kk[kk izca/kd FksA bl vof/k ds njE;ku cSad vkWQ egkjk"Vª dh cgjkiqj 'kk[kk esa vkjksih Ø-2 vjfoan fHkMs 'kk[kk izca/kd FksA vkjksih izdk'k ukansM+dj esllZ Ldkyj ;kMZ Ldwy bUnkSj dk Mk;jsDVj Fkk vkSj vkjksih iYYkoh mldh ifRu FkhA vkjksih fnus'k 'kekZ] vkjksih iznhi] vkjksih dkS'ky] vkjksih jes'k oku[ksM+s] vkjksih fxjh'k] rsayx mDr vkjksih izdk'k ukansM+dj ds ukSdj ,oa Ldkyj ;kMZ Ldwy ds deZpkjh FksA vkjksih euksgj eaxykuh] vkjksih fou; etwenkj] vkjksih eqjyh/kj Mseykuh ;g lHkh vkjksih izdk'k uknsM+dj ds ifjfpr ,oa nksLr FksA vkjksih fxjh'k rsyax Ldkyj Ldwy dk deZpkjh gksdj cSad ls lcaf/kr dk;Z djrk FkkA vkjksih vjfoan fHkM+s tks cgjkeiqj 'kk[kk izca/kd Fkk] og vkjksih iYyoh dk HkkbZ ,oa izdk'k ukansM+dj dk lkyk gSA mDr lHkh vkjksihx.k us feydj vkijkf/kd "kM;a= dh lajpuk cSad vkWQ bafM;k dh jkeckx 'kk[kk ds lkFk Ny dj vkfFkZd ykHk izkIr djus ds fy, dh FkhA bl vkijkf/kd "kM+;a= ds rgr vkjksih vjfoan fHkM+s us cSad vkWQ egkjk"Vª dh cgjkeiqj 'kk[kk esa vkjksih fnus'k dqekj 'kekZ] vkjksih iznhi] vkjksih dkS'ky ykfM+;k o jes'k oku[ksMs ds uke ls pkj cpr [kkrs Øe'k% [kkrk ua-206 ls 209 rd fcuk mfpr igpku ,oa i;kZIr ,oa i;kZIr dkj.k ds [kksys vkSj mlus mDr vkjksfi;ksa dks pkj pSd cqd tkjh dh] ftu lHkh pkj pSd cqd dks vkjksih dkS'ky ykfM+;k us fnukad 22-06-89 dks izkIr dj pSd cqd b'kq jftLVj esa gLrk{kj fd;sA vkjksih Ø-1 v:.k [kjs us vkjksih iYyoh] vkjksih euksgj] vkjksih fou;] vkjksih eqjyh/kjk o vU; ds uke ls [kkrk jkeckx 'kk[kk cSad vkWQ bafM;k esa o"kZ 1989 dh vof/k ds njE;ku [kksysA vkjksih fnus'k 'kekZ] vkjksih iznhi] vkjksih dkS'ky] vkjksih jes'k oku[ksM+s us 50&50 gtkj :i;s ds pSd vius cpr cSad [kkrs] tks cSad vkWQ egkjk"Vª dh cgjkeiqj 'kk[kk ds Fks] os vkjksih iYyoh] vkjksih euksgj] vkjksih fou;] vkjksih eqjyh/kj ,oa vU; ftuds cpr cSad ,oa pkyw tek [kkrs jkeckx 'kk[kk esa Fks] mUgs iznku fd;s] ftu [kkrksa dks jkeckx 'kk[kk esa vkjksih Ø-1 v:.k [kjs }kjk eSVsu fd;k tk jgk gSA vkjksih [kjs ;g tkurk Fkk fd [kkrk/kkjh] ftUgksaus mDr pSd iznku fd;s Fks] muds [kkrs esa jkf'k ugha Fkh vkSj tc ;g pSd Dyh;jsal ds fy;s Hksts tk;saxs rks vuknfjr gks tk;saxsA mlds ckotwn Hkh mUgksaus tkucw>dj vkjksih fnus'k 'kekZ] iznhi] dkS'ky o jes'k }kjk tkjh pSd dks vkjksih iYyoh] vkjksih euksgj] vkjksih fou; etwenkj] vkjksih eqjyh/kj ds jkeckx 'kk[kk ds [kkrs esa [kjhnus dh vuqefr iznku dhA mijksDr 9 pSd esa ls vkjksih Ø-1 us pkj pSd fn-24-06-89 dks vkSj 5 pSd fnukad 27-06-89 dks [kjhnsA mDr lHkh 9 pSd fnukad 24-06-89 dks vkSj 5 pSd fnukad 27-06-89 dks [kjhnsA mDr lHkh 9 pSd dks cSad vkWQ egkjk"Vª ls jkf'k Dyh;jasl ds fy;s Hksts tgka vkjksih Ø-1 us pkj pSd fn-24-06-89 dks vkSj 5 pSd fnukad 27-06-89 dks [kjhnsA mDr lHkh 9 pSd dks cSad vkWQ egkjk"Vª ls jkf'k Dyh;jsal ds fy;s Hksts tgka vkjksih Ø-2 'kk[kk izca/kd fHkM+s us bu lHkh pSd dks voS/k vkSj vukf/kd`r :i ls jksds j[kk rFkk ckn esa vn`'; dj fn;s] ftUgsa vuqla/kku ds nkSjku vkjksih izdk'k o mldh ifRu iYyoh ds fuokl LFkku ls vuqla/kkudrkZ }kjk [kkstk x;kA mDr 9 pSd ds ek/;e ls lk<+s pkj yk[k :i;s dh jkf'k vkjksihx.k }kjk izkIr dh xbZA oLrqr% lHkh pkjks cpr cSad [kkrs tks cSad vkWQ egkjk"Vª vkSj mldh ijLijkuwdwy lsfoax cSad ,aM ds'k fMikftV [kkrs cSad vkWQ bafM;k jkeckx 'kk[kk bUnkSj esa [kqyokus ds fy;s vkjksih izdk'k ukansM+dj us baLVwesaVy ds :i esa dk;Z fd;k rFkk blus csbZekuh rFkk diViwoZd lg vkjksfi;ksa ds gLrk{kj djokdj pSd izkIr fd;sA ftUgs vkjksih v:.k [kjs }kjk [kjhnk x;kA [kkrk [kkysus dk vkosnu i= fofHkUu is bu fLyi] foMªky okmpj@pSd dks vkjksih fxjh'k rsyax vkSj vkjksih izdk'k us rS;kj fd;s FksA izdk'k ukanM+sdj us fnukad 19-11-1990 dks cSad dks i= fy[kdj ;g Lohdkj fd;k Fkk fd cSad }kjk tks mDr lHkh laO;ogkj fd;s gS] os mlds ykHk ds fy;s fd;s x;s gSA 'kadjyky nqcs ds [kkrs esa tks pSd ipkl gtkj :i;s dk Ø; fd;k x;k Fkk] mldh jkf'k tek dj nh xbZ Fkh] ml jkf'k dks NksM+dj vkjksfi;ksa ds mijksDr d`R; ls cSad dks djhcu pkj yk[k :i;s ,oa vU; C;kt dh {kfr igqph tks vkjksfi;ksa us csbZekuh vkSj diV iwoZd cSad dks Ny djrs gq, igqpkabZA bl d`R; esa vkjksih Ø-1 [kjs o vkjksih Ø-2 vjfon fHkM+s dk Hkh egRoiw.kZ ;ksxnku Fkk] ftUgksus viuh inh; fLFkfr dks nq:i;ksx djrs gq, 'ks"k vkjksihx.k dks mDr vkfFkZd ykHk igqapk;kA** 5. It was the case of the prosecution that Arun Khare was posted as a Branch Manager of Bank of India, Rambagh Branch Indore during the period from 18.03.1988 to 02.07.1990 while Arvind Bhide functioned as a Branch Manager of Bank of Maharashtra, Behrampur Branch from 09.06.1989 to 02.07.1990. They have been prosecuted being public servant under section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act alongwith private persons in as much as Prakash Nandedkar, one of the co-accused was one of the Director of M/s. Scholars Yard School, Indore while Dinesh Sharma, Pradip Pullad, Kaushal Ladia, Ramesh Wankhede and Girish Telang were the employees of M/s. Scholars Yard School. Co-accused Manohar Mangalani, Vinay Majumdar and Murlidhar Demlani were the friends of Prakash Nandedkar. Smt. Pallavi Nandedkar was the wife of Prakash Nandedkar and sister of Arvind Bhide and as such, Arvind Bhilde is the brother-in-law of Prakash Nandedkar. Mr. Arun Khare is also acquainted with Prakash Nandedkar. One of the co-accused who was sent for prosecution namely Dinesh Sharma is still absconding while trial of the co-accused Pradeep Pallad has been separated since he was arrested subsequently. 6. It is also the case of the prosecution that all the accused persons conspired with each other to cheat Bank of India, Rambagh Branch and pursuant to said criminal conspiracy, Arvind Bhide who was the Branch Manager of Bank of Maharashtra, Branch Behrampur opened saving bank accounts of Dinesh Sharma, Pradeep Pallad, Kaushal Ladia and Ramesh Wankhede in his Branch being saving bank account Nos. from 206 to 209 and the cheques books of above accounts were handed over to Kaushal Ladia on 22.06.1989 and the same was acknowledged by Kaushal Ladia in cheque book issued register. 7. It is also the case of the prosecution that Arun Khare who was posted as Branch Manager in Bank of India, Rambagh Branch, Indore opened accounts of Smt. Pallavi Nandedkar, Manohar Manglani, Vinay Majumdar and Murlidhar Demlani. Further Dinesh Sharma, Pradeep Palland, Kaushal Ladia and Ramesh Wankhede issued nine cheques for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each from their account maintained by them with Bank of Maharashtra in favour of Smt. Pallavi Nandedkar, Manohar Manglani, Vinay Manjumdar and Murlidhar Demlani and the same were purchased by Arun Khare who was the Branch Manager of Bank of India without there being any money in their account. 50,000/- each from their account maintained by them with Bank of Maharashtra in favour of Smt. Pallavi Nandedkar, Manohar Manglani, Vinay Manjumdar and Murlidhar Demlani and the same were purchased by Arun Khare who was the Branch Manager of Bank of India without there being any money in their account. All these cheques were dishonoured on presentation when they were sent for collection. 8. Later on, despite cheque having been returned uncashed the cheques were not sent back to the manager of the bank from where cheques were drawn for enabling the said bank to take steps for recovery of certain dues which became accrued on account of encashment of those cheques through the bank with no intention to make the payment thereof. 9. It is further case of the prosecution that the appellant Girsh Telang was one of the employee of Prakash Nandedkar. The account opening forms, paying in slips and other vouches were prepared by the said appellants by entering into a conspiracy with the accused persons with intention to cheat the bank and in fact cheating the bank by causing wrongful loss upto Rs. 4.5 lacs. 10. During the course of investigation, prosecution collected documents and obtained sanction after recording the statement of various witnesses. Challan was filed wherein all the appellants were made as a party as accused and they all were sent for facing trial for the offences as mentioned above. All the appellants/accused denied the charges as leveled against them. Trial took place against them. The appellants examined DW-1 Janakraj Arora, DW-2 T.P. Pandey, DW-3 Trilokchand More, DW-4 Raju Trivedi. 11. The trial Judge after recording the statements of 17 witnesses on behalf of the prosecution and four defence witnesses on behalf of the accused persons, came to the conclusion that all the appellants Arun Khare, Prakash Nandedkar, Arvind Bhide, Pallavi Nandedkar, Ramesh Wankhede, Kaushal Ladia Viney Majumdar, Murlidhar Demlani, Manohar Manglani and Girish Telang, were guilty and committed the offence and thereby the trial Judge has convicted them under section 420 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for two years with fine of Rs. 1000/- each in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for three months each as well as under section 120-B of IPC, one year R.I. with fine of Rs. 1000/- each in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for three months each as well as under section 120-B of IPC, one year R.I. with fine of Rs. 1000/- each in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for three months each whereas accused Arun Khare and Arvind Bhide were also convicted under section 13(1)(D), 13(2) of the P.C. Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year with fine of Rs. 1000/- each in default of payment of tine, to undergo R.I. for three months. 