JUDGMENT Both these appeals are directed against judgment and order dated 12.0l.2000, passed by Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Dehradun, in C.B.I. Case No.10 of 1997, whereby said court has convicted accused/appellants Kesar Chand and Kishan Lal under Section 120B I.P.C., 109 read with Section 420 I.P.C., under Section 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The accused/appellant Kisan Lal has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and directed to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 120B of I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and directed to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 109 read with Section 420 of I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and directed to pay fine of Rs. 200O/- under Section 467 of I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and directed to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 468 of I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and directed to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 471 of I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and directed to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section and under Section 13 (2) (Prevention of Corruption) Act, 1988. The accused/appellant Kesar Chand has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and directed to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- under Section 120B of I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and directed to pay fine of Rs. 2000/-under Section 109 read with Section 420 of I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and directed to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- under Section 467 of LP.C., rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and directed to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- under Section 468 of I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and directed to pay fine of Rs. 2000/-under Section 471 of I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and directed to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- under Section 13(2) (Prevention of Corruption) Act, 1988. Accused/appellant Kesar Chand has been further convicted under Section 201 of I.P.C., and directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and directed to pay fine of Rs. 2000/-. The trial court has directed that the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. 5000/- under Section 13(2) (Prevention of Corruption) Act, 1988. Accused/appellant Kesar Chand has been further convicted under Section 201 of I.P.C., and directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and directed to pay fine of Rs. 2000/-. The trial court has directed that the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, and learned counsel for the C.B.I, and perused the lower court record. 3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that accused/appellant Kesar Chand was functioning as Accounts Assistant, accused/appellant Kishan Lal was working as Senior Section Officer, and co-accused Ram Avtar Gupta was Divisional Accounts Officer, in the Office of Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railways, Moradabad. It is alleged that they entered in to a criminal conspiracy with co-accused Heera Singh Sobti, who used to work as a Contractor for various works of the railways. In pursuance to the conspiracy, accused/appellant Kesar Chand received bill of Rs. 1,06,388/- for final payment to co-accused Heera Singh Sobti which was forged for the payment of Rs. 12,06362/-• Accused/appellant Kishan Lal and co-accused Ram Avtar Gupta said to have dishonestly signed said bill and made entry in C.O.7 for payment of Rs. 12,06,362/- without checking the original bill, measurement book and the agreement entered with the Contractor, and thereby caused wrongful loss for an amount of Rs. 11 lakhs to the railways. It is. also alleged that accused/appellants Kesar Chand and Kishan Lal alongwith co-accused Ram Avtar Gupta in order to screen the offence, removed original bills, measurement book and the agreement of the Contractor from the record. After the scam was detected by Railway Authorities, the amount for which, the railways suffered wrongful loss, was recovered from Heera Singh Sobti. The First Information Report in the matter was registered on 12.04.1994, against the accused/appellants Kesar Chand and Kishan Lal and others and investigation was taken up by PW13 Yashpal Singh, Inspector C.B.I., in connection with Crime No. RC-6(A)/94-DAD. After completion of investigation, charge sheet (Ex. A39) was filed by the Investigating Officer against the accused/appellants Kesar Chand and Kishan Lal and two other co-accused namely Ram Avtar Gupta and Heera Singh Sobti for their trial, in respect of offences punishable under Section 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 201 I.P.C., and one punishable under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 4. 4. The trial court on 14.10.1998, after hearing the parties, framed charge in respect of offence punishable under Section 120B read with Section 420 of I.P.C., under Section 109 read with Section 420 of I.P.C., under Section 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C., and also under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against the accused/appellant Kishan Lal, accused/appellant Kesar Chand and co-accused Ram Avtar Gupta separately, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. As against the accused/appellant Kesar Chand, the charge was also framed in respect of offence punishable under Section 201 of I.P.C., to which also the said accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. Thereafter, prosecution got examined PW1 N.S. Sinha, Senior Divisional Accounts Officer, Northern Railways (who granted the sanction for prosecution), PW2 Umesh Chand Saxena, Senior Accountant, PW3 N.P. Saxena (the then cheque writer), PW4 D.C. Kala (Officer of Oriental Bank of Commerce, in the Bank the account was opened in the name of Heera Singh Sobti), PW5 R.P. Mishra, Divisional Engineer, PW6 Hukum Chand Varsney (the then Engineer In-Charge of the work given to Heera Singh Sobti), PW7 Mangat Singh (a Clerk in the Office of In-Charge of the works, Chandausi), PW8 Javed Ahmad, the Divisional Accountant, PW9 J.P. Sharma, Office Superintendent, PW10 Rakesh Kumar Verma, Clerk in the Office of Divisional Engineer, PW11 Surendra Kumar Sharma, Assistant Divisional Accounts Officer, PW12 Dr. S.C. Mittal, Senior Scientist of Forensic Laboratory, New Delhi and PW13 Yashpal Singh. 