V.K. Bist, J. (Oral);— Since in these appeals, there involve common set of facts, inasmuch as, the evidence led by the prosecution against the accused/appellants is identical, therefore, for the sake of convenience, all the above appeals have been consolidated and are being decided by a common judgment. Criminal Appeal No. 321 of 2003 shall be the leading appeal. 2. These appeals, preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.10.2003 passed by Special Judge, Anti Corruption (CBI), Uttarakhand, Dehradun in C.B.I. Case No. 2 of 1986 ‘C.B.I. vs. A.C.Oberoi and others’, whereby accused/appellants A.C. Oberoi has been convicted under Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Section 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short I.P.C.) and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months with fine of `1,000/- under Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and in default of payment of fine further simple imprisonment for a period of one month, rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of ` 2,000/- under Section 420 I.P.C. and in default of fine further simple imprisonment for three months and one year’s rigorous imprisonment with fine of ` 2,000/- under Section 120-B I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment for three months has been awarded. Vide the same judgment and order the accused/appellants Harcharan Singh and Satbir Singh have been convicted under Section 120-B and 420 I.P.C. and each of them have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of ` 2,000/- under Section 120-B I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment for three months and two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of ` 2,000/- under Section 420 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment for three months to each has been awarded. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Lower Court’s Record. 4. Facts leading to the appeals, in precise, are that on being received information, the Delhi Special Police Establishment, branch Dehradun lodged a First Information Report (Ext. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Lower Court’s Record. 4. Facts leading to the appeals, in precise, are that on being received information, the Delhi Special Police Establishment, branch Dehradun lodged a First Information Report (Ext. A-92) against the accused A.C. Oberoi on 29.12.1984 that the accused, while posted and functioning as Accountant in State Bank of India, Paltan Bazar, Dehradun, during the year 1982-83 entered into criminal conspiracy with M/s D.F.C. Transport, Dehradun and also with the concerned firm M/s Pashricha Transport Company, Dehradun with the object of committing the offence of criminal misconduct and cheating. In pursuance of the said conspiracy, the said two firms issued five fake cheques to the Bank for encashment without having any amount in their respective accounts in the Bank. The five fake cheques were purchased by the Bank (by A.C.Oberoi as Manager) and the amount thereof was allowed to be paid to the firm M/s D.F.C. Transport, Dehradun and the cheques were deliberately detained by the accused A.C. Oberoi for considerable period without any ground and when sent to drawee Bank, they were received back unpaid in the absence of any amount in the respective account. In order to cover up fraudulent withdrawals of the amount from the said Bank, the firm M/s D.F.C. Transport submitted other cheques one after another without having any amount in the respective accounts which too were purchased by the accused A.C. Oberoi and the amount was adjusted against the outstanding amount of the aforesaid cheques. The subsequent cheques, so submitted by the firm were also deliberately detained by the accused A.C. Oberoi for a considerable period and when sent for collection, they too were received unpaid. Ultimately the amount of the aforesaid five cheques paid to the firm M/s D.F.C. Transport, remained unpaid. The firm M/s D.F.C. dishonestly and fraudulently, in conspiracy with the accused/ appellant by way of misrepresentation of the facts, succeeded in receiving total sum of ` 2,00,950/- from the Bank and the accused A.C. Oberoi by corrupt and illegal means and otherwise abused his official position as a public servant, caused heavy pecuniary advantage to the said firm and the Bank was cheated. Initially, the investigation was conducted by S.R. Jaiswal, Dy. Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Special Police, Dehradun. 5. Initially, the investigation was conducted by S.R. Jaiswal, Dy. Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Special Police, Dehradun. 5. During investigation, it was revealed out that the accused A.C.Oberoi, alongwith co-accused Harcharan Singh and Satbir Singh entered into a criminal conspiracy, with the object of committing the offences of cheating and criminal misconduct and in pursuance of the conspiracy the accused/appellant Harcharan Singh opened a current account no. 2/24008 on 30.08.1992 in the Bank and the accused/appellant A.C. Oberoi was the introducer. Another current account no. 1/42266 was opened in the Bank in the name of M/s D.F.C. Transport with initial deposit of ` 500/- by the accused/appellant Harcharan Singh. On 07.08.1982 a truck No. URM-1576 was purchased by the accused/appellant Satbir Singh from one Harpal Singh for ` 2,12,500/-. This truck was financed by Punjab National Bank, Karanpur, Dehradun and a sum of ` 1,37,000/- was outstanding till the purchase of truck. An agreement was executed on 07.08.1982 between Harpal Singh and accused/appellant Satbir Singh regarding payment of cost of truck. This truck was jointly purchased by the accused/appellant Satbir Singh and Smt. Neeta Boeroi, wife of the accused/appellant A.C. Oberoi and an agreement dated 20.08.1982 was executed in between the two partners regarding ownership/and use of the truck. In this agreement, the accused/appellant Harcharan Singh and the accused/appellant A.C. Oberoi stood as witnesses. In continuation of the conspiracy, on 11.08.1982, a current account no. 346 was opened by the accused/appellant Harcharan Singh with State Bank of Patiala, Gandhi Road, Dehradun in the name of M/s Pashricha Transport by giving his name as H. Pashricha. The accused/appellant Satbir Singh, who was maintaining a current account no. II/00035 in State Bank of India, Paltan Bazar, Dehradun, was also maintaining a S.B.A/c no. 308 in State Bank of Patiala, Hardwar Road, Dehradun. Accused/appellant Harcharan Singh issued a cheque No. 741709 for ` 73,425/- dated 24.09.1982 against the aforesaid account of M/s Pashricha Transport in favour of M/s D.F.C. Transport Company. This cheque was purchased by the accused/appellant A.C. Oberoi on the same day and the amount was credited in the said account. There was no fund in the account of M/s Pashricha Transport and the accused/appellant A.C. Oberoi was not supposed to purchase such local cheques, as per banking norms. This cheque was purchased by the accused/appellant A.C. Oberoi on the same day and the amount was credited in the said account. There was no fund in the account of M/s Pashricha Transport and the accused/appellant A.C. Oberoi was not supposed to