12. The trial Court vide the impugned judgment had come to a conclusion that Arun Khare and Arvind Bhide were the public servants. They misused their positions and helped Mr. Prakash Nandedkar by opening bank accounts in violation of legal clauses and then purchasing their cheques drawn in favour of the accused persons who were all employees of Mr. Prakash Nandedkar, so as to help Prakash Nandedkar to the tune of Rs. 4.5 Lacs by purchasing nine cheques and in this manner, causing wrongful loss to the banks and wrongful gain to Prakash Nandedkar. Since Arvind Bhide is the brother of Pallavi Nandedkar and Arun Khare was acquaintance of Prakash Nandedkar and Pallavi Nandedkar. They were all part of the conspiracy to cheat the Banks. Sanctions were obtained for prosecution of Arun Khare and Arvind Bhide from the Competent Authority which stand proved vide Ex.87 and Ex.P/71 respectively. Since Arvind Bhide is the brother of Pallavi Nandedkar and Arun Khare was acquaintance of Prakash Nandedkar and Pallavi Nandedkar. They were all part of the conspiracy to cheat the Banks. Sanctions were obtained for prosecution of Arun Khare and Arvind Bhide from the Competent Authority which stand proved vide Ex.87 and Ex.P/71 respectively. Relevant discussion in this regard appears in para 8 and 9 of the impugned judgment, which are reproduced hereunder: ^^8- Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/k- 1988 dh /kkjk 2¼9½ esa yksd lsod dh ifjf/k esa tks O;fDr vkrs gS mudk mYys[k fd;k x;k gS vkSj mDr ifjHkk"kk ds rgr vkjksih Ø-1 o 2 tks dsUnzh; ljdkj ds miØe ;kfu mDr cSad esa lqlaxr le; esa dk;Zjr jgs gS os yksd lsod dh ifjf/k esa vkrs gSA vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 19 ds rgr dksbZ Hkh U;k;ky; yksd lsod ds fo:) l{ke izkf/kdkjh dh eatwjh ds fcuk mijk/k dk laKku ugh ys ldrkA vkjksih Ø-1 v:.k [ksjs ds fo:) vfHk;kstu lafLFkr djus dh Lohd`fr jatuk dqekj ¼ih-MCY;w-11½ }kjk iznku dh xbZ gS tks lu~ 1994 esa cSad vkWQ bafM+;k ds e/;izns'k tksu esa vkapfyd izc/kd ds in ij inLFk FkhA mUgksaus vius dFku esa Li"V :i ls crk;k gS fd vkjksih v:.k [kjs ds fo:) vfHk;kstu dh Lohd`fr iznku djus ls igys mUgksus vuqla/kku ds nkSjku ladfyr leLr nLrkostksa dk voyksdu dj fy;k FkkA vius efLr"d dk mi;ksx dj iw.kZ larq"V gksus ds ckn iz-ih-87 dh vfHk;kstu dh vuqefr muds }kjk iznku dh xbZ gSA Jhefr jatuk dqekj ¼ih-MCY;w-11½ us vius dFku }kjk iz-ih-87 ds Lohd`r vkns'k dks izekf.kr fd;k gSA mUgsa vkjksih ds fo:) vfHk;kstu lafLFkr djus dh Lohd`fr iznku djus dk vf/kdkj izkIr FkkA muds dFku ls ;g Li"V gS fd vkjksih dks mlds in ls gVkus dk mUgsa vf/kdkj izkIr gSA vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa vkjksih ds fo)ku vfHk- dk ;g rdZ Lohdkj ;ksX; ugha gS fd iz-ih-87 dh Lohd`fr fof/kor iznku ugh dh xbZ gSA 9- vkjksih Ø-2 vjfoan fHkMs+ tks cSad vkWQ egkjk"Vª dh cgjkeiqj 'kk[kk esa inLFk Fks] muds fo:) vfHk;kstu lafLFkr djus dh Lohd`fr dqyd.khZ ¼ih-MCY;w-5½ tks lu~ 1994 esa ps;jesu ,aM eSusaftx Mk;jsDVj cSad vkWQ egkjk"Vª ds Fks] muds }kjk iznku dh xbZA mUgksus vius dFku esa crk;k gS fd lhchvkbZ dh fjiksVZ vkSj muds lkFk izLrqr lEiw.kZ nLrkostksa dk voyksdu djus ds i'pkr mUgksus iz-ih- 71 dh Lohd`fr vkns'k iznku fd;k gSA muds dFku ;s lgh Hkh Li"V gS fd vkjksih vjfoan fHkMs dks lsok ls i`Fkd djus dk vf/kdkj mUgs viuh inh; fLFkfr ds dkj.k FkkA bl izdkj l{ke vf/kdkjh }kjk Lohd`fr iznku fd;k tkuk Li"V gSA bl lk{kh ds dwV ijh{k.k esa ,sls dksbZ rF; ugha vk;s gS] ftlls ;g ekuk tk lds fd Lohd`fr oS/kkfud ugha gSA vr% vkjksih ds fo}ku vfHk- dk ;g rdZ Lohdkj ;ksX; ugha gS fd Jh dqyd.khZ ¼ih-MCY;w-5½ us efLr"d dk mi;ksx fd;s fcuk mijksDr Lohd`fr vkns'k iz-ih- 71 dk iznku fd;k gSA** 13. Para Nos. 19, 20, 21 of the impugned judgment wherein role of each and every accused persons has been discussed are also relevant. Para Nos. 19, 20, 21 of the impugned judgment wherein role of each and every accused persons has been discussed are also relevant. The said paragraphs are reproduced hereunder: ^^19- vej dqekj ¼ih-MCY;w- 15½ us iz-ih- 312 dh fjiksVZ esa ;g mYys[k fd;k gS fd [kkrk Øekad 206 ls yxk;r 209 fnus'k] iznhi] dkS'ky] vkSj jes'k ds uke ls fnukad 20-06-89 dks 100@& :- tek djds [kksys x;s gSA bu lHkh [kkrks dks is&bu fLye vkjksih dkS'ky ykfM+;k }kjk gLrk{kfjr gSA [kkrk Øekad 206 o 207 ds [kkrsnkjksa dh igpku fdlh ds }kjk Hkh ugh dh xbZ gSA [kkrk Ø-208 o 209 esa igpku Loa; czkap eSustj }kjk dh xbZ gSA mijksDr ,dkmaV vksifux dkMZ dEiyhV ugh gSA flQZ ,dkmaV vksifux ua-206 ls 209 dh pkjks pSd cqd dkS'ky ykfM+;k dks fcuk fjDohth'ku fLyi ds iznku dj nh xbZ gSA bu pkjks [kkrksa esa fdlh izdkj dks dksbZ laO;ogkj ugha FkkA flQZ C;kt tksM+k x;k gSA ;g Hkh mYys[k fd;k gS fd jkeckx 'kk[kk ds 9 pSd tks mDr [kkrksa ls lacf/kr Fks Dyh;jsal ds fy;s fnukad 24-06-89 o 28-06-89 dks cgjkeiqj 'kk[kk esa izkIr gq, FksA =qfVo'k fjiksVZ esa lu~ 90 fy;k gSA ;g lk{kh us vius dFku esa crk;k gSA 6 ekg rd ;g psd vuisM jgs rFkk fnukad 03-07-90 dks cSad vkWQ bafM;k us lwfpr fd;k Fkk fd pSd dh jkf'k dk dksbZ ises.V izkIr ugha gqvk gS ftlls vkHkkflr gksrk gS fd mDr fnukad rd rks ;g psd jkeckx 'kk[kk dks izkIr gh ugh gq, Fks tcfd cgjkeiqj 'kk[kk us pSd ykSVkus dh ckr dgh vkSj jkeckx 'kk[kk us pSd u ykSVkus o yEcs le; rd mls jksds tkus lac/kh Li"Vhdj.k ekaxk mldk dksbZ larks"ktud mŸkj ugh fn;k x;kA bl lk{kh us viuh fjiksVZ esa ftu mijksDr rF;ksa dk mYys[k fd;k gS os rF; t;ar dfojkt ¼ih-MCY;w-7½ ds dFku ls Hkh izekf.kr gksrs gS] ftudk mYys[k iwoZ esa fd;k tk pqdk gSA blds vfrfjDr iz-ih-72 ls 79 rd ds nLrksostksa ls Hkh mDr ckr dh iqf"V gksrh gS \ 20- vfHk;kstulk{kh ta;ar dfojkt ¼ih-MCY;w-6½ izgykn ¼ih-MCY;w-7½ vej dqekj ¼ih-MCY;w-15½ ds dFku rFkk iz-ih- 72 yxk;r 79 ds mDr nLrkost tks [kkrk [kksyus ls lacf/kr gS] jftLVj iz-ih-80] bu lc ls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd [kkrk Øekad 206 ls yxk;r 209 tks cSad vkWaQ egkjk"Vª dh cgjkeiqj 'kk[kk esa vkjksih vjfoan fHkM+s }kjk [kksys x;s Fks vkSj ftudh fLYki vkjksih dkS'ky ykfM+;k }kjk Hkjh xbZ Fkh] ftu [kkrksa esa fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ laO;ogkj ek= 100@& :- tek djus ds vfrfjDr ugh gqvk FkkA ;g LkHkh [kkrs flQZ [kkrs flQZ blh mnns'; ls [kksys x;s Fks fd pSd jkeckx 'kk[kk ijpsl djs vkSj os pSd Dyh;jsal ds fy;s blh 'kk[kk es vk;s rks mls vukf/kd`r :i ls yEcs le; rd jksdk tk;s tcfd cSad ds fu;e vuqlkj ,sls pSd dks vfoyEc gh Hkstk tkuk pkfg,A iz-ih-39 cSad vkWQ bafM;k 'kk[kk jkeckx }kjk fy[kk i= tks osn izdk'k tks'kh ¼ih-MCY;w-4½ us fnukad 03-07-90 dks fy[kk Fkk vkSj mDr fookfnr 9 pSd dks izkIr u gksus laca/kh lwfpr fd;k FkkA iz-ih- 41 cgjkeiqj 'kk[kk us cSad vkWQ bafM;k dks Hkstk] ftu lHkh ls ;g nf'kZr gksrk gS fd mijksDr 9+ pSd fnukad 21-07-90 rd jkeckx 'kk[kk dks izkIr ugh gq, Fks vkSj yEcs le; rd bu pSd dks vkjksih vjfoan fHkM+s us D;ksa jksds j[kk] bl laca/kh dksbZ larks"ktud Li"Vhdj.k vkjksih vjfoan fHkM+s us ugh fn;k gSA vkjksih vjfoan fHkMs+ us cgjkeiqj 'kk[kk es mijksDr pkj [kkrksa dks [kksyrs le; tks vkSipkfjdrk;sa czkap eSaustj us ;kfu vjfoan fHkM+s us iwjh djuh pkfg;s Fkh os ugh dh xbZA lkjs vksifuax is bu fLyi vkjksih dkS'ky ykfM+;k }kjk Hkjk tkuk Hkh bl ckr dks n'kkZrk gS fd mlh us vkdj ;s lc [kkrs bl cSad esa [kksys gSA bu [kkrksa ds tks 9 pSd jkeckx 'kk[kk es ijpsl fd;s x;s Fks vkSj Dyh;jsal ds fy;s cgjkeiqj 'kk[kk esa Hksts x;s Fks mUgsa vkjksih vjfoan fHkM+s us yEcs le; rd jksds j[kk] tcfd bl rjg vuknfjr psd dks jksds j[ks tkus dh dksbZ izfØ;k cSad esa ugh gSA bu pkj vkjksih fnus'k] iznhi] dkS'ky o jes'k us cgjkeiqj 'kk[kk tks bUnkSj ls djhcu 100 fd-eh- nwjh ij gS rFkk NksVs dLcs dh 'kk[kk gS] ogka tkdj ;g ,dkmaV [kksys x;s] bldk dksbZ dkj.k fdlh Hkh vkjksih ugh crk;k gSA bUnkSj ls bruh nwjh tkdj [kkrk [kksyus dk fdlh Hkh izdkj dk dksbZ vkSfpR; nf'kZr ugha gksrk gSA bu pkjksa dk cgjkeiqj esa fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ O;olkf;d lEidZ Fkk ,slk Hkh dgh nf'kZr ugha gksrk gS tks rF; bu lHkh ds vkijkf/kd "kM+;a= esa 'kkfey gksus dh vksj bafxr djrs gSA 21- vkjksih dkS'ky ykfM+;k ds laca/k esa vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh eqjyh/kj ¼ih-MCY;w-13½ us vius dFku ds pj.k Øekad 29 esa ;g crk;k fd dkS'ky ykfM+;k izdk'k ukansM+dj dk ,EiykbZ Fkk Loa; vkjksih dkS'ky ykfM+;k us Hkh vkjksih ijh{k.k ds pj.k Øaekd 82 esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd cgjkeiqj 'kk[kk ds mijksDr pkjksa [kkrksa ds pSd cqd mls izkIr gqbZ FkhA mlus vius ijh{k.k esa ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd og vkjksih izdk'k ds ;gk ukSdjh es FkkA mDr vkjksih izdk'k vkjksih fHkMs+ dk thtk gS blh vkjksih vjfoan fHkM+s us dkS'ky dh igpku mlds }kjk [kkrk [kksyrs le; dhA vr% ;g Li"V izrhr gksrk gS fd vkjksih vjfoan fHkM+s us vkjksih dkS'ky ykfM+;k dh igpku blh otg ls dh Fkh fd vkjksih izdk'k dk ukSdj gS vkSj mls gh pkjks pSd cqd fcuk fdlh fyf[kr vf/kdkj ds iznku dhA** 14. In Para No. 22 of the impugned judgment, role of Mr. Arvind Bhide has been discussed, which reads as under: ^^;gka ;g dFku Hkh egRoiw.kZ gSA vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh eqjyh/kj ¼ihŒMCY;wŒ 13½ us vkjksih dkS'ky ds uewuk gLrk{kj ,lŒ 1 ls ,lŒ ¼ÁŒihŒ 119 ls ÁŒihŒ 134½ rFkk ,lŒ 755 ls ,lŒ 795 ¼ÁŒihŒ 302 ls ÁŒihŒ 304½ vuqla/kku ds njE;ku ÁkIr fd;s FksA ftl rF; dks dksbZ [kaMu cpko lk{; ls ugha gksrk gSA gLrk{kj fo'ks"kK vkuan Lo:i xqIrk ¼ihŒMCY;wŒ 14½ us vkjksih dkS'ky ds mDr uewuk gLrk{kjksa ls fookfnr nLrkostksa ij mldh fy[kkoV o gLrk{kj ds feyku ij viuk er nsrs gq, ÁŒihŒ 272 o ÁŒihŒ 274 dh fjiksVZ nh gS] ftl ij muds gLrk{kj gSA bl fjiksVZ dks mUgksaus vius dFku }kjk Áekf.kr fd;k gSA bl fjiksVZ esa mUgksaus bl vkjksih ds lkFk gh vU; vkjksfi;ksa ds gLrk{kjksa dh rqyuk djrs gq, viuk er O;Dr fd;k gSA** 15. Para-27 of the impugned judgment is also relevant which deals with the role of Arvind Bhide in keeping the dishonored cheques with himself thereby