JUDGMENT Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Both these appeals are directed against judgment and order dated 12.01.2000, passed by Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Dehradun, in C.B.I Case No. 3 of 1998, whereby said court has convicted accused/appellants Kesar Chand and Kishan Lal under Section 120B read with Section 420 I.P.C., and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13 (l) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 read with 468 and 201 of I.P.C. The accused/appellant Kesar Chand has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and directed to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- under Section 120B of I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and directed to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/- under Section 420 of I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and directed to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/- under Section 467 of I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and directed to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/- under Section 468 of I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and directed to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- under Section 471 of I.P.C., and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and directed to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 201 of I.P.C. He has been further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and directed to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- under Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Accused/appellant Kishan Lal has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and directed to pay fine of Rs. 2,500/- under Section 120B of I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and directed to pay fine of Rs. 2,500/- under Section 109 read with 420 of I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and directed to pay fine of Rs. 2,500/- under Section 467 of I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and directed to pay fine of Rs. 2,500/- under Section 471 of I.P.C. He has been further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and directed to pay fine of Rs. 2,500/- under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the lower court record. 3. 2,500/- under Section 471 of I.P.C. He has been further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and directed to pay fine of Rs. 2,500/- under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the lower court record. 3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that accused/appellant Kesar Chand was functioning as Accounts Assistant, and accused/appellant Kishan Lal was working as Senior Section Officer with Northern Railways, at Divisional Railway Manager’s Office, Moradabad. Third co-accused P.D Ram,was the Assistant Divisional Accounts Officer of the said organization. In the year 1993, a contract was floated by Northern Railways, Moradabad, for leading and erecting the slabs with regard to which, tender of the Contractor Ravi Verma Prabhakar was accepted arid agreement No. 51/DRM/MB dated. 17.09.1993 (Ex. A15) was entered between the Railways and the contractor. The work was to be completed within eight months for an amount of Rs. 9,33,500/-. The supervision of work was to be done by Inspector of work Chandausi (PW -11) Mangat Singh. However, before the work even commenced the aforesaid accused conspired to cheat the railway administration by getting two forged bills amounting to Rs. 8,66,695/- dated 15.10.1993 and Rs. 8,99,140/- dated 12.11.1993, in the name of Contractor Ravi Verma Prabhakar and prepared the cheques, counter signed the same and issued for payment. Not only this, accused Kesar Chand said to have opened the fake Account No. 6/67 in the year 1993, in the name of Ravi Verma Prabhakar (Contractor) with State Bank of India, Branch Civil Lines, Moradabad, and deposited the two cheques of aforesaid amount, which were withdrawn through five cheques. The other accused/appellant P.D. Ram, the then Assistant Divisional Accounts Officer) said to be the third accused, who conspired with the accused/appellants. The First Information Report was got lodged by Arjun Singh Somwanshi, Assistant Divisional Accounts Officer, on the basis of which, C.B.I. registered Crime No. RC-3(A)/94-DAD on 17.03.1994. Investigation was conducted by PW-16 Yashpal Singh, Inspector with Central Bureau of Investigation (for short C.B.I.). The First Information Report was got lodged by Arjun Singh Somwanshi, Assistant Divisional Accounts Officer, on the basis of which, C.B.I. registered Crime No. RC-3(A)/94-DAD on 17.03.1994. Investigation was conducted by PW-16 Yashpal Singh, Inspector with Central Bureau of Investigation (for short C.B.I.). After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet against the accused/appellants Kesar Chand and Kishan Lal and three others namely P.D.Ram, Raj Kishore Singh and Umesh Chand for their trial in respect of offences punishable under Section 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201 of I.P.C., and one punishable under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, after obtaining necessary sanction from the authority concerned. 4. After hearing the parties, the trial court on 14.10.1998, framed charge against Kesar Chand in respect of offences punishable under Section l20B read with Section 420 and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also in respect of offences punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 468 and 201 of I.P.C., to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Separate charge was framed on said date by the trial court against the accused Kishan Lal under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, 120B, 420 read with Section 109,471, 467and 468 of I.P.C., to which he also pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The other three accused also pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this prosecution got examined PW1 A.K. Basu, Joint Secretary (Establishment) Railway Board, New Delhi, PW2 P.C. Singh, Assistant General Manager of State Bank of India, Moradabad, PW3 M.S. Sinha, Senior Division Accounts Officer, Northern Railway, Moradabad, PW4 Digvijay Singh, Senior Divisional Accounts Officer, Northern Railway, Moradabad, PW5 Umesh Chandra Saxena, Senior Accounts Officer, Northern Railway, Moradabad, PW6 Fazal Mohd., a Contractor, who introduced the accused Kesar Chand as Ravi Verma Prabhakar for opening the account, PW7 R.P. Mishra Divisional Engineer 3rd, Northern Railway, Moradabad, PW8 A.A. Abbasi, Cheque Writer in the Office of Divisional Accounts Officer, Northern Railway, Moradabad, PW9 D.D. Sharma, Office Superintendent, Northern Railway, Chandausi, PW10 Surendra Kumar Sharma, Assistant Divisional Accounts Officer, Northern Railway, Moradabad, PW11 Mangat Singh, Inspector of Works, Chandausi, PW12 Rakesh Kumar Verma, Clerk in the Office of Divisional Engineer 3rd, PW13 Dr. S.C. Mittal, Senior Scientific Officer of Forensic Laboratory, New Delhi, PW14 B.S. Pangti, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Civil. Lines Main Branch, Moradabad, PW 15 Rakesh Kumar Chauhan, Accounts Assistant (declared hostile) and PW 16 Yashpal Singh, Inspector, C.B.I. (who investigated the crime). 