purchase such local cheques, as per banking norms. The said cheque was detained by the accused/appellant A.C. Oberoi till 21.10.1982 and when it was sent for collection, it was received unpaid on 22.10.1982 for want of fund, however on 22.10.1982, itself, two more cheques no. 741724 amounting to ` 36,750/- issued by the accused/appellant Harcharan Singh against the account of M/s Pashricha Transport and the other cheque no. 861749 for ` 35,900/- issued by the accused/appellant Satbir Singh against the account at State Bank of Patiyala, were again purchased by the accused/appellant A.C. Oberoi in favour of M/s D.F.C. Transport. Although, there was no funds in the two respective accounts, against which the said cheques were issued, but the amount of these two cheques were credited to the account of M/s D.F.C. Transport to adjust the outstanding balance of the aforesaid cheque no. 741709. These two cheques were also detained by the accused/ appellant A.C. Oberoi for a considerable period till 19.11.1982 and 23.11.1982 respectively. Further the two cheques of ` 40,975/- dated 09.11.1982 and cheque of ` 36,400/- dated 18.11.1982 issued by the accused/appellant Harcharan Singh and cheque for ` 35,750/- dated 24.11.1982 issued by the accused/appellant Satbir Singh, against their accounts, maintained at State Bank of Patiala, Gandhi Road, Dehradun and State Bank of Patiala, Hardwar Road, Dehradun respectively, were again purchased by accused/ appellant A.C. Oberoi in favour of M/s D.F.C. Transport and the amount was credited into the said account. Out of these cheques, the cheque dated 09.11.1982 was detained till 20.11.1982, while the remaining two cheques were not sent for collection. The amount of ` 1,13,225/- allowed by the accused/appellant A.C. Oberoi was outstanding on 23.12.1982 and was to be intimated to the Head Office of the Bank at the end of the year. The accused/appellant Harcharan Singh opened a current A/c no. 2274 with the Punjab & Sindh Bank, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi with the deposit of ` 100/- only on 12.11.1982 and thereafter two cheque nos. 151804 for ` 19,746.75/- and 151805 for ` 18,987.25/- both dated 23.12.1982 were issued by the accused/appellant Harcharan Singh, against the said account. The accused/appellant Harcharan Singh opened a current A/c no. 2274 with the Punjab & Sindh Bank, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi with the deposit of ` 100/- only on 12.11.1982 and thereafter two cheque nos. 151804 for ` 19,746.75/- and 151805 for ` 18,987.25/- both dated 23.12.1982 were issued by the accused/appellant Harcharan Singh, against the said account. These two cheques were purchased by the accused/appellant A.C. Oberoi in favour of M/s D.F.C. Transport on 23.12.1982 and the amount was credited to the account of the firm. These two cheques were also detained by the accused/appellant A.C. Oberoi till 01.01.1983 and when sent for collection, these were also returned unpaid for want of funds. On 28.12.1982, the accused/appellant Satbir Singh opened a S.B. A/c no. 2789 at Punjab & Sindh Bank, Mussoorie with a deposit of ` 200/- only and on the same day, he issued four cheque nos. 100121 to 100124 for ` 19,872.90/- ` 18,325.75/-, ` 17,910.40 and ` 18,705.35/- respectively, against the said account in favour of M/s D.F.C. Transport and these cheques were purchased by the accused/appellant A.C. Oberoi on 29.12.1982 and the said amount was utilized in order to bring down the outstanding balance in the account of M/s D.F.C. Transport. These cheques were also detained by the accused/ appellant A.C. Oberoi till 31.01.1983 and when were sent for collection, these cheques were returned unpaid for want of funds. The accused/ appellant A.C. Oberoi also allowed similar unauthorized credit to the accused/appellant Satbir Singh by purchasing similar fake cheques amounting to ` 65,350/-. To meet out the outstanding balance in the name of the accused/ appellant Satbir Singh for ` 65,350/- the accused/appellant Harcharan Singh issued four more cheque nos. 151806 and 151807 dated 23.12.1982 for ` 17,965.40 and ` 10,000/- and no. 151809 and 151810 dated 28.12.1982 for ` 18,170/- and ` 19,975/- against the aforesaid account at Delhi in favour of the accused/appellant Satbir Singh. These cheques were also purchased by the accused/appellant A.C. Oberoi and the amount was utilized to meet out the outstanding balance. These cheques were also returned unpaid for want of funds. 151809 and 151810 dated 28.12.1982 for ` 18,170/- and ` 19,975/- against the aforesaid account at Delhi in favour of the accused/appellant Satbir Singh. These cheques were also purchased by the accused/appellant A.C. Oberoi and the amount was utilized to meet out the outstanding balance. These cheques were also returned unpaid for want of funds. When an objection was raised by the Regional Office of the Bank regarding the recovery of the amounts of the aforesaid four cheques amounting to ` 74,814.40/- issued against the Mussoorie account the accused/appellant A.C. Oberoi falsely intimated the Regional Office vide letter No. 29/132 dated 12.03.1983 that the amount of said D.Ds. no. 9042 to 9045 has been recovered from M/s D.F.C. Transport with overdraft interest. 6. Investigation of the case was entrusted to Mr. Raman Tyagi, Sub-Inspector, CBI/SPF, Dehradun, who recorded the statements of the witnesses, obtained sanction from the competent authority and took in his custody the relevant documents, which culminated into filing of the charge sheet (Ext. A-93) against all the accused/appellants. 7. On 02.05.1988, after hearing the parties, the then Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, U.P. (East), Dehradun framed charge of offence punishable under Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, under Section 420 and 120-B I.P.C. against accused/appellant A.C. Oberoi and separate charge of offence punishable under Section 420 and 120-B I.P.C. were framed against the accused/ appellants, namely Harcharan Singh and Satbir Singh, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 8. The oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in reply to which, they alleged the same to be false. The accused/appellant A.C. Oberoi in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. admitted that in the relevant year he was posted on the post of Accountant at Paltan Bazar Branch of the State Bank of India, Dehradun; the accused/ appellant Harcharan opened the currant account no. 2/24008, currant account no. 1/42266 (in the name of M/s D.F.C. Transport by depositing ` 500/- only) in the said branch, but these accounts were opened on the request of Branch Manager; the accused/appellant Satbir had already opened a current account no. 11/00035 in the said branch and he also opened another account no. 2/24008, currant account no. 1/42266 (in the name of M/s D.F.C. Transport by depositing ` 500/- only) in the said branch, but these accounts were opened on the request of Branch Manager; the accused/appellant Satbir had already opened a current account no. 11/00035 in the said branch and he also opened another account no. 308 at Hardwar Road Branch of State Bank of Patiyala, but this account was opened on the