keeping the concerned bank in dark only to help Prakash Nandedkar. Para-27 of the impugned judgment is also relevant which deals with the role of Arvind Bhide in keeping the dishonored cheques with himself thereby keeping the concerned bank in dark only to help Prakash Nandedkar. The said paragraph is reproduced hereunder: ^^27- tSlk fd mijksDr lk{; dh foospuk ls Li"V gS fd vkjksih vjfoan fHkM+s us 9 pSd tks cgjkeiqj 'kk[kk esa Dyh;jsal ds fy;s vk;s Fks vkSj vuknfjr gq, Fks] mUgksus vuko';d gh vius ikl jksds j[kk] ;kfu jkeckx 'kk[kk dks ugh HkstkA vkjksih ds fo}ku vfHk- dk ;g rdZ gS fd mijksDr 9 pSd vkjksih vjfoan fHkMs us iathd`r Mkd ls jkeckx 'kk[kk dks Hkst fn;s Fks vkSj mDr rF; dh iqf"V cpko lk{kh f=yksdpan ekS;Z ¼ih-MCY;w-3½ ds dFku rFkk iz-Mh-4 dh jlhn vkSj mldh izfof"V cSad ds jftLVj esa gksus ls lacf/kr rF; ls gksrh gSA vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh us mijksDr 9 pSd dh izkfIr vkjksih izdk'k ukansM+dj ds ?kj ls tks gksuk crkbZ gS] og fcYdqy gh cukoVh gSA flQZ vkjksih izdk'k o vkjksih vjfoan fHkM+s dks vkfyIr djus dh n`f"V ls vlR; fjdojh cukbZ xbZ gSA tcfd vfHk;kstu dh vksj ls fo'ks"k yksd vfHk;kstd us rdZ fn;k fd ;g 9 pSd jkeckx 'kk[kk esa ik;s gh ugh x;s Fks] cfYd vuql/kaaku ds nkSjku tc vkjksih izdk'k ds ?kj dh ryk'kh yh xbZ rc ;g pSd izdk'k ds ?kj ls ik;s x;sA iz-Mh-4 dh tks jftLVMZ ,-Mh- ds vk/kkj ij gh ,slk ekU; ugh fd;k tk ldrk fd mijksDr pSd jkeckx 'kk[kk dks okil fd;s x;s Fks cfYd tks lp gqbZ] mlls ;g izekf.kr gksrk gS fd mDr pSd vkjksih izdk'k ds /kj ls gh cjken gq, gSA** 16. During the pendency of trial itself, Pallavi Nandedkar settled the matter with the Bank and the cheque amount along with interest and expenses were deposited by her with the bank and thereby compromised the matter with the bank. In fact the Bank compromised with all the persons in whose favour the cheques were issued and who deposited the accrued amount along with interest and expenses during the trial. It is submitted that no amount is outstanding in the said accounts. In this regard, they also relied upon the disposition of defence witnesses cited by them. Statement of the defence witnesses relied upon by the appellants is relevant in this regard. On that basis, learned Senior Counsel Mr. It is submitted that no amount is outstanding in the said accounts. In this regard, they also relied upon the disposition of defence witnesses cited by them. Statement of the defence witnesses relied upon by the appellants is relevant in this regard. On that basis, learned Senior Counsel Mr. P.K. Saxena, appearing for the appellants has submitted that in view of the compromise reached between them and the banks in question, the appellants are entitled to get benefit of section 320 of Cr.P.C. in so far as offence under section 420 of IPC is concerned, reference has been made to judgment delivered in the case of C.B.I. vs. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. 1996 Cr. L.J. 3501 in which the accused persons were obtained a cash credit facility up to the tune of Rs. 17.50 crores from the United Bank of India. Since the matter was compromised between the parties and civil suit was settled, criminal proceedings were quashed by the Apex Court Para-29 of the said judgment is relevant which is reproduced as under: In the facts of the case, it appears to us that there is enough justification for the High Court to hold that the case was basically a matter of Civil Dispute. The banks had already filed suits for recovery of the dues of the Banks on account of credit facility and the said suits have been compromised on receiving the payment from the concerned companies. Even if an offence of cheating is prima facie constituted, such offence is a compoundable offence and compromise decree passed in the suits instituted by the Banks, for all intents and purpose, amount to compounding of the offence of cheating. 17. And as such, on behalf of the appellants Mr. Arun Khare and Arvind Bhide, it has also been pleaded that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges of conspiracy against them and as such, they are also entitled to acquittal. They also prayed that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge of conspiracy between them and accused Arvind and Arun, therefore, they are entitled to be acquitted even with respect to the charge of conspiracy under section 120-B of the IPC. 18. They also prayed that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge of conspiracy between them and accused Arvind and Arun, therefore, they are entitled to be acquitted even with respect to the charge of conspiracy under section 120-B of the IPC. 18. Application for the compromise was opposed on behalf of the respondents who submitted that even if offence under section 420 of IPC is compoundable, the offence under section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act was not compoundable. They have also stated that even the trial court rejected the application for compromise mentioning that on the basis of compromise, it could not be inferred that bank was not cheated therefore, the accused could not be absolved from the criminal liabilities. In this regard, the trial Court has further observed that it was certainly a case of conspiracy and the plea of compromise, if accepted in all cases of cheating after the amount of cheated is refunded to the aggrieved persons after detection of cheating is accepted, would set up bad fascinate and perpetrator of such cheating would take benefit by refunding the amount of cheating and would absolve of offence which cannot be permitted. 19. It is further submitted that Prakash Nandedkar, the ultimate beneficiary played pivotal role in criminal conspiracy in collusion with the Bank officers Mr. A.K. Khare who was the Branch Manager of Bank of India and his brother-in-law Mr. Arvind Bhide who was the Branch Manager of Bank of Maharashtra and other private persons. The chain of facts and circumstances have categorically proved that there were clinching evidences of dishonest intention of accused persons since inception for obtaining pecuniary advantages by way of cheating. It is submitted that it was not a case of civil nature, but was a criminal case. It is also submitted that the judgment of Apex Court in the matter of C.B.I. vs. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. (supra) being altogether a different case, is not applicable in the instant case. More so because the appellants have already been convicted and it is not a case where the case is pending. 20. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that at the most, it was a case of irregularity in following banking practices. It has been submitted that it was not a case of criminal conspiracy so as to cheat the banks. More so because the appellants have already been convicted and it is not a case where the case is pending. 20. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that at the most, it was a case of irregularity in following banking practices. It has been submitted that it was not a case of criminal conspiracy so as to cheat the banks. In any case, banks having entered into compromise and having accepted various amount in full and final settlement and having withdrawn civil suit filed by them, they have no grievances against the appellant. This aspect ought to have considered by this Court while deciding this appeal. It is also submitted that in this circumstances, considering the age of litigation as well as age of the appellants/accused who in fact have not received any undue benefit and have compensated the banks in terms of the compromise, the appellants deserves to be acquitted in exercising the powers vested under section 320 of Cr.P.C. read with section 482 of Cr.P.C. 21. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/C.B.I. submitted that in this case, the trial Court has held that it was a case of conspiracy wherein, accounts were opened in illegal manner and cheques were purchased without following the proper procedure and obtaining sanction from the superior authority and in this manner, while cheating the bank on one hand, benefit was confirmed on Prakash Nandedkar. The evidence which has come on record is cogent and as such, the judgment of the trial Court does not call for any interference in this appeal. They have also relied upon the some judgments which are as under: C.B.I. vs. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. AIR 1996 SC 2452 , Mir Naqvi Askari vs. C.B.I. (2009) 15 SCC 643 , Sudhir Shantilal Mehta vs. C.B.I. (2009) 11 SCC 737 and R. Venkatkrishanan vs. C.B.I. AIR 1996 SC 2452 . 22. We have given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and have gone to the records as well as the impugned Judgment at bar. 23. It is apparent that on account of relationship between Mrs. 22. We have given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and have gone to the records as well as the impugned Judgment at bar. 23. It is apparent that on account of relationship between Mrs. Pallavi Nandedkar W/o Prakash with Arun Khare, four accounts were opened in Behrampur Branch of Bank of Maharashtra in the name of Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Pradeep, Koshal Ladiya and Ramesh Wankhede without any identification in irregular manner and who were also issued cheque books contrary to the procedure required for issuing of cheque books, who issued nine cheques from those accounts for sum of Rs. 50,000/- each in favour of Pallavi, Manohar Manglani, Vinay Majumdar and Murlidhar Demlani and that cheques were purchased by Arun Khare who was the Branch Manager of Bank of India. Those cheques were late on dishonoured after sending for its collection. However, Arun Khare the then Branch Manager had powers to purchase cheques upto Rs. 30,000/- only, but he had exceeded his limit by purchasing cheques of Rs. 50,000/- each and he did not took efforts for realization of the cheques. Apart from these, he did not inform about above transaction to his superior and also did not obtain any consent for purchasing the cheques. 