5. The oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which, the accused/appellant Kesar Chand admitted that he was Accounts Assistant in the Office of Divisional Railway Manager, Moradabad. He further admitted that an• agreement No. 51/ DRM/MBB dated 17.09.1993 (Ex. A15) between the railways and Ravi Verma Prabhakar (the Contractor). He also admitted that he did fill the blank bills given to him by co-accused Kishan Lal at the residence of co-accused P.D. Ram. He also admitted having made enteries Register CO-7. Not only this, accused/appellant Kesar Chand further• admitted that two cheques Ex A8 and Ex A17 received by him on behalf of the Contractor Ravi Verma Prabhakar. He did not question the validity of the sanction (Ex. A4) given against him. However, as to the rest of the evidence, he denied the same. Accused /appellant Kishan Lal with regard to the evidence against him in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., admitted that he was Senior Section Officer, in the Office Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Moradabad. He further admitted that aforesaid agreement (Ex. A1S) dated 17.09.1993, for leading and erection of slabs was given to Contractor, Ravi Verma Parbhakar. He also admitted his signature, on which, the forensic laboratory has given its report. However, as to the rest of the evidence, he denied the same. 6. The trial court after hearing the parties, found that prosecution has successfully proved charge of offences punishable under Section 120B read with Section 420 of I.P.C., read with under Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, he was further found guilty of charge in respect of offences punishable under Section 460, 467, 469, 471 read with Section 468, 201 of I.P.C., he was further found guilty of charge punishable under section 120B, 420 of IPC, read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was also found guilty of charge of offence punishable under Section 109 read with Section 420, under Section 471 read with Section 467 and 468 of I.P.C., He was further found guilty of charge punishable under Section 13(2)(3)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Co-accused P.D. Ram was also convicted by the trial court. However, the other two accused namely Raj Kishore Singh and Umesh Chand were acquitted of the charge. After hearing on sentence, the accused were sentenced as mentioned in the first Paragraph of this judgment. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 10.01.2000/12.0 l.2000, passed by Special Judge, Anti Corruption, U.P., Dehradun, in C.B.I. Case No.3 of 1998, these two appeals were filed by the convicts Kesar Chand and Kishan Lal, from Allahabad High Court, from where the same are received under Section 35 of U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000, for their disposal. 7. Mr. Lokendra Dohbal, learned counsel for the appellant Kishan Lal submitted that the sanction given against the accused/appellants is not valid. Perusal of the statement of PW3 N.S. Sinha, Senior Divisional Accounts Officer shows that he stated that he was appointing authority of not only accused Kesar Chand, but also he had powers under Discipline and Appeal Rules to remove him for the service. The witness further told that he was also the appointing authority of accused Kishan Lal and he had powers to remove him from the service under Discipline and Appeal Rules. On behalf of the accused attention of this Court is drawn to the cross examination of said witness and it is argued that the witness could not disclose as to when the accused Kishan Lal was appointed as Clerks Grade-II and as he was appointed as Clerks Grade-I. It is also stated that the sanctioning authority had not applied its mind before sanction was given for prosecution. But on going through the statement of PW3 N.S. Sinha, Senior Divisional Accounts Officer, this Court finds that said authority has stated categorically that he examined the papers on record submitted to him by C.B.I. before coming to the conclusion that it was a fit case for granting sanction for prosecution. As far as knowledge relating to the dates of appointments of the accused/appellants• is concerned, it was not necessary for the sanctioning authority to file the same. As far as knowledge relating to the dates of appointments of the accused/appellants• is concerned, it was not necessary for the sanctioning authority to file the same. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no infirmity in the sanctioning by authority concerned for prosecution of the two accused/appellants. 8. As to the evidence that the accused/appellants conspired and got forged the bills and cheques for payment in the name of Ravi Verma Prabhakar, the Contractor, it is admitted by the accused/appellant Kesar Chand himself that blank bills were filled by him, the cheques of the contractor were received by him. It has also come on the record that accused/appellant Kesar Chand opened fake account in the name of Ravi Verma Prabhakar (Contractor) with State Bank of India and after depositing the two cheques, the amount was withdrawn by the accused. It is also proved by the witnesses examined before the trial court that the accused/appellant Kishan Lal counter signed the bills without any measurement book report as to the progress of the work done and got the bills cleared for payment. In this connection, evidence of PW11 Mangat Singh, Inspector of Works, Chandausi, clearly establishes the fact that he had power to prepare the bill and he did not prepare the two disputed bills on record. As to the forgery committed by the two accused/appellants, the report of the Forensic Report read with the statements of PW13 Dr. S.C. Mittal corroborates the forgery committed by the aforesaid two accused/appellants. 9. For the reasons as discussed above, this Court finds no illegality In the impugned order whereby accused/appellants are convicted on the charge framed against them, and the appeal to that extent is liable to be dismissed. On the point of sentence considering the old age of the accused/appellants the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial court against the accused/appellant Kesar Chand is reduced to the period of one and half years, on all counts (in which sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial court is more than one year) which he has already undergone without interfering with the amount of fine directed to be paid by the trial court. As to the accused/appellant Kishan Lal, sentence of imprisonment is reduced to one year on all the counts without interfering with the amount of fine directed to be paid by the trial court. As to the accused/appellant Kishan Lal, sentence of imprisonment is reduced to one year on all the counts without interfering with the amount of fine directed to be paid by the trial court. Accused/appellant Kishan Lal is said to be in jail since 28.12.2011, and he shall be set at liberty on completion of sentence of imprisonment of one year as modified by this Court, adjusting the period already undergone. It is stated before this Court that the fine has been deposited by the said convict on 12.01.2000. Let the trial court record be sent back if not needed in any connected appeal.