request of the Branch Manager; on 07.08.1982 the accused/ appellant Satbir Singh and Smt. Neeta Oberoi had purchased truck no. URM 1576 for a consideration of ` 2,12,500/- and for the use and ownership of the truck, an agreement was drawn in between Satbir Singh and Smt. Neeta Oberoi, but due to requirement of permission from the Controlling Authority, he got the partnership cancelled; the accused/appellant Harcharan Singh issued cheque no. 649609 dated 24.09.1982 for a sum of ` 63,425/- from the account of M/s Pashricha Transport Company, but he purchased the same and deposited the sum in the account of M/s D.F.C. Transport on the request of Branch Manager in order to complete the target of the Bank, as the Branch Manager was likely to be promoted; on 22.10.1982 he purchased cheque no. 741724 for ` 36,750/- and cheque no. 861949 for ` 35,900/- from accused Harcharan Singh and Satbir Singh respectively and deposited the same in the account of M/s D.F.C. Transport Company, but he did so on the request of the Branch Manager; he purchased cheque no. 151804 for ` 19,746.75/- and 151805 for ` 18,987.25/- issued by accused Harcharan Singh from account no. 2274 in the Punjab National Bank, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi and deposited the same in the account of M/s D.F.C. Transport, but he had purchased the same in the presence as also on the request of the Branch Manager. He admitted that he had purchased four cheque nos. 100121 to 100124 for a sum of ` 19,872.90/- ` 18,325.75/-, ` 17,910.40/- and ` 18,705.35/- respectively issued by accused Satbir Singh from account no. He admitted that he had purchased four cheque nos. 100121 to 100124 for a sum of ` 19,872.90/- ` 18,325.75/-, ` 17,910.40/- and ` 18,705.35/- respectively issued by accused Satbir Singh from account no. 2789 in Punjab & Sindh Bank, Mussoorie and deposited the amount in the account of M/s D.F.C. Transport, but this was done on the request of the Branch Manager; he purchased the cheque amounting to ` 65,350/- from the account of accused Satbir Singh, in which there was no money and to adjust this over-draft, accused Harchran Singh issued four cheque nos. 151806 for ` 17,965.40/-, no. 151807 for ` 10,600/- no. 151809 for ` 18,170/- and 151810 for ` 19,975/- and he purchased the same in the account of accused Satbir Singh, but he did this act on the request of the Branch Manager. The accused/appellant A.C. Oberoi also stated that all the vouchers were sent to the Branch Manager in the evening and he had the knowledge of these purchases. He further stated that to exonerate themselves from their liabilities, the employees of the Department have falsely implicated him and he is innocent. 9. The accused/appellant Harcharan Singh, in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., has admitted that he opened a current account no. 2/24008 in his name and he was introduced by the accused A.C. Oberoi; that he opened another current account no. 1/42266 in the name of M/s D.F.C. Transport by depositing ` 500/- only; that accused Satbir Singh is his elder brother, who also opened a current account no. 11/00035 in his name; that on 07.08.1982, the accused Satbir Singh and with the wife of accused A.C. Oberoi purchased truck no. URM-1576 about which, an agreement was drawn in between accused Satbir Singh and Smt. Nita Oberoi and he and A.C. Oberoi singed the same as witnesses. He admitted that he deposited cheque no. 741709 dated 24.09.1982 for ` 73,425/- in the name of M/s Pashricha Transport, in the State Bank of India, Paltan Bazar, Dehradun and the accused A.C. Oberoi purchased the same and deposited the money in the account of the aforesaid firm; that on 24.09.1982 when the aforesaid cheque was issued, there was no money in the account of M/s Pashricha Transport, but he had no knowledge of the banking rules; that on 22.10.1982, he again issued cheque no. 741724 dated 22.10.1982 for ` 36,750/- from the account of M/s Pashricha Transport and the accused Satbir Singh also issued cheque no. 861949 for ` 35,900/- from account no. 308 and he deposited the said cheques in his M/s D.F.C. Transport’s account, but these were the accommodation cheques, as the cheque was dishonoured, hence the cheques for the equivalent amount were issued. He admitted that the accused A.C. Oberoi purchased both these cheques, as it was the normal banking practice. He admitted that he deposited two more cheques for ` 40,975/- dated 09.11.1982 and ` 36,500/- dated 12.11.1982 in his D.F.C. Transport’s account and the accused A.C. Oberoi, after purchasing the same, deposited the money in his account; that on 28.12.1982, accused A.C. Oberoi intimated him that by 30.2.1982, the balance amount has to be deposited in his D.F.C. account; that on 12.11.1982 he opened an account no. 2274 in Punjab & Sindh Bank, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi by depositing ` 100/- and after issuing two cheques no. 151804 for ` 19,746.75/- and cheque no. 151805 for ` 18,987.25/- from this account, deposited the same in the account of M/s D.F.C. Transport in the State Bank of India, Paltan Bazar, Dehradun. He also admitted that on 28.12.1982, accused Satbir Singh opened account no. 2789 in Punjab & Sindh Bank by depositing ` 200/- and on the same day, he issued four cheques bearing nos. 100124 for ` 19,872.90/-,19,325.75/-,17,910/- and 18,707.35/- respectively which he deposited in his D.F.C. account and accused A.C. Oberoi purchased the same. He also admitted that all these four cheques were received back from Mossoorie for want of fund. The accused stated that all the works of the Bank were done in normal practice and he had no intention to cheat the Bank. 10. The accused/appellant Satbir Singh, in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., has stated that he had a current account no. 11/00035 in the Paltan Bazar Branch of State Bank of India, where the accused A.C. Oberoi was posted as Accountant. He admitted that in the year, 1982, he also opened a S.B.A/c no. 308 in the State Bank of Patiyala, Hardwar Road, Dehradun. He admitted the fact of purchasing of truck no. URM-1576 alongwith Smt. Neeta Oberoi and the writing of the agreement. He admitted that accused Harcharan Singh is his real brother and he had current account no. He admitted that in the year, 1982, he also opened a S.B.A/c no. 308 in the State Bank of Patiyala, Hardwar Road, Dehradun. He admitted the fact of purchasing of truck no. URM-1576 alongwith Smt. Neeta Oberoi and the writing of the agreement. He admitted that accused Harcharan Singh is his real brother and he had current account no. 2/240088 in his name and another account no. 1/42266 in the name of M/s D.F.C. Transport in the State Bank of India, Paltan Bazar, Dehradun. He also admitted that he issued cheque no. 861949 for ` 35,900 on 20.10.1982 from his account in State Bank of Patiyala, Hardwar Road, Dehradun, while there was no sufficient money in his account; that on 24.11.1982, he also issued one more cheque for ` 35,750/- from his aforesaid account, without there being sufficient money and the same was deposited by the accused Harcharan Singh in his D.F.C. account and accused A.C. Oberoi purchased the same. The accused Satbir Singh further admitted the fact of issuing four cheques from his account no. 2789 in Punjab & Sindh Bank, Mussoorie; that the accused Harcharan Singh issued four cheques from his account in Punjab & Sindh Bank, Tilak Nagar, Delhi and he deposited the same in his account to conceal the debit balance of ` 65,350/- in his account in State Bank of India, Paltan Bazar, Dehradun. The accused stated that false evidence has been adduced against them to implicate them in this case. 11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Special Judged vide order dated 18.10.2003 convicted accused/ appellant A.C. Oberoi under Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 420 and 120-B I.P.C. and has been sentenced as above. Vide same judgment, the learned Special Judge convicted the accused/ appellants Harcharan Singh and Satbir Singh under Section 120-B and 420 I.P.C. and have been sentenced as stated above. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated 18.10.2003 passed by learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption in C.B.I. Case No. 2 of 1986 the accused/ appellants have preferred these appeals. 12. Vide same judgment, the learned Special Judge convicted the accused/ appellants Harcharan Singh and Satbir Singh under Section 120-B and 420 I.P.C. and have been sentenced as stated above. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated 18.10.2003 passed by learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption in C.B.I. Case No. 2 of 1986 the accused/ appellants have preferred these appeals. 12. In order to prove its case, the prosecution, in the form of oral evidence has examined PW-1 S.K.Bhalla, Clerk-State Bank of India, PW-2 K.P. Bahuguna, PW-3 Man Mohan Lal, PW-4 A.D. Johar, PW-5 P.S. Narula, Manager Punjab & Sindh Bank, Saharanpur, PW-6 Upender Nath, PW-7 Shyam Lal, PW-8 V.K.S. Vishnoi, PW-9 R.S. Sidhu, PW-10 Naresh Kumar, PW-11 B.P. Chopra, PW-12 L.K. Bidani, PW-13 V.G.S. Bhatnagar, PW-14 V. Bhattacharya, PW-15 Surjeet Singh and PW-16 Raman Tyagi. In the form of documentary evidence, the prosecution has filed a plethora of documents. 13. PW-1 S.K. Bhalla, who is the Bank employee, in his examination-in-chief has stated that on 18.11.1982 he endorsed in the register of D.D.Rs. (paper no. 37A1) about the purchase of cheque for ` 36,500/-. On page no. 22 of register no. 37A (material Ext.-1), the entries nos. 8 and 16, showing as paid, were in his handwriting, which were checked by the accused/appellant A.C. Oberoi. This witness proved Ext.A-1. He also proved Exhibits A-1 to A-4 stating that on page no. 25 of the relevant register at Sl. No. 838, he made the entry, but the entry made by him was struck off by the accused/appellant A.C. Oberoi and had made the entry himself and put his initials, which are Q-53 to Q-54. PW-2 K.P. Bahuguna, in his examination-in-chief, has stated that he used to make the entries in the D.D.R. Register on the basis of debit and credit vouchers and used to put his initials and Accounts Officer also used to put his initials on these vouchers. This witness has proved that on D.D.R. Register (Ext.A-1) at page no. 37, the entry dated 30.12.1982 is in his handwriting, which was checked by the accused A.C. Oberoi and he put his initials. This witness proved Ext. A-5 and Ext. A-6. He stated that accused A.C. Oberoi has shown this entry as paid and on 18.11.1982, cheque for a sum of ` 36,500/- shown as short was adjusted on 30.12.1982. He proved Ext.A-7 stating that paper no. This witness proved Ext. A-5 and Ext. A-6. He stated that accused A.C. Oberoi has shown this entry as paid and on 18.11.1982, cheque for a sum of ` 36,500/- shown as short was adjusted on 30.12.1982. He proved Ext.A-7 stating that paper no. 33-A/1 debit voucher was also prepared by the accused A.C. Oberoi. He stated that the said cheque was not cleared as shown by credit vouchers (Ext.A-8), which was prepared by the accused A.C. Oberoi. He further stated that on the basis of this voucher, he made the entry (Ext. A-5) in the register. He stated that the cheque given by the party was not cleared, even then the accused A.C. Oberoi adjusted the debit and credit vouchers and made the relevant entry. PW-3 Man Mohal Lal, in his examination-in-chief, has stated that in the relevant year, he was posted as Clerk in the Bank and at that time, there used to be a dispatch box, which had two keys, one with the Manager and one with the Accountant. This witness has given evidence about the procedure of the Bank and stated that the order of D.D. purchase was given by the accused A.C. Oberoi and those D.Ds. were kept in the dispatch box on the same date, which was opened on the next day by the Clerk and he used to dispatch it at the relevant places. Paper nos. 15-A & 16-A (Ext.A-9 and Ext. A-10) were also purchased by the accused A.C. Oberoi, in which he had made his endorsement. These cheques were dispatched on 01.01.1983 vide dispatch book (paper no. 64-A) and it bears the entry dated 24.10.1983, 03.11.1983, 30.10.1983, 01.11.1983 and 02.11.1983. Both the cheques were entered in the register (Ext.A-11). These D.Ds. were kept in the box one day before 01.01.1983. The order of purchase about cheques- paper nos. 21-A and 24-A were also taken by the accused A.C. Oberoi and put his initials, after endorsement in the D.D. (Ext. A-12, A-13, A-14 and A-15). These D.Ds. were also kept in the dispatch box just one day before 30.01.1983. This witness has proved Ext.A-16 also. Cheque nos. 18-A and 19-A were also purchased as D.D. by the accused A.C. Oberoi in which he admitted his signatures (Ext. A-17, A-18 and A-19). These exhibits were sent for clearance on 10.01.1983, which are endorsed as Ext. A-11) on 10.01.1983. Cheque (paper no. This witness has proved Ext.A-16 also. Cheque nos. 18-A and 19-A were also purchased as D.D. by the accused A.C. Oberoi in which he admitted his signatures (Ext. A-17, A-18 and A-19). These exhibits were sent for clearance on 10.01.1983, which are endorsed as Ext. A-11) on 10.01.1983. Cheque (paper no. 20-A/1) was also purchased by the accused A.C.Oberoi as D.D. and put his initials as Ext.A-12. This witness further proved paper no. 62-A, which is book no. 6 of the Bank. He stated that D.D. (Ext.A-9 and Ext.A-10) were received back by the Bank on 15.02.1983, which was un-cleared, Ext. A-12 to Ext. A-15 D.Ds. were also received un-cleared, which endorsed on register on 03.03.1983. This witness has stated that in Ext.A-17, A-19 and A-20- D.Ds., which were received un-cleared and checked by him, he put his initials as Ext. A-22, A-23 and A-24. This witness further stated that in between 25.02.1983 to 08.03.1983, the permanent Branch Manager of the Bank had gone for training and the accused A.C. Oberoi was officiating Branch Manager and during this period all the posts were received by the accused A.C. Oberoi and on 25.02.1983, 28.02.1983, 01.03.1983 and 08.03.1983, the posts were received by the accused A.C. Oberoi and he put his initials. Page no. 16 of the register, which was found missing, was of this period. This witness has proved the signatures of the accused A.C. Oberoi on Ext. A-24 and A-25 and on D.D. purchase register (Ext.A-27). 