24. Thus, it is very clear that in this case, benefit has been confirmed on Prakash Nandedkar in conspiracy with each other. As far as the appellants Arun Khare and Arvind Bhide are concerned, they helped in opening accounts without following banking practices, in as much as accounts were opened and cheques were purchased by active connivance of Mr. Arun Khare and Mr. Arvind Bhide so as to benefit Prakash Nandedkar, whose wife was the sister of Arvind Bhide and both of them were acquaintance with Prakash Nandedkar. It is however, collected that the amounts has come back to the bank in view of the compromise reached between the banks in question and the appellants. 25. Charges of prosecution stands proved by the witnesses, in as much as PW-1 Arvind Sardesai who was the Regional Manager of Bank of India has deposed about purchase of cheques. Ramesh Patel PW-2 who was Branch Manager of Ramgarh Branch of Bank of India has deposed about opening of accounts. PW-3 Suresh Shankar Joshi who is Zonal Manager of Bank of India has deposed about purchase of cheque. Same is the deposition of PW-4 V.P. Joshi. Ramesh Patel PW-2 who was Branch Manager of Ramgarh Branch of Bank of India has deposed about opening of accounts. PW-3 Suresh Shankar Joshi who is Zonal Manager of Bank of India has deposed about purchase of cheque. Same is the deposition of PW-4 V.P. Joshi. F.B. Kulkarni PW-5 has proved the sanction with respect to prosecution of A.K. Bhide from Bank of Maharashtra. Jayant Kauivaj PW-6 has deposed about procedure and to the same effect is the testimony of PW-7 Prahladsingh. Both Jayant and Prahladsingh are from Beharampur Branch of Bank of Maharashtra. Shankarlal Dubey is one of the witness who appeared as PW-8 and from his account also cheque was purchased. Mahaveer Kasliwal PW-9 who is Assistant Manager of Bank of India and in fact a formal witness. PW-10 Smt. Kumud is the mother of Smt. Pallavi Nadedkar. PW-11 Ranjana Kumar has proved sanction of A.K. Khare. PW-12 H.N. Unhale is the punch witness regarding search of house of Prakash Nandedkar. PW-13 K. Murlidharan is the investigating officer while PW-14 Nand Swaroop Gupta is the hand writing expert. PW-15 Amar Kumar Sahai who is regional manager of Bank of Maharashtra, conducted enquiry. F.B. Karan PW-17 is part investigating officer. 26. To understand the conspiracy, we can refer to the statement of Shankaralal Dubey who is PW-8. Before his statement, it may be observed that it is not disputed by the appellants that Arun Khare was the brother of Pallavi Nandedkar who is the wife of Prakash Nandedkar. Now coming to the statement of PW-8 Shankarlal Dubey, we can make a reference to paragraph nos. Before his statement, it may be observed that it is not disputed by the appellants that Arun Khare was the brother of Pallavi Nandedkar who is the wife of Prakash Nandedkar. Now coming to the statement of PW-8 Shankarlal Dubey, we can make a reference to paragraph nos. 2 to 7 which read as under: ^^2- eS vkjksih izdk'k ukansM+dj dks tkurk gw] og gekjs eksgYys esa gh jgrs Fks] pkj edku NksM+djA eS vkjksih izdk'k ukansM+dj dks cpiu ls gh tkurk gwaA eS mldh ifRu iYyoh ukansMdj dks tkurk gwaA og vkt U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr gSA esjk edku cSad vkWQ baf.M;k dh jkeckx 'kk[kk ds lkeus gh gSA 3- cSad vkWQ bf.M;k dh jkeckx 'kk[kk esa ,-ds- [kjs 'kk[kk izca/kd FksA izdk'k ukansM+dj] iYyoh ukansM+dj] czkap eSustj ls vDlj feyk djrs FksA izn'kZ ih@36 dks ipkl gtkj :i;s dk pSd] tks eq>s vkt crk;k x;k] eSus cSad esa tek ugha fd;kA eSa cSad esa [kM+k Fkk] rc izdk'k ukansM+dj ftlds lkFk rsyxa uke dk yM+dk Fkk vkSj czkUp eSusatj Jh [kjs lkgc Fks] mUgksus eq>ls dgk fd vkids [kkrs esa ipkl gtkj :i;s dk pSd Mky jgs gS] vkSj tek gks tk;sxk] rc ge fudky ysaxsA bl ij eSus vkifŸk dh fd eq>s bl >a>V esa er Mkyks] rc izdk'k ukansMdj us dgk fd vkidks dksbZ ugh gksxk] eSustj lkgc ls Hkh dgk fd rqe ij dksbZ vkifŸk ugha vk;sxhA vkSj mUgksus eq>ls nks foMªky ij gLrk{kj ys fy;s vkSj cksyk fd tc iSlk tek gks tk;sxk rc ge fudky ysxsa] ftl le; eSus foMªky ij gLrk- fd;s og dksjs FksA 4- izn'kZ ih@84 ,oa ih@85 ds foMªkoy QkeZ ij , ls , esjs gLrk- gS rFkk blds i`"B Hkkx ij Hkh ch ls ch Hkkx ij esjs gLrk- gSA eSus foMªkoy QkeZ esa n'kkZbZ jkf'k ugha fudkyhA pwafd vkjksih izdk'k esjs eksgYys dk jgus okyk Fkk] blfy;s fo'okl es ysdj gLrk- ds fy;sA tc rd [kjs lkgc czkUp eSuspj jgs] rc rd eq>s ugha cqyk;k x;kA 5- tc czkUp esa u;s czkUp eSusatj tks'kh vk;s] rc eq>s cqyk;k vkSj dgk fd vkids vdkmaV esa ipkl gtkj :i;s ckdh gSA eSus dgk fd eq>s ugha ekyweA rc mUgksus dgk fd vkius pSd fn;s Fks] vkSj foMªky QkeZ ij gLrk- djok;s FksA blds ckn esa jhtuy vkWfQl esa [kjs ls feyus ds fy;s x;k Fkk vkSj cksyk fd eq>s D;ks Qalk fn;k] rks mUgksaus dgk fd fpark djus dh dksbZ ckr ugha gS izdk'k iSls Hkj nsxk] rks eS izdk'k ukansM+dj ds ikl x;kA eSus mlls dgk fd iSls Hkjks] rks mUgksus dgk eS iSls Hkjrk gwaA rks mUgksus VqdM+s&2 esa esjs [kkrs es iSls Hkjs] fxjh'k rsyax Hkh Fkk tks muds ;gka ij lfoZl djrk FkkA mlls iSls Hkjok;s FksA 6- izdk'k ukansM+dj dk Ldkyj ;kMZ uked Ldwy gSA eSa fdlh iznhi dksYgkj dks ugha tkurk gwaA eSusa mlls dHkh dksbZ pSd oxSjg ugha fy;kA 7- izdk'k ukansM+dj cpiu ls 'kknh gksus rd rsjs lkFk esjs eksgYys frydiFk jkeckx es jgrs FksA eS d{kk 8oh rd i<+k gwaA esjh eSustj vkSj izdk'k ukansM+dj ifjokj ls dksbZ nksLrh ugh Fkh] igpku FkhA esjh dsoy eksgYys jgus ds ukrs dsoy nqvk lyke rd tku igpku FkhA** 27. It may be observed here that this witness Shankarlal was also one of the person who also issued cheque in favour of the Prakash Nandedkar which was purchased in similar manner, though he has not been made an accused in this case, but his deposition speaks about relationship between branch manager Mr. Arun Khare and Prakash Nandedkar. He also states that Prakash Nandedkar was running school namely Scholar Yard School and for whose benefits, all cheques were purchased. Paragraph-8 of his cross-examination is also relevant which says that money which was withdrawn by way of purchase of cheque was deposited by Nandedkar and because of that, Shankarlal had not made the complaint. Para-8 is also relevant which is reproduced hereunder: ^^8- ;fn eq>s ekywe u iM ik;s fd esjs [kkrs esa ls dksbZ iSlk fudky jgk gS] rks eS mldh f'kdk;r iqfyl eSa D;ksa d:axkA ;fn eq>s ekywe iM+ tkrk rks] eS f'kdk;r djrkA u;s eSusatj Jh tks'kh ds }kjk cqyk;s tkus ds ckn Hkh eSusa f'kdk;r ugh dhA ;fn ukansM+dj ifjokj esjs [kkrs esa jkf'k tek ugh djrk rks eS iqfyl esa f'kdk;r djrkA ,slh dksbZ fLyi esjs ikl ugha gS] ftlls ;g fofnr gks fd eSus esjs [kkrs esa izdk'k ukansM+dj us esjs [kkrs esa fdrus iSls tek djk;sA ;g dguk lgh ugh gS fd eq>s ;g ugh ekywe fd esjs [kkrs esa iSls fdlus tek djk;sA** 28. Relationship between other appellants and Prakash Nandedkar is also proved in the light of the deposition of the statement of H.N. Unhale PW-12 who was the search witness at the time when C.B.I. searched the house of Prakash Nandedkar, List prepared in 13 pages is Ex.-P/88. In that search list, there is reference of the cheques which were purchased and returned uncashed but found in the house of Prakash Nandedkar probably because he had some connection with the transaction. The cheque so recovered are Ex-P/22, Ex.P/24, Ex.P/26, Ex.P/28, Ex.P/30, Ex.P/32, Ex.P/34, Ex.P/36, Ex.P/38. In that search list, there is reference of the cheques which were purchased and returned uncashed but found in the house of Prakash Nandedkar probably because he had some connection with the transaction. The cheque so recovered are Ex-P/22, Ex.P/24, Ex.P/26, Ex.P/28, Ex.P/30, Ex.P/32, Ex.P/34, Ex.P/36, Ex.P/38. It is true that there is some lacuna in the evidence of this witness in as much as in the cross-examination in para-11 and 12, he submits that: ^^11- ih@88 ds igys ist ij esjs gLrk{kj ugh gSA vkSj fdlh ryk'kh ny ds vU; fdlh lnL; ds gLrk- igys ist ij ugh gSA eSus ih@88 ds ist uacj 2 ls 13 rd ds i`"Bks esa i<+us ds ckn gh gLrk- fd;s FksA eSus ist uacj 2 i<+k FkkA i`"B 2 ij , ls , dk tks uksV yxk gS] mls esjs gLrk- djus ds igys i<+k Fkk ;k ugh /;ku ugh vk jgk gSA ;g dguk xyr gS fd tks nLrkost ij esjs gLrk- djuk jg x;s gS] blfy;s eSus , ls , dh ckr ij viuh vKkurk crk jgk gwaA ;g dguk xyr gS fd lh ls lh Hkkx ij ;g fy[kk gS fd vkjksih ds gLrk{kj ysuk jg x;s gS] blfy;s eS mldh vKkurk crk jgk gwaA 12- ;g ckr fuf'pr gS fd ftrus Hkh nLrkost ogka ij tCr gq;s] mues ls fdlh ij Hkh esjs gLrk- ugha fd;sA eq>s ugh ekywe gS fd ftu tCr gq;s nLrkostksa ij ryk'kh ny ds izR;sd lnL; us gLrk- fd;s Fks] ;k ughA ryk'kh ny ds vU; lnL; Fks] mUgksusa Hkh ih@88 isst uacj 2 ij gLRkk- fd;s FksA tCr nLrkostksa ij uhyh L;kgh ls uacj ryk'kh ny ds fdl lnL; us fy[ks Fks] ;kn ughA mDr uacj Mkyus okys dh fy[kkoV ls eSa ryk'kh fy;s tkus ds fnukad ls ifjfpr ugh FkkA tks ukS pSd tCr gksuk crk;s x;s gS] og mlh ryk'kh es tCr gq;s] ;g ckr eSa mu pSdks es Mys gq;s uhyh L;kgh ls lhfj;y uacj vkSj bosuVjh esa fy[ks uacj mYys[k gksus ds vk/kkj ij crk jgk gwA fdrus pSd tCr g;s Fks] eSa vankt ls ugh crk ldrk gwaA** 29. PW-1 has proved the case of the prosecution to the