Judgment :- 1, The appellant/accused stood trial for offence under Sections 120-B IPC, 471 468 IPC, 420, 201, 477 A IPC and Section 13(1) (d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 in C.C. No.149/97 on the file of Principal Sub Judge for C.B. I. Cases, Chennai. 2. The appellant/accused stands convicted and sentenced as follows: S.No Charges Sentence 1 U/s.120-B IPC 1 yr R.I. 1 yr R.I. and 2 U/s.471 r/w 468 IPC a fine of Rs.1,000/-i/d 6 months R.I. 2 yrs R.I. and fine of 3 U/s.420 IPC Rs.1,000/- i/d 6 months R.I. 4 U/s.201 IPC 6 months R.I. 2 yrs R.I. and a fine of 5 U/s. 477-A IPC Rs.2,000/- i/d 1 yr R.I. U/s.13(1)(d) 2 yrs R.I. r/w 13(2) of and a fine 6 Prevention of Rs.2,000/- Corruption Act i/d 1 yr R.I. 1988 The above sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. Challenging the conviction and sentence the appellant/accused has preferred the present appeal. 4. Prosecution case is that the appellant/accused, an Assistant Manager, Indian Bank, Royapuram branch, Chennai, while on deputation at the banks Sowcarpet branch entered into conspiracy with others towards cheating the Indian bank, Sowcarpet branch to the tune of Rs.4,50,000/-. On 17.10.1994, the appellant fraudulently and dishonestly, used two cheques bearing No.277472 and 277473 towards drawing Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- respectively, passed the said cheques for payment, obtained the signature of the Manager (Administration), issued token No.630 to an unidentified person towards collection of payment, made a false debit entry in Savings Bank A/c. No.21210, identified before the cashier one Kumar as the person entitled to receive payment and asked the cashier to effect payment of Rs.4,50,000/- to such person. Towards facilitating the wrong doing the appellant/accused made several false entries in the books of the bank and sought to destroy the evidence thereregards. The appellant/accused having closed the savings bank A/c. No.21210 of one Mrs. Vimala Devi Baradia on 24.05.1994, made it appear that such person had withdrawn the said sums of Rs.4,50,000/-through two cheques. On the above allegations, the appellant was charged of offences u/s. 120B, 201,420,467,471,468,477A IPC and 13 (1) (d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 5. Prosecution examined 18 witnesses and marked 26 exhibits. None were examined on behalf of the defence nor were any exhibits marked. However, the appellant/accused had tendered a written statement of defence. 6. On the above allegations, the appellant was charged of offences u/s. 120B, 201,420,467,471,468,477A IPC and 13 (1) (d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 5. Prosecution examined 18 witnesses and marked 26 exhibits. None were examined on behalf of the defence nor were any exhibits marked. However, the appellant/accused had tendered a written statement of defence. 6. P.W.1, working as Chief cashier at the Sowcarpet branch, Chennai on 17.10.1994, deposed that the appellant/accused informed him of the need to prepare for a huge withdrawal on such date. Identifying Exs.P1 and P2 as the cheques involved in the transaction, he deposed that the appellant/accused had informed him of knowing one Kumar where upon P.W.1 had effected payment to such person after having such person enter his name and address on the rear of the instruments. He informed of having caused relevant entry in Ex.P.3 cash book regards payment on the two cheques against token No.630 and having done so on the representation of the appellant/accused who was the officer in charge of the savings bank account. P.W.1 further deposed to knowing the handwriting of the appellant/accused. 7. P.W.2, deposed to having been the clerk at counter no.6 of the branch on 17.10.1994 and that it was his function to receive cheques and verify the respective accounts on the balance available therein and to issue token for receipt of payment after noting the number thereof upon the cheques. P.W.2 further deposed to not making any entry in Section Day Book- Ex.P.5 regards the sum of Rs.4,50,000/-, but finding such entry at 5 p.m and reporting the same to P.W.6- Radhakrishnan, whose duty it was to check the ledger regards counter No.6. He informed that neither Exs.P1 and 2 cheques, related ledger sheet nor relevant vouchers could be found and that the token register revealed no entry regarding such transaction. He deposed to finding Exs.P1 and 2 cheques and the ledger sheet -Ex.P.6 at the savings bank section on 18.10.1994 and the entry therein being in the appellant/accused's handwriting. 8. P.W.3, Deputy General Manager of the Bank had sanctioned prosecution of the appellant/accused for offences under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 under Ex.P.10 on 27.06.1995. 9. P.W.5, Officer of the bank deposed to having handed over cheque books, cheque loose leaves and the cheque book issue register to the appellant/accused. 10. 8. P.