14. Most salient witness of this case is PW-12 L.K. Badani, the then Branch Manager of State Bank of India, at Paltan Bazar Branch, Dehradun, who has deposed that the accused A.C. Oberoi has the power to allow overdraft to a sum of ` 10,000/- and he was not empowered to deal with the accounts of the firms and to allow the overdraft facilities. He stated that in his absence, the accused A.C. Oberoi used to do the work in the capacity of Branch Manager. When a party produces outstation cheque and demands payment, then the Bank purchases the same and makes payment to the party at once, which is called as D.D. purchase. He stated that in his absence, the accused A.C. Oberoi used to do the work in the capacity of Branch Manager. When a party produces outstation cheque and demands payment, then the Bank purchases the same and makes payment to the party at once, which is called as D.D. purchase. He stated that when the party produced cheque of the same city and demands payment, then the same amount is deposited in his account at once and the cheque is sent for clearance, after making its entry in Demand Draft Receipt for realization, which is called as D.D.R. Purchase. He stated that D.D.R. is allowed in exceptional cases and normally the purchase of local cheques is not accepted. He has stated that Paltan Bazar Branch was the evening Branch, hence the cheques, which were purchased, were sent in clearance on the next day and the cheques of the outstation were sent after the authorization of the Branch Manager, after making their entries in the dispatch register. He further stated that when the cheque of D.D.R. Purchase received unpaid, the same were sent to the bank employee, by whose signatures the same were issued and the said employee entered the same in Cheque Referred Register and sent the same to Branch Manager, who sought necessary instructions whether the same be sent for collection again or the same be debited in the account of the party concerned. This witness has deposed that the other co-accused Harcharan Singh and Satbir Singh used to come to A.C. Oberoi, as they had their bank accounts in his branch. He further stated that all the correspondence with regional office and the head office was done by the Branch Manager and in his absence all such work was done by the accused A.C. Oberoi, as he was the next senior most officer. He further stated that on 30.03.1982, the accused Harcharan Singh had opened a current account no. 2/24008 in his branch (Ext. A-32). On 18.05.1982 the accused Harcharan Singh had also opened another account no. 1/4266, which is in the name of D.F.C. Transport (Ext.A-33). He stated that specimen signatures of the accused Harcharan Singh were attested by the accused A.C. Oberoi. He further stated that accused Harcharan Singh also opened a third account bearing no. 2/24008 in his branch (Ext. A-32). On 18.05.1982 the accused Harcharan Singh had also opened another account no. 1/4266, which is in the name of D.F.C. Transport (Ext.A-33). He stated that specimen signatures of the accused Harcharan Singh were attested by the accused A.C. Oberoi. He further stated that accused Harcharan Singh also opened a third account bearing no. 346 on 11.08.1982 in the State Bank of Paliyala for account opening form (Ext.A-64), by signing the name of H. Pashricha. This witness has further stated that the accused Satbir Singh had opened a current account no. 2/000035 on 26.05.1982 in his branch (Ext. A-34) and at that time accused Harcharan Singh introduced him. Specimen signatures of accused Satbir Singh were attested by the accused A.C. Oberoi. The accused Satbir Singh also opened another S.B. a/c no. 308 on 13.10.1980 in the State Bank of Patiyala. Advancing his statement, this witness has stated that the accused Harcharan Singh deposited a cheque to the tune of ` 73, 425/- in the account of D.F.C. Transport and the D.D.R. purchase of this amount was allowed by the accused A.C. Oberoi. On 24.09.1982, the credit entry of the said cheque was made in the account of D.F.C. Transport and the said cheque was issued from the account of Pashricha Transport. He stated that on 24.09.1982 merely a sum of ` 208.70/- was in the deposit in the account of Pashricha Transport and accused A.C. Oberoi was not authorized to purchase the D.D. Purchase of such heavy amount. He stated that this cheque was sent for clearance on 21.10.1982 but this cheque was not cleared and returned unpaid on 22.10.1982, but the debit entry of this amount was not made in the statement of account (Ext.A-66) of Pashricha Transport. He stated that accused A.C. Oberoi purchased the D.D.R. of two cheques of Harcharan Singh amounting to ` 36,750/- and ` 35,900/- (paper no. 30A-5 and 30A-6) and the credit vouchers were passed by the accused A.C. Oberoi. He stated that when paper no. 34A/1 (Ext.A-24) was written, then he was on training at Hyderabad. He stated that this amount was over-drafted by depositing the same from the account of the Company. 30A-5 and 30A-6) and the credit vouchers were passed by the accused A.C. Oberoi. He stated that when paper no. 34A/1 (Ext.A-24) was written, then he was on training at Hyderabad. He stated that this amount was over-drafted by depositing the same from the account of the Company. He stated that when the counter-checking of these cheques was made from the accounts of accused Satbir Singh and D.F.C. Transport, then he came to know that these cheques were D.D. purchased by accused A.C. Oberoi, where were returned as unpaid. He further told that from the clearing register of the State Bank of India, no cheque bearing no. 741709 was sent for clearing on 22.10.1982, but the cheque bearing no. 741716 for ` 73,425/- was sent to the State Bank of Patiyala, which was returned. 15. In the backdrop of the oral and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution, inasmuch as, in order to reach to a just decision of the case, this Court has to adjudge and assess as to whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused/appellants by producing cogent and reliable evidence and whether the evidence tendered by the witnesses is plausible and trustworthy. 16. Mr. L.K. Tewari, learned counsel for the accused/appellant A.C. Oberoi contended that the accused A.C. Oberoi, while discharging his duty as Accountant at S.B.I. Branch Paltan Bazar, Dehradun i.e. as public servant did not commit any criminal misconduct in the discharge of his duty by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as a public servant, as he did not obtain for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. He argued that the accused A.C. Oberoi committed no offence while introducing a person or purchasing the cheques deposited by an account holder. He argued that admittedly and as per the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the accused A.C. Oberoi was empowered to purchase a cheque. He further contended that there is no iota of evidence on record that the accused A.C. Oberoi had or could have any knowledge about deficiency of fund in the account on which the cheques were drawn. He argued that admittedly and as per the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the accused A.C. Oberoi was empowered to purchase a cheque. He further contended that there is no iota of evidence