extent that from Bank of India where various accounts were opened and cheques were purchased. PW-1 has proved the case of the prosecution to the extent that from Bank of India where various accounts were opened and cheques were purchased. Paragraph 3, 4, 5 of his deposition is relevant which is reproduced as under: ^^3- mDr 'kk[kk esa 'kadj ;knojko nqcs] fot;dqekj 'kadj fprys] eqjyh/kj ckypan nsoykuh] fou; ,eŒ etwenkj ds uke cpr [kkrs esa [kksys x;sA ,slk eSa esjs lkeus j[ks x;s] [kkrk [kksyus ds QkeZ ij ls dg jgk gawA mDr 'kk[kk [kksyus dh dk;Zokgh Hkh esjs lkeus ugha gqbZ gSA Åij esjs dFku esa tks djsaV [kkrk vdkmaV o cpr [kkrk vdkamV crk;s x;s gS] muesa rRdkyhu 'kk[kk Áca/kd Jh v:.k [kjs }kjk pSd ijpsl _.k lqfo/kk nh xbZA 4- rRdkyhu 'kk[kk Áca/kd Jh v:.k [kjs ds }kjk fot; fprys dks 50 gtkj] fnukad 24-06-1989 lquank fprys dks 50 gtkj] fnukad 27-06-1989 'kadj nqcs dks 50 gtkj] fnukad 24-06-1989] Jherh iYyoh ukansM+dj 50 gtkj :i;s] fnukad 27-06-1989] 'kaHkwyky oekZ dkUVªsDVj dks 50 gtkj :i;s] fnukad 27-06-1989] Jherh iyYoh ukansM+dj 50 gtkj :i;s] fnukad 24-06-1989] fou; etwenkj dks 50 gtkj :i;s] fnukad 27-06-1989] e/kq ,Eczk;Mjh oDlZ ÁkbZosV fyfeVsM 50 gtkj :i;s] fnukad 24-06-1989] eqjyh/kj nsoykuh] dks 50 gtkj :i;s] fnukad 27-06-1989 dks dksbZ pSd ijpsl lqfo/kk nh xbZA Jh v:.k [kjs }kjk mijksDr O;fDr;ksa dks tks pSd ijpsl djus dh lqfo/kk nh xbZ] og muds vf/kdkj {ks= ds ckgj Fkh] ,slk djus dk mudks dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha FkkA blds vykok mUgksaus mDr _.k lqfo/kk Ánku djus esa cSad ds fgrksa ds fy;s lkfE;d lko/kkuh o lrZdrk ugha cjrh gS vkSj u gh mudh ln~Hkkouk gh jgh gSA mijksDr _.kksa tSlh lqfo/kk nsus ls igys 'kk[kk Áca/kd dks ;g tkudkjh ysuh pkfg;s fd ftl O;fDr dks _.k lqfo/kk nh tk jgh gS] mldh iwoZ esa vU; fdlh cSad ds lkFk jgs] leO;ogkj dh lk[k dh fLFkfr D;k jgh gS rFkk ekfdZV esa lk[k dSlh gSA blds vykok ftl O;fDr;ksa dks _.k lqfo/kk nh tk;s mlds igys mldh foRrh; fLFkfr ftlls ;g larqf"V gks lds fd mldh vkfFkZd fLFkfr D;k gS] ds ckjs esa Hkh lraqf"V dh tkuk pkfg;sA 5- cSad vkWQ bafM;k dh jkeckx 'kk[kk esa tks 9 pSd 50&50 gtkj ds rRdkyhu eSustj Jh ,ŒdsŒ [kjs }kjk ijpsl fd;s x;s Fks mldh lwpuk {ks=h; dk;kZy; bankSj dks ugha nh xbZ FkhA Jh ,ŒdsŒ [kjs Ldsy Vw Lrj ds eSustj Fks vkSj mUgsa 50 gtkj :i;s ds pSDl ijpsl djus dk vf/kdkj ugha FkkA fo'ks"k ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa cSad ds fu;eksa ds vuqlkj bl Lrj ds 'kk[kk Áca/kd dks O;fDrxr [kkrs esa nl gtkj :i;s vkSj dkiksZjsV [kkrs esa 30 gtkj :i;s ds pSd ijpsl djus ds vf/kdkj Fks vkSj ;g pSd ijpsl vkdfLed vko';drk ds vuqlkj [kjhns tk ldrs FksA fdUrq ,slh lqfo/kk nsus ds fy;s fu;ekuqlkj cSad dh leLr vkSipkfjdrk,a iwjh djuk vko';d gSaA lcls igys ftl [kkrsnkj ds [kkrs esa ,slk pSd ijpsl fd;k tk jgk gks mldh vkfFkZd lqn`<+rk ds ckjs esa fjiksVZ cqykuk pkfg;s rFkk mldh lk[k rFkk iqu% Hkqxrku djus dh fLFkfr ds ckjs esa Hkh fjiksVZ ysuk pkfg;sA ftl mn~ns'; ds fy;s pSd ijpsl fd;k tk jgk gS mldks fuf'pr fd;k tkuk pkfg;s fd og fdl mn~ns'; ds fy;s fy;k x;k gS vkSj bl laca/k esa [kkrsnkj dk vkosnu Hkh ysuk vko';d gksrk gSA bl rjg dh lqfo/kk nsus fy;s i;kZIr tekur vkSj flD;wfjVht ds isij ysuk vko';d gksrs gSaA ;g lc vkSipkfjdrk,a bl Ádkj ls lacaf/kr ukS pSdksa dks ijpsl fd;s tkus esa iwjh ugha dh xbZA** In cross-examination, this witness has also stated that: ^^6- 'kk[kk Áca/kd }kjk bu ukS pSdksa ls lacaf/kr jkf'k okilh ds fy;s dksbZ Á;kl ugha fd;s x;s vkSj os lkjs ds lkjs ukS pSDl] cSad vkWQ bafM;k dh jkeckx 'kk[kk esa ugha ik;s x;s vkSj bl ekeys dks jhtuy vkfQl dks fjiksVZ ugha fd;k x;kA** 30. Statement of one Suresh Joshi is also relevant who appeared as PW-3. He was working as regional manager in the Bank of India, Indore in the year 1988 to 1989 and in his tenure, A.K. Khare was the Branch Manager and the bank of which Khare was the Branch Manager was Scale - 2 branch and the authority to purchase the cheque was only to Rs. 30,000/- and in case the cheques were purchased more than Rs. 30,000/- then permission of Regional Bank Manager was required. Para-4 and 5 of his statement is relevant which is reproduced hereunder: ^^4- eq>s vHkh tks Án'kZ ih&21 dh is&bu&fLyi o blds lkFk layXu ih&22 dk pSd] ih&23 dh is&bu&fLyi o blds lkFk layXu ih&24 dk pSd] ih&25 dh is&bu&fLyi o blds lkFk lyaXu pSd] ih&26] ih&27 dh is&bu&fLyi o blds lkFk layXu ih&28 dk pSd] ih&29 dh is&bu&fLyi o blds lkFk layXu ih&30 dk pSd] ih&31 dh is&bu&fLyi o blds lkFk layXu ih&32 dk pSd] ih&33 dh is&bu&fLyi o blds lkFk layXu ih&34] ih&35 dh is&bu&fLyi o blds lkFk layXu ih&36] ih&37 dh is&bu&fLyi o mlds lkFk layXu ih&38 dk pSd fn[kk;s x;s FksA ;s lHkh pSd cSad vkWQ egkjk"Vª dh csgjkeiqj 'kk[kk ds Fks] ftUgsa cSad vkWQ bafM;k dh jkeckx 'kk[kk esa tek fd;s x;s FksA ;g rRdkyhu czkap eSustj Jh ,ŒdsŒ [kjs }kjk bu pSdksa dks ijpsl djus ds fy;s lsU'ku nh xbZ FkhA eSa ,ŒdsŒ [kjs gLrk{kj o fy[kkoV dks tkurk gawA bu lHkh pSdksa dh is&bu&fLyi ij , ls , Hkkx ij ¼Iyht ijpsl½ ,ŒdsŒ [kjs dh fy[kkoV esa gS vkSj ch ls ch Hkkx ij muds y?kq gLrk{kj gSA ;g lHkh pSd ipkl gtkj :i;s ds gSA 5- ftuesa ls dqN pSd 26-06-1989 ,oa 27-06-1989 dks tek gq;s gSaA D;ksafd ;g pSd rhl gtkj :i;s ls T;knk FksA blfy;s ,ŒdsŒ [kjs ijpsl djus dh vf/kdkfjrk esa ugha FksA eSa ml le; jhtuy eSustj FkkA Jh ,ŒdsŒ [kjs us bu pSdksa dks ijpsl djus ds igys ;k ckn esa dksbZ vuqefr ekaxh ugha Fkh vkSj u gh eSaus nh FkhA** 31. Para-6 of his cross-examination is also relevant which is reproduced hereunder: 6- vkjksih iYyoh vkSj Ádk'k ukansMdj dh igpku Jh [kjs us eq>ls cSad esa djkbZ FkhA ehfVax esa [kjs us crk;k Fkk fd iYyoh vkSj Ádk'k ukansMdj dh vkfFkZd fLFkfr vPNh gS og Ldkyj ;kMZ Ldwy pyk jgs gSa] ;g Hkh ekywe iM+k Fkk fd Ádk'k ukansM+dj dh ekrkth L=h jksx fo'ks"kK gSA jhtuy vkWfQl es tks gekjh ehfVax gqbZ Fkh] rc rd dksbZ Ádk'k ukansMdj dk dksbZ ÁLrko ugha FkkA dsoy lkStU; ehfVax FkhA gekjh ehfVax ds ckn esa lksusDl daLVªD'ku dk fcy@pSd ijpsl djus ij ÁLrko vk;k FkkA ml daiuh ds Mk;jsDVj Ádk'k ukansMdj FksA ;g ÁLrko cSad vkWQ bafM;k dh jkeckx 'kk[kk ls Jh [kjs }kjk Hkstk x;k FkkA lkStU; HksaV ds le; Jh [kjs dks eSaus dgk Fkk fd oks Ádk'k vkSj iYyoh dk Áiksty ;fn og larq"V gks rks o esjs ikl Hkst ldrs gSaA ml le; ;g ckr Hkh ykbZ xbZ Fkh lksusDl daiuh ds fcy ijpsl ds Hkh ÁLrko nsuk pkgrs gSaA ,slk ugha gqvk Fkk fd ml ÁLrko esa eSaus Jh [kjs dks ;g dg fn;k Fkk fd Ádk'k vkSj iYyoh ukansMdj ds laca/kh ÁLrko dks o vkxs dj ldrs gSaA 32. Para-12 of the statement of this witness is also relevant which is as under: 12- ;g lgh gS fd jkeckx 'kk[kk ds vykok Hkh cSad dh nwljh 'kk[kkvksa us vksOgj fyfeV fctusl dHkh dHkh fd;k gSA ;g ckr lgh gS fd tks lkStU; HksaV gqbZ Fkh] mlds ckn v'kksd iky Mkxk] felst lquanh fprys dks ikap&ikap yk[k :i;s dh vksŒMh lSD'ku dh Fkh vkSj budks ukansMdj ds xzqi esa gh igpku djkbZ FkhA ;g ckr lgh gS fd vkfMV vkifr vkus ij iky vkSj fprys ds [kkrs can dj fn;s x;s FksA 33. Statement made by Mr. Vedprakash Joshi PW-4 is also relevant, in as much as that proves that Prakash Nandedkar was the central figure. Statement made by Mr. Vedprakash Joshi PW-4 is also relevant, in as much as that proves that Prakash Nandedkar was the central figure. He has deposed as under: 6- ftl le; ,ŒdsŒ [kjs cSad vkWQ bf.M;k jkeckx 'kk[kk esa inLFk Fkk ml le; ;g 'kk[kk fefM;e Ldsy ¼,eŒ,eŒ 2½ 'kk[kk Fkh] ftlds 'kk[kk Áca/kd dks vf/kdre 30 gtkj :i;s rd ds pSd ijpsl djus ds vf/kdkj FksA eSaus ;g ik;k Fkk fd mDr lHkh 9 pSDl mDr 'kk[kk ds 'kk[kk Áca/kd ds {ks=kf/kdkj ls vf/kd FksA ftuds laca/k esa u rks ofj"B dk;kZy; dks lwpuk nh xbZ Fkh vkSj u gh dksbZ Lohd`fr ÁkIr dh xbZ FkhA 7- eSaus czkap esa pktZ ysus ds ckn mDr lHkh [kkrsnkj ftuds pSd dh jkf'k cSad esa tek ugha gqbZ Fkh mudks i= fy[ks FksA mDr i=ksa dh dk;kZy;hu Áfr;ka Án'kZ ih@56 ls ih@63 rd gS] ftu ij , ls , esjs gLrk{kj gksdj esjh fy[kkoV esa gSA eSaus lHkh i= iathd`r Mkd ls Hksts Fks ftuesa 4 i=ksa ds fyQkQs okil cSad dks ÁkIr gq;s Fks mDr fyQkQs Án'kZ ih@64 ls ih@67 gSaA eSaus lacaf/kr mDr [kkrsnkjksa dks ftuds ikl VsyhQksu Fks mudks VsyhQksu Hkh fd, FksA tc Jh jkeukFku cSad esa vk, Fks vc dgk tc xksfoan iqjksfgr vk, Fks rc Ádk'k ukansM+dj dks eSaus 'kk[kk esa cqyk;k Fkk rc Ádk'k ukansM+dj 'kk[kk esa vkdj mDr lHkh 9 pSDl dh ftEesnkjh Lohdkj djrs gq, Jh iqjksfgr dks lacksf/kr djrs gq, ,d i= Án'kZ ih@68 fn;k FkkA vU; [kkrsnkjksa esa ,d 'kadj nqcs esjs ikl vk, Fks vkSj mUgksaus crk;k fd mUgsa 50 gtkj :i;s dk pSd ijpsl fd, tkus laca/kh dksbZ tkudkjh ugha gSA ;g pSd ijpsl dk dk;Z Ádk'k ukansM+dj o ,ŒdsŒ [kjs us feydj fd;k gSA 'kadj nqcs] Ádk'k ukansM+dj dks ysdj Hkh esjs ikl 'kk[kk esa vk, Fks rc Ádk'k ukansM+dj us mudh jkf'k tek djus dh ftEesnkjh yh FkhA 34. Some portion of his cross-examination as recorded on 21st August, 2003 is also relevant which is also reproduced hereunder: 34- fdlh Hkh O;fDr dk [kkrk [kksyrs le; mldh igpku yh tkrh gS mldh fo'oluh;rk ds laca/k esa vanktk ugha yxk;k tk ldrk gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd ;fn fdlh vU; cSad esa fdlh [kkrsnkj dk [kkrk [kksyk tkrk gS rks mldh [kkrs dh vfu;ferrk ds laca/k esa ekywe ugha pyrkA ;g dguk lgh fd jkeckx 'kk[kk esa bl ckr dh tkudkjh ugha gks ldrh gS fd cSad vkWQ egkjk"Vª ds [kkrsnkj dh D;k vfu;ferrk,a gSaA ;g lgh gS fd cSad vkWQ egkjk"Vª ds [kkrsnkjksa dh csysUl dh D;k fLFkfr gS bldh tkudkjh Hkh cSad vkWQ bafM;k dh jkeckx 'kk[kk esa irk ugha py ldrhA 35. Then in para-34 of his cross-examination he has also made reference to the procedure of opening of account. Evidence of this witness leaves no room for doubt that Prakash Nandedkar was the central figure in the conspiracy, accounts were got opened pertaining to some of the appellants with bank of India where A.K. Khare was the Branch Manager who was known to Nandedkar family, the cheques were purchased in Beharampur Branch of Bank of Maharashtra where Arvind Bhide was the Branch Manager and who was also known to Arun Khare. In this manner, nine cheques which were issued in the accounts which were irregularly opened and from there the cheques were issued without their being money were purchased and thereby benefit was granted to Prakash Nandedkar. Thus, it was a case where Prakash Nandedkar in collusion with Arun khare and Arvind Bhide got benefited of Rs. 4.5 lacs by getting cheques issued from the account which could not have been opened and then using that money for his own benefit. 