6. 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 an agreement No. 59/DRM/MB dated 28.12.1992, relating to supply of stone boulders was given to co-accused Heera Singh Sobti. He further admitted that he was in conspiracy with other accused to cause wrongful loss of Rs. 11 lakhs to the railways. He further admitted that sanction for prosecution was granted against him by the competent authority. In substance, he admitted the guilt. On the other hand, the other accused including the accused/appellant Kishan Lal alleged that evidence adduced against them was false. However, this much was admitted that the agreement No. 59/DRM/MB dated 28.12.1992, was given to co-accused Heera Singh Sobti for supply of stone boulders. In substance, he admitted the guilt. On the other hand, the other accused including the accused/appellant Kishan Lal alleged that evidence adduced against them was false. However, this much was admitted that the agreement No. 59/DRM/MB dated 28.12.1992, was given to co-accused Heera Singh Sobti for supply of stone boulders. It was also admitted by him (Kishan Lal) that he was Section Officer of the Accounts Section with Northern Railways in the Divisional Railway Manager’s Office. No evidence in defence was adduced. The trial court after hearing the parties, found that the prosecution has successfully proved the charge framed against the accused/appellants and after further hearing on sentence, recorded various sentences as mentioned in Para No.1 of this judgment. Co-accused Ram Avtar Gupta, who was tried together with appellants was acquitted by the trial court of the charge. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 12.01.2000, passed by Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Dehradun, in C.B.I. Case No. 10 of 1997, these two appeals were filed by the convicts Kishan Lal and Kesar Chand before the Allahabad High Court, from where the same are received under Section 35 of U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000, for their disposal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant Kesar Chand submitted before this Court that said appellant Kesar Chand has already undergone more than twenty months in jail during the trial. He prayed that the sentence awarded against accused/appellant Kesar Chand be reduced to the period already undergone. 8. But on behalf of the accused/appellant Kishan Lal, Sri Lokendra Dobhal, counsel for the appellant challenged the sanction granted by P.W.1 N.S. Sinha and argued that the sanction on granted for prosecution, is not valid. I have considered the argument advanced on. behalf of the said appellant and went through the statement of P.W.l N.S. Sinha read with sanction order (Ex.A-l). The witness (P.W.-l) has stated that he was appointing authority of the Group-C employees. He further told that he had authority to remove the Group-C employees from the service under the Rules. P.W.1 N.S. Sinha further told that accused Kishan Lal comes in the category of Group-C employee of which, he was the appointing authority. This witness has been subjected to lengthy cross-examination but nothing has come on the record, which shows that said officer had no authority to grant sanction for prosecution of the accused/appellant Kishan Lal. 9. P.W.1 N.S. Sinha further told that accused Kishan Lal comes in the category of Group-C employee of which, he was the appointing authority. This witness has been subjected to lengthy cross-examination but nothing has come on the record, which shows that said officer had no authority to grant sanction for prosecution of the accused/appellant Kishan Lal. 9. It is also contended on behalf of the accused/appellant Kishan Lal that whatever forgery has been committed, it was done by accused/appellant Kesar Chand and accused/appellant Kishan Lal had no role in it. However, perusal of the statement of P.W.3 N.P. Saxena shows that Kishan Lal has not only counter signed the bill but also signed paper no. 12-A of C.O.7, in order to pass the forged bill. Not only this, P.W.11 Surendra Kumar Sharma, Assistant Divisional Accounts Officer has stated that in place of contractor Heera Singh Sobti, in the disputed bill, accused Kishan Lal had signed it. This witness also corroborated that in C.O.7 also accused/appellant Kishan Lal had signed the same without verification from the measurement book. P.W.12 Dr. S.C. Mittal, Senior Scientist of Forensic Laboratory, New Delhi has corroborated the evidence of the other prosecution witnesses. 10. Having re-appreciated the evidence on record, this Court finds that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial court, in recording the conviction either in respect of accused/appellant Kesar Chand or in respect of accused/appellant Kishan Lal. Rigorous imprisonment of one year with fine under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is the minimum sentences prescribed under the law. The other sentences awarded in respect of offences punishable under I.P.C. are directed to run concurrently. As such, awarded as against sentence accused/appellant Kishan Lal cannot be interfered with. But, in respect of accused/appellant Kesar Chand he had already been in jail for more than twenty months (precisely twenty one months and six days, which is more than one year), as such sentence awarded by the trial court to the said accused/appellant (Kesar Chand) can be reduced to the period already undergone. 11. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed on the point of conviction. The appeal of accused/appellant Kishan Lal (Criminal Appeal No. 97 of 2006) is dismissed also on the point of sentence. He is on bail. 11. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed on the point of conviction. The appeal of accused/appellant Kishan Lal (Criminal Appeal No. 97 of 2006) is dismissed also on the point of sentence. He is on bail. He (Kishah Lal) if not in jail shall surrender before the court concerned to serve out the sentence awarded by the trial court. Bail granted to appellant Kishan Lal in Criminal Appeal No. 97 of 2006, stands cancelled. However, Criminal Appeal No. 99 of 2006, filed by the accused/appellant Kesar Chand is partly allowed, on the point of sentence. And the sentence awarded by the trial court as against him (Kesar Chand), is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone without interfering with the punishment of fine directed to be paid by said accused/appellant. If the fine has already been paid by the said accused/appellant he (Kesar Chand) need not surrender before the court concerned. Lower court record be sent back.