on record that the accused A.C. Oberoi had or could have any knowledge about deficiency of fund in the account on which the cheques were drawn. He argued that according to the Banking System and as admitted by the prosecution witnesses, after purchase of a cheque, the rest of work in regard to the said DD was to be done by the staff of the Bank. He further contended that this factual position is admitted to the witnesses produced by the prosecution that all the vouchers and the cash book were used to kept for verification daily before the Branch Manager, beside this, weekly balancing, monthly balancing and internal audit of the Bank is also done. He submitted that, there is also no evidence on record, that the cheques were detained by the accused A.C. Oberoi, rather after the purchase of the cheques, the same were used to be sent to the clearing section. He argued that there is no evidence on record, regarding criminal conspiracy, as there was no agreement is available indulging in any illegal act or a legal act through illegal means. He vehemently argued that circumstances of having acquaintance with the co-accused Harcharan Singh and Satbir Singh, cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of conspiracy, moreover mere this circumstance and purchasing of cheques issued by co-accused Harcharan Singh and Satbir Singh, cannot be sufficient ground to draw inference against the accused A.C. Oberoi that there was criminal conspiracy. He further submitted that there is no evidence on record in order to prove the charge of cheating, moreover there is no inducement or deception on the part of the accused A.C. Oberoi. He contended that no unlawful loss was caused to the Bank, rather the Bank earned from the purchase of cheques of awarding the overdraft facility. Simultaneously, no unlawful gain was caused to the account holder, as for the facility provided to them, they had to pay a heavy interest. He contended that partnership between the co-accused and the wife of the accused A.C. Oberoi has nowhere linked by the CBI with the purchasing of cheques. 17. Mr. Simultaneously, no unlawful gain was caused to the account holder, as for the facility provided to them, they had to pay a heavy interest. He contended that partnership between the co-accused and the wife of the accused A.C. Oberoi has nowhere linked by the CBI with the purchasing of cheques. 17. Mr. L.K. Tewari, learned counsel for the accused A.C. Oberoi, contended that circumstances brought against the accused do not lead to an inference that irregularities, if any, was committed by corrupt or illegal means or by abuse of official position for obtaining benefit for himself or for the co-accused. He further contended that under banking norms, the accused A.C. Oberio was legally authorized in purchasing the cheques or awarding overdraft facility. He contended that assuming that the allegations are true, even then merely a case of departmental proceeding is made out against the accused A.C. Oberoi, for which he was charge sheeted and punished by the Bank, but liability under criminal law cannot arise, at all, therefore no offence under Section 5(2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of Prevention Act, 1947 is made out against the accused A.C. Oberoi. He further contended that no illegal act or a legal act, through illegal means was committed, therefore, no offence under Section 120-B I.P.C. is made out against the accused A.C. Oberoi. He contended that no unlawful loss was caused to the Bank, rather the Bank earned from the purchase of cheques of awarding the over draft facility. Simultaneously, no unlawful gain was caused to the account holder, as for the facility provided to them, they had to pay the heavy interest, therefore no offence under Section 420 I.P.C. is made out. He submitted that, ultimately the entire sum was recovered with interest. In support of his argument, Mr. L.K. Tewari, Advocate has relied on the judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court in ‘Stat (Delhi Administration) vs. N.S. Giani and others’, reported in 1991 SCC (Cri)-16. 18. Mr. Pramod Tewari, learned Amicus-curiae for the accused Harcharan Singh submitted that the prosecution alleges that accused Harcharan Singh committed offence of cheating and criminal misconduct with other co-accused, namely A.C. Oberoi and Satbir Singh; the accused issued some cheques without having sufficient fund in his accounts and caused financial loss to the Bank in order to gain by unlawful manner. Pramod Tewari, learned Amicus-curiae for the accused Harcharan Singh submitted that the prosecution alleges that accused Harcharan Singh committed offence of cheating and criminal misconduct with other co-accused, namely A.C. Oberoi and Satbir Singh; the accused issued some cheques without having sufficient fund in his accounts and caused financial loss to the Bank in order to gain by unlawful manner. He contended that there was no intention of criminal misconduct or conspiracy on the part of the accused Harcharan Singh in opening Bank accounts, rather the accused deposited the cheques in favour of M/s D.F.C. Transport though there was no money in the account, but those cheques were the post dated and accommodation cheques. He further submitted that accused Harcharan Singh and Satbir Singh are the real brothers and both of them are not named in the F.I.R. He contended that there is no fraud or cheating, because deposited cheques were valid from genuine accounts. He further contended that accused Harcharan Singh had taken an overdraft facility. He contended that the accused had deposited the total sum with heavy interest. Lastly, he submitted that neither any illegal act nor criminal conspiracy was committed by the accused Harcharan Singh. No unlawful loss to the Bank or unlawful gain to account holder was caused, therefore, no offence under Section 120-B and 420 I.P.C. is made out against the accused Harcharan Singh. 19. Mr. Tapan Singh, learned Amicus-curiae for the accused Satbir Singh submitted that the prosecution alleged that accused Satbir Singh in order to cheat the Bank, committed criminal conspiracy with the help of accused A.C. Oberoi and Harcharan Singh by issuing some cheques in the name of D.F.C. Transport knowingly that he had no sufficient fund in his account. He contended that the accused Satbir Singh opened his bank account on his correct address, which cannot be implicit to be fraud or cheating on the part of the appellant Satbir Singh. He contended that the appellant Satbir Singh and the accused Harcharan Singh are real brothers and they are not named in the F.I.R. He submitted that the appellant has deposited all amount with heavy interest. He lastly contended that no case of cheating or criminal conspiracy is made out against the accused Satbir Singh under Section 120-B or 420 I.P.C. 20. On the other hand, Mr. He lastly contended that no case of cheating or criminal conspiracy is made out against the accused Satbir Singh under Section 120-B or 420 I.P.C. 20. On the other hand, Mr. Arvind Vashishtha, Advocate appearing on behalf of the CBI has submitted that the accused A.C. Oberoi, while posted as Accountant in State Bank of India, Paltan Bazar Branch, Dehradun