36. Now the money has been received by the bank by way of compromise. Question arises as to whether the offence committed by the appellants can be permitted to be compounded. 37. 4.5 lacs by getting cheques issued from the account which could not have been opened and then using that money for his own benefit. 36. Now the money has been received by the bank by way of compromise. Question arises as to whether the offence committed by the appellants can be permitted to be compounded. 37. At this juncture, we may notice the submissions on behalf of the appellants, i.e. (i) in the facts of the case, no offence of cheating is made out in as much as at the most, it was a case of some irregularity in opening of the bank accounts and purchase of cheques (ii) no case of any criminal conspiracy has been established and no benefit has been drawn by two bank managers in these transactions and therefore no offence is made out against them under section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and (iii) even if any offence is made out, the appellants having entered into a compromise with the bank in question, the offence becomes compoundable in the light of section 320 of Cr.P.C. 38. The appellants have also cited various other judgments i.e. C.B.I. vs. Duncons Agro, 1996 Cr.L.J. 3501, Nikhil Merchant vs. C.B.I. 2008 (3) Crimes 377 (SC), SLV Murthy vs. State of Rep. by C.B.I. 2009 (1) SCC (Cri) 941, S. Mohan vs. C.B.I. 2008 SAR (Cri) 675 (SC), K.R. Purshothaman vs. State of Kerala, 2005 Cri. L.R. (SC) 878, State of Tamil Nadu through C.B.I. vs. Nalini, 1999 Cri. L.J (SC) 3124, Megha Singh vs. State of Haryana, 1995 Cr. L.J. (SC) 3988, State of Inspector of Police vs. Surya Sankaram, 2006 (3) SCC (Cri) 225, Daljit Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2006 Cr. L.R. (SC) 707. 39. We have already discussed the judgment delivered in the case of C.B.I. vs. Duncons Agro, 1996 Cr. L.J. 3501 the same line was also adopted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Judgment delivered in the case of Nikhil Merchant vs. C.B.I. 2008 (3) Crimes 377 (SC). In the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another, JT 2012 (9) 426, Apex court doubted the correctness of decision deliver in the case of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another; Nikhil Merchant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another and Manoj Sharma vs. State and Others. In the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another, JT 2012 (9) 426, Apex court doubted the correctness of decision deliver in the case of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another; Nikhil Merchant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another and Manoj Sharma vs. State and Others. The order of reference made for lager Bench reads as under: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has been convicted under section 420 and Section 120B, IPC by the learned Magistrate. He filed an appeal challenging his conviction before the learned Sessions Judge. While his appeal was pending, he filed an application before the learned Sessions Judge for compounding the offence, which, according to the learned counsel, was directed to be taken up along with the main appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR on the ground of Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed by the High Court by its impugned order. Hence, this petition has been filed in this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on three decisions of this Court, all by two Judge Benches. They are B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675 , Nikhil Merchant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, (2008) 9 SCC 677 and Manoj Sharma vs. State and Others, (2008) 16 SCC 1 . In these decisions, this Court has indirectly permitted compounding of non-compundable offences. One of us, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju, was a member to the last two decisions. Section 320, Cr.P.C. mentions certain offences as compoundable, certain offences as compoundable with the permission of the Court, and the other offences as non-compoundable vide Section 320(7). Section 420, IPC, one of the counts on which the petitioner has been convicted, no doubt, is a compoundable offence with permission of the Court in view of Section 320, Cr.P.C. but Section 120B IPC, the other count on which the petitioner has been convicted, is a non-compoundable offence. Section 120B (Criminal conspiracy) is a separate offence and since it is a non-compoundable offence, we cannot permit it to be compounded. The Court cannot amend the statute and mush maintain judicial restraint in this connection. The Courts should not try to take over the function of the Parliament or executive. Section 120B (Criminal conspiracy) is a separate offence and since it is a non-compoundable offence, we cannot permit it to be compounded. The Court cannot amend the statute and mush maintain judicial restraint in this connection. The Courts should not try to take over the function of the Parliament or executive. It is the legislature alone which can amend Section 320 Cr.P.C. We are of the opinion that the above three decisions require to be re-considered as, in our opinion, something which cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. In our, prima facie, opinion, non-compoundable offences cannot be permitted to be compounded by the court, whether directly or indirectly. Hence, the above three decisions do not appear to us to be correctly decided. It is true that in the last two decisions, one of us, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju, was a member but a Judge should always be open to correct his mistakes. We feel that these decisions require re-consideration and hence we direct that this matter be placed before a larger Bench to reconsider the correctness of the aforesaid three decisions. Let the papers of this case be placed before Hon'ble Chief Justice of India for constituting a larger Bench. 40. Besides taking note of entire law with respect to permission granted for compromising the similar matter, powers of the Court under section 320 of Cr.P.C. as well as section 482 of Cr.P.C. have been discussed in the case of Gian Singh (supra). It would be appropriate to take note of some of the discussions had by the Apex Court in this regard: 44. Having surveyed the decisions of this Court which throw light on the question raised before us, two decisions, one given by the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the other by Bombay High Court deserve to be noticed. 45. A five-judge Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kulwinder Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Another was called upon to determine, inter-alia, the question whether the High Court has the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings or allow the compounding of the offences in the cases which have been specified as non-compoundable offences under the provisions of Section 320 of the Code. The five-judge Bench referred to quite a few decisions of this Court including the decisions in Madhu Limaye, Bhajan Lal, L. Muniswamy, Simrikhia, B.S. Joshi and Ram Pal and framed the following guidelines: (a) Cases arising from matrimonial discord, even if other offences are introduced for aggravation of the case. (b) Cases pertaining to property disputes between close relations, which are predominantly civil in nature and they have a genuine or belabored dimension of criminal liability. Notwithstanding a touch of criminal liability, the settlement would bring lasting peace and harmony to larger number of people. (c) Cases of dispute between old partners or business concerns with dealings over a long period which are preminantly civil and are given or acquire a criminal dimension but the parties are essentially seeking a redressal of their financial or commercial claim. (d) Minor offences as under Section 279, IPC may be permitted to be compounded on the basis of legitimate settlement between the parties. Yet another offence which remains non-compoundable is Section 506(II), IPC, which is punishable with 7 years imprisonment. It is the judicial experience that an offence under Section 506 IPC in most cases is based on the oral declaration with different shades of intention. Another set of offences, which ought to be liberally compounded, are Section 147 and 148, IPC, more particularly where other offences are compoundable. It may be added here that the State of Madhya Pradesh vide M.P. Act No. 17 of 1999 (Section 3) has made Sections 506 IPC, 147 IPC and 148, IPC compoundable offences by amending the schedule under Section 320, Cr.P.C. (e) The offences against human body other than murder and culpable homicide where the victim dies in the course of transaction would fall in the category where