during the year 1982-83, entered into a criminal conspiracy with the co accused persons Harcharan Singh and Satbir Singh with the object of committing the offences of cheating and criminal misconduct and in pursuance of the conspiracy, they committed the act of omissions and commissions on different dates. He submitted that on 22.10.1982 accused A.C. Oberoi purchased the D.D.R. of two cheques of Harcharan Singh amounting to ` 36,750 and ` 35,900/- respectively, which are paper no. 30A/5 and 30A/6. Both these credit vouchers were purchased by accused A.C. Oberoi. When paper no. 34A/1 was written, the Branch Manager was on training at Hyderabad and by this letter, accused A.C. Oberoi had given wrong information that the money has been recovered from D.F.C. Transport. Although, this amount was not recovered, but the same was over drafted by debiting the same from the account of the Company (page no. 60 from Book No. 6 is missing). On the back of page 59, accused A.C. Oberoi has writted ‘5’ and under it he has written 28.02.1983 and under it, he has put his initials, which illustrate that at page-60, five cheques of the out station branch were entered, which had been received by D.D. purchase, however initials of accused A.C. Oberoi shows that the same were received by him, but when the counter checking of these cheques was made from the accounts of accused Satbir Singh and D.F.C. Transport, it came to knowledge that these cheques were D.D. purchased by accused A.C. Oberoi of these very firm, which were returned as unpaid. He submitted that page no. 60 has been torn in order to conceal this fact. He submitted that as per the evidence of PW-12, he was on training at Hyderabad and the almost entries of fraud are of this very period. He further submitted that from the clearing register of the Bank, no cheque bearing no. 741709 was sent for clearing on 22.10.1982, but the cheque bearing no. He submitted that as per the evidence of PW-12, he was on training at Hyderabad and the almost entries of fraud are of this very period. He further submitted that from the clearing register of the Bank, no cheque bearing no. 741709 was sent for clearing on 22.10.1982, but the cheque bearing no. 741716 for ` 73,425/- was sent to the State Bank of Patiyala, which was returned unpaid. Drawing attention of the Court towards paper no. 4A/2, learned counsel for CBI has stated that this letter is written by the accused A.C. Oberoi to accused Harcharan Singh, whereby he demanded fresh cheque of outstation, so that the D.D.R. Account could be regularized for the reason that the outstanding in the D.D.R. Account of Harcharan Singh was to be cleared. He contended that on 31st December of every year, a statement has to be sent to the Controlling Office, in which all the outstanding in the D.D.R. has to be shown, but by the D.D.R. Purchase, the entries of D.D.R. become clear and the Controlling Officer could not come across about, which is improper according to the rules and regulations of the Bank. He then contended that cheque nos. 151804 to 151807 and 151809 of the Punjab and Sindh Bank, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi were issued by M/s Pashricha Transport in favour of M/s D.F.C. Transport and accused A.C. Oberoi authorized the D.D. purchase of the same. Similarly cheque nos. 100121 to 100124 were issued by Satbir Singh in favour of M/s D.F.C. Transport and accused A.C. Oberoi authorized the D.D. purchase of the same. 21. Learned counsel for CBI, then contended that evidence led by the prosecution point out four glaring circumstances, which are proved against the accused/appellants. First, wife of the accused/appellant A.C. Oberoi had an agreement of partnership in the purchase of a truck with the accused/appellant Satbir Singh and accused A.C. Oberoi was the witness to agreement and in order to extend undue benefits to accused Satbir Singh and his brother accused Harcharan Singh, all the accused persons hatched a conspiracy. Secondly, under the conspiracy, the accused A.C. Oberoi unauthorizedly and illegally purchased D.D.R. inspite of knowledge that drawers were not having sufficient fund in their accounts, however, the accused A.C.Oberoi continued to purchase the D.D.R. inspite of the fact that the cheques bounced. Secondly, under the conspiracy, the accused A.C. Oberoi unauthorizedly and illegally purchased D.D.R. inspite of knowledge that drawers were not having sufficient fund in their accounts, however, the accused A.C.Oberoi continued to purchase the D.D.R. inspite of the fact that the cheques bounced. Thirdly, in order to cover up the illegal purchase, the accused A.C. Oberoi gave wrong intimation to the Regional Office that amount has been recovered and fourthly, in order to conceal his crime, the accused A.C.Oberoi illegally permitted overdraft of amount, which was beyond his powers. 22. In respect of offences punishable under Section 120-B and 420 I.P.C., as against accused Harcharan Singh is concerned, learned counsel for CBI has submitted that accused Harcharan Singh admits that he opened a current A/c no. 2/24008 with the State Bank of India, Paltan Bazar,Dehradun on 30.03.1982 and was introduced by accused A.C. Oberoi. Secondly, he opened another current A/c no. 1/42266 in the name of M/s D.F.C. Transport Company, with the same branch of the Bank, thirdly the accused opened a current A/c no. 346 with the State Bank of India, Gadhi Road, Dehradun in the name of M/s Pashricha Transport Company on 11.08.1982 and signed as H. Pashricha, fourthly, on 12.11.1982, the accused opened A/c no. 2274 with the Punbaj and Sindh Bank, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi with a cash sum of ` 100/-. 23. So far offence in respect of offences punishable under Section 120-B and 420 I.P.C., as against accused Satbir Singh is concerned, learned counsel for CBI has submitted that the accused Satbir Singh opened one current A/c no. 11/00035 in the Bank in the year 1982. He opened another A/c no. 308 with the State Bank of Patiyala, Haridwar Road, Dehradun and further he opened another A/c no. 2789 with Punjab and Sindh Bank, Mussoorie with an initial sum of ` 200/-. He issued cheques in favour of co-accused Harcharan Singh, who deposited the cheque in the account of M/s D.F.C. Transport and said cheques were purchased by the accused A.C. Oberoi. The accused A.C. Oberoi adjusted Rs. 65,350/- in the account of accused Satbir Singh in his branch, while accused Harcharan Singh issued four cheques and the accused A.C. Oberoi deposited these cheques in the account of accused Satbir Singh by purchasing the same. 24. Mr. The accused A.C. Oberoi adjusted Rs. 65,350/- in the account of accused Satbir Singh in his branch, while accused Harcharan Singh issued four cheques and the accused A.C. Oberoi deposited these cheques in the account of accused Satbir Singh by purchasing the same. 24. Mr. Arvind Vashishtha, Advocate for the CBI then contended that accused A.C.Oberoi was fully acquainted with other co-accused Harcharan Singh and Satbir Singh and in order to accomplish his part, he used to purchase the cheques issued by these co-accused, while he had knowledge that there was no fund in their accounts, he did not send the cheques for clearance on the same day in the respective branches, which was the normal procedure followed by the Bank. All these things prove conspiracy. He contended that even subsequent recovery of amount would not absolve the accused persons from their criminal liability. 