compounding may not be permitted. Heinous offences like highway robbery, dacoity or a case involving clear-cut allegations of rape should also fall in the prohibited category. Offences committed by Public Servants purporting to act in that capacity as also offences against public servant while the victims are acting in the discharge of their duty must remain non-compoundable. Offences against the State enshrined in Chapter-VII (relating to army, navy and air force) must remain non-compoundable. Offences committed by Public Servants purporting to act in that capacity as also offences against public servant while the victims are acting in the discharge of their duty must remain non-compoundable. Offences against the State enshrined in Chapter-VII (relating to army, navy and air force) must remain non-compoundable. (f) That as a broad guideline the offences against human body other than murder and culpable homicide may be permitted to be compounded when the court is in the position to record a finding that the settlement between the parties is voluntary and fair. While parting with this part, it appears necessary to add that the settlement or compromise must satisfy the conscience of the court. The settlement must be just and fair besides being free from the undue pressure, the court must examine the cases of weaker and vulnerable victims with necessary caution. To conclude, it can safely be said that there can never be any hard and fast category which can be prescribed to enable the Court to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The only principle that can be laid down is the one which has been incorporated in the Section itself, i.e. "to prevent abuse of the process of any Court" or "to secure the ends of justice." It was further held as under: 23. No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9) of the Cr.P.C. or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 25. The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C. which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is to be exercised ex-debito justiae to prevent an abuse of process of Court. There can neither be an exhaustive list nor the defined para-meters to enable a High Court to invoke or exercise its inherent powers. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has no limits. There can neither be an exhaustive list nor the defined para-meters to enable a High Court to invoke or exercise its inherent powers. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has no limits. However, the High Court will exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The exercise of power has to be with circumspection and restraint. The Court is a vital and an extra-ordinary effective instrument to maintain and control social order. The Courts play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and ever-lasting congeniality in society. Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery. 46. A Three-Judge Bench of the Bombay High Court in Abasaheb Yadav Honmane vs. State of Maharashtra, dealt with the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code vis-a-vis the express bar for compounding of the non-compoundable offences in Section 320(9) of the Code. The High Court referred to various decisions of this Court and also the decisions of the various High Courts and then stated as follows: The power of compounding on one hand and quashing of criminal proceedings in exercise of inherent powers on the other, are incapable of being treated as synonymous or even inter-changeable in law. The conditions precedent and satisfaction of criteria in each of these cases are distinct and different. May be, the only aspect where they have any commonality is the result of exercise of such power in favour of the accused, as acquittal the end result in both these cases. Both these powers are to be exercised for valid grounds and with some element of objectivity. Particularly, the power of quashing the FIR or criminal proceedings by the Court by taking recourse to inherent powers is expected to be used sparingly and that too without losing sight of impact of such order on the criminal justice delivery system. Both these powers are to be exercised for valid grounds and with some element of objectivity. Particularly, the power of quashing the FIR or criminal proceedings by the Court by taking recourse to inherent powers is expected to be used sparingly and that too without losing sight of impact of such order on the criminal justice delivery system. It may be obligatory upon the Court to strike a balance between the nature of the offence and the need to pass an order in exercise of inherent powers, as the object of criminal law is protection of public by maintenance of law and order. 47. Section 320 of the Code articulates public policy with regard to the compounding of offences. It catalogues the offences punishable under IPC which may be compounded by the parties without permission of the Court and the composition of certain offences with the permission of the court. The offences punishable under the special statutes are not covered by Section 320. When an offence is compoundable under Section 320, abatement of such offence or an attempt to commit such offence or where the accused is liable under Section 34 or 149 of the IPC can also be compounded in the same manner. A person who is under 18 years of age or is an idiot or a lunatic is not competent to contract compounding of offence but the same can be done on his behalf with the permission of the court. If a person is otherwise competent to compound an offence is dead, his legal representatives may also compound the offence with the permission of the court. Where the accused has been committed for trial or he has been convicted and the appeal is pending, composition can only be done with the leave of the court to which he has been committed or with the leave of the appeal court, as the case may be. The revisional court is also competent to allow any person to compound any offence who is competent to compound. The consequence of the composition of an offence is acquittal of the accused. Sub-section (9) of Section 320 mandates that no offence shall be compounded except as provided by this Section. Obviously, in view thereof the composition of an offence has to be in accord with section 320 and in no other manner. 48. The consequence of the composition of an offence is acquittal of the accused. Sub-section (9) of Section 320 mandates that no offence shall be compounded except as provided by this Section. Obviously, in view thereof the composition of an offence has to be in accord with section 320 and in no other manner. 48. The question is with regard to the inherent power of the High Court in quashing the criminal proceedings against an offender who has settled his dispute with the victim of the crime but the crime in which he is allegedly involved is not compoundable under Section 320 of the Code. 49. Section 482 of the Code, as its very language suggests, saves the inherent power of the High Court which it has by virtue of it being a superior court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It begins with the words, 'nothing in this Code' which means that the provision is an overriding provision. These words leave no manner of doubt that none of the provisions of the Code limits or restricts the inherent power. The guideline for exercise of such power is provided in Section 482 itself i.e. to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. As has been repeatedly stated that Section 482 confers no new powers on High Court, it merely safeguards existing inherent powers possessed by High Court necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice. It is equally well settled that the power is not to be resorted to if there is specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of an aggrieved party. It should be exercised very sparingly and it should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Code. 50. In different situations, the inherent power may be exercised in different ways to achieve its ultimate objective. Formation of opinion by the High Court before it exercises inherent power under Section 482 on either of the twin objectives, (i) to prevent abuse of the process of any court or (ii) to secure the ends of justice, is a sine qua non. 51. Formation of opinion by the High Court before it exercises inherent power under Section 482 on either of the twin objectives, (i) to prevent abuse of the process of any court or (ii) to secure the ends of justice, is a sine qua non. 51. In the very nature of its constitution, it is the judicial obligation of the High Court to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice or to prevent continuation of unnecessary judicial process. This is founded on the legal maxim quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, conceditur et id sine qua res ipsa esse non potest. The full import of which is whenever anything is authorised, and especially if, as a matter of duty, required to be done by law, it is found impossible to do that thing unless something else not authorised in express terms be also done, may also be done, then that something else will be supplied by necessary intendment. Ex debito justitiae is inbuilt in such exercise; the whole idea is to do real, complete and substantial justice for which it exists. The power possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code is of wide amplitude but requires exercise with great caution and circumspection. 52. It needs no emphasis that exercise of inherent power by the High Court would entirely depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. It is neither permissible nor proper for the court to provide a straitjacket formula regulating the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482. No precise and inflexible guidelines can also be provided. 53. Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between ah offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment. 54. Where High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that dispute between the offender and victim has been settled although offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrong doing that seriously endangers and threatens well-being of society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without permission of the Court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between offender and victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to victim and the offender and victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or F.I.R. if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly and likelihood of offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard and facts category can be prescribed. 55. B.S. Joshil, Nikhil Merchant, Manoj Sharma and Shiji alias Pappu do illustrate the principle that High Court may quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code and Section 320 does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court under Section 482. Can it be said that by quashing criminal proceedings in B.S. Joshil, Nikhil Merchant, Manoj Sharma and Shiji alias Pappu 33, this court has compounded the (non-compoundable offences indirectly) We do not think so. There does exist the distinction between compounding of an offence under Section 320 and quashing of a criminal case by the High Court in exercise of inherent power under Section 482. The two powers are distinct and different although ultimate consequence may be same viz. acquittal of the accused or dismissal of indictment. 56. We find no incongruity in the above principle of law and the decisions of this Court in Simrikhia, Dharampal, Arun Shankar Shukla, Ishwar Singh, Rumi Dhar (Smt.) and Ashok Sadarangani The principle propounded in Simrikhia that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked to override express bar provided in law is by now well settled. In Dharampal, the Court observed the same thing that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code cannot be utilized for exercising powers which are expressly barred by the Code. Similar statement of law is made in Arun Shankar Shukla. In Dharampal, the Court observed the same thing that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code cannot be utilized for exercising powers which are expressly barred by the Code. Similar statement of law is made in Arun Shankar Shukla. In Ishwar Singh, the accused was alleged to have committed on offence punishable under Section 307, IPC and with reference to Section 320 of the Code, it was held that the offence punishable under Section 301 IPC was not compoundable offence' and there was express bar in Section 320 that no offence shall be compounded if it is not compoundable under the Code. In Rumi Dhar (Smt.) although the accused had paid the entire due amount as per the settlement with the bank in the matter of recovery before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the accused was being proceeded with for commission of offences under Section 120-B/420/467/468/471 of the IPC along with the bank officers who were being prosecuted under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court refused to quash the Charge against the accused by holding that the Court would not quash a case involving a crime against the society when a prima facie case has been made out against the accused for framing the charge. Ashok Sadarangani was again a case where the accused persons were charged of having committed offences under Section 120-B, 465, 467, 468 and 471, IPC and the allegations were that the accused secured the credit facilities by submitting forged property documents as collaterals and utilized such facilities in a dishonest and fraudulent manner by opening letters of credit in respect of foreign supplies of goods, without actually bringing any goods but inducing the bank to negotiate the letters of credit in favour of foreign suppliers and also by misusing the cash-credit facility. The Court was alive to the reference made in one of the present matters and also the decisions in B.S. Joshil, Nikhil Merchant and Manoj Sharma and it was held that B.S. Joshil and Nikhil Merchant dealt with different factual situation as the dispute involved had overtures of a civil dispute but the case under consideration in Ashok Sadarangani was more on the criminal intent than on a civil aspect. The decisions in Ashok Sadarangani 34 supports the view that the criminal matters involving overtures of a civil dispute stand on a different footing. 57. The decisions in Ashok Sadarangani 34 supports the view that the criminal matters involving overtures of a civil dispute stand on a different footing. 57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarized thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz. (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R. may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc. cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above questions is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding. 58. In view of the above, it cannot be said that B.S. Joshi, Nikhil Merchant and Manoj Sharma were not correctly decided. We answer the reference accordingly. Let these matters be now listed before the concerned Benches. 41. We have also other judgments, but in the light of law what has been led down in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another (supra) and another judgment given by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nathimal Sharma and Others vs. C.B.I. in Criminal Appeal No. 1103/2002, we are of the view that, in this case, the entire purpose of various transaction which have been taken place in this case was to benefit Nandedkar Family. In this regard, while Arvind Bhide played his own role in permitting opening of accounts even though, these accounts could not have been opened. Mr. Arun Khare played his own role in purchasing the cheques of Dinesh Sharma, Pradeep Pallad, Kaushal Ladia and Ramesh Wankhede. He might have committed irregularity in purchase of cheques. He kept those cheques with himself and ultimately those cheques were traced from the house of Prakash Nandedkar. Thus, it is not the case which simply has a civil angle. Mr. Arun Khare played his own role in purchasing the cheques of Dinesh Sharma, Pradeep Pallad, Kaushal Ladia and Ramesh Wankhede. He might have committed irregularity in purchase of cheques. He kept those cheques with himself and ultimately those cheques were traced from the house of Prakash Nandedkar. Thus, it is not the case which simply has a civil angle. It is certainly a criminal conspiracy wherein efforts were made and in fact were successful in cheating the banks, may be for temporarily connivance to Nandedkar family for sum of Rs. 4.5 lacs by opening fake accounts and by issuing cheques books from those accounts, despite there being no money and purchasing those cheques ultimately so as to benefit Nandedkar Family. 42. However, in view of the compromise reached between the banks who even withdrew, civil suit thereby refunding the money back from the appellants, we are of the view that while the charges framed against the appellants under section 420 of IPC is compoundable, the appellants Arun Khare, Prakash Nandedkar, Arvind Bhide, Pallavi Nandedkar, Ramesh Wankhede, Kaushal Ladia, Viney Majumdar, Murlidhar Demlani, Manohar Manglani and Girish Telang are acquitted from that offence and accordingly, their sentences with respect to offence under section 420 of IPC is set aside. However, judgment of trial Court so far as it has convicted the appellants for the charges of conspiracy under section 120-B of IPC and under section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, their conviction is upheld because we are not faced with any petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. but considering the age of the litigation and also taking note of the irregularity in the banking practices which were have been committed and which led to benefit being given to Prakash Nandedkar, we are of the view that the sentence awarded to them for the aforesaid offence is reduced to the period already undergone, but all of them would pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- each, to be deposited within two weeks and which amount shall be released to the bank concerned. Till then, the bail bond of the appellants shall remain intact and only after depositing of those amount, the bail bond shall discharge. However, if the amount of compensation is not paid, the said amount may be recovered as arrear of land revenue. With the aforesaid observations, present appeals are partly allowed. Till then, the bail bond of the appellants shall remain intact and only after depositing of those amount, the bail bond shall discharge. However, if the amount of compensation is not paid, the said amount may be recovered as arrear of land revenue. With the aforesaid observations, present appeals are partly allowed. Photo copy of this judgment be kept in each of the file of.