25. In rebuttal, Mr. L.K. Tewari, the learned counsel for the accused A.C. Oberoi, contended that no iota of evidence is on record, which could show that the accused A.C. Oberoi adopted corrupt or illegal manner in introducing accused Harcharan Singh at the time of opening the current account in the Bank. The account of legally opened. The accused purchased the cheques, is not denied, however he was legally authorized to do so. He submitted that no pecuniary advantage was gained and giving overdraft facility is not covered under criminal conspiracy, moreover the Bank did not suffer any financial loss. He submitted that in normal Banking course, overdraft facility is provided according to the credibility of the account holder. He further submitted that it is not the case of CBI that in the transactions, fictitious cheques were issued or purchased. He further contended that prosecution did not bring anything on record, which could prove that accused A.C. Oberoi did something for which he was not empowered. 26. I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties. At relevant point of time, A.C. Oberoi was posted as Accountant in the State Bank of India, Paltan Bazar, Dehradun. Co-accused Harcharan Singh opened a current account in the Bank and A.C. Oberoi was the introducer. Acknowledging any account holder, for opening any account is permissible. The main allegation against A.C. Oberoi is that he purchased the cheques issued by co-accused by entering into conspiracy with them with the object of committing the offences of cheating and misconduct. Co-accused Harcharan Singh opened a current account in the Bank and A.C. Oberoi was the introducer. Acknowledging any account holder, for opening any account is permissible. The main allegation against A.C. Oberoi is that he purchased the cheques issued by co-accused by entering into conspiracy with them with the object of committing the offences of cheating and misconduct. It has come in the cross-examination of PW-12 L.K. Badani, who was the then Branch Manager of the Bank, that on 24.09.1982 a cheque to the sum of ` 73,425/- (voucher Ext.A-53) was purchased by the accused A.C. Oberoi, but not through him, as he was on leave on that relevant day, however, he categorically stated that his presence could not make any difference, because as an Accountant, the accused A.C. Oberoi was authorized to purchase the cheque. In this regard PW-11, who was Chief Manager (Personal) of the Bank, in his cross-examination has stated that if the amount of D.D. purchase or D.D.R. purchased remains unpaid, in that case, interest is charged on the amount, till the total sum is adjusted in the relevant account. PW-7 Shyam Lal, another officer posted in said Bank, in his cross-examination, has categorically stated that D.D.R. purchase is allowed under banking facility and no Bank Officer gains from such purchase inasmuch as, this facility is normally given to eminent persons and if the amount of cheque, given under such facility, returns unpaid, then said cheque is treated as overdraft (overdraft has been defined by this witness saying that on treating the amount of cheque as overdraft, the amount is treated as balance amount and in case, the account holder does not pay the sum, then Bank can sue for recovery of the amount of overdraft). Thus, it is clear that A.C. Oberoi did not commit any illegality in purchasing the cheques. A person cannot be held guilty for the act done by him in accordance with law. So far the purchase of truck no. URM-1576 in between the partnership of accused Satbir Singh and Smt. Neeta, wife of the accused A.C. Oberoi is concerned, the accused A.C. Oberoi in his statement recoded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. had stated that it was not in his knowledge that before entering into a partnership, permission of Controlling Authority was required but as soon as he came to know about this fact, he cancelled the partnership. None of the prosecution witnesses deny this fact. In the essence, it illustrates that no corrupt or illegal manner was adopted in introducing accused Harcharan Singh at the time of opening the current account in the Bank. The account was legally opened. The accused A.C. Oberoi was authorized to purchase the cheques in question. No pecuniary advantage was gained, inasmuch as, giving overdraft facility is not covered under criminal conspiracy, and moreover the Bank did not suffer any financial loss. It is not the case of CBI that in the transactions, fictitious cheques were issued or purchased. Accused A.C.Oberoi sent D.P. Note/letter of request to the account holders, whereby he demanded fresh cheque of outstation, so that the D.D.R. Account could be regularized. No ingredients of offence under Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act or offence under Section 120-B and 420 I.P.C. are satisfied on the record. There is no iota of evidence, which would show that there was conspiracy in between accused A.C. Oberoi, Harchran Singh and Satbir Singh under which the accused A.C. Oberoi gained unlawful or caused unlawful loss to the Bank. Further there is no iota of evidence available on record, on the basis of which it can be presumed that the accused/ appellants entered into a criminal conspiracy with the object of committing offence of criminal breach of trust and criminal misconduct by fraudulently withdrawing different sums from the State Bank of India, Paltan Bazar, Dehradun. If any irregularities were committed, which could not have been done in normal Banking system, the accused A.C. Oberoi has been punished in the Departmental proceeding. In my opinion, the trial Court erred in law in holding the accused/appellant A.C. Oberoi guilty for the offence punishable under Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and holding all three accused/appellants guilty for the offence under Section 120-B and 420 I.P.C, which is not sustainable and deserves to be set-aside. 27. 27. For the reasons as discussed above, this Court is of the view that it cannot be said that charge of offence punishable under Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the accused/appellant A.C. Oberoi and charges of offence under Section 120-B and 420 I.P.C. against all the accused/appellants, namely, A.C. Oberoi, Harcharan Singh and Satbir Singh is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In my opinion they are entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt. Therefore, the appeals deserve to be allowed. 28. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 18.10.2003 passed by Special Judge, Anti Corruption (CBI), Uttarakhand, Dehradun in C.B.I. Case No. 2 of 1986 ‘C.B.I. vs. A.C.Oberoi and others’, is hereby set-aside. The accused/appellants are on bail. They need not to surrender, their bail-bonds are hereby discharged. Let the Lower Court’s Record be sent back. 29. Let certified copy of this judgment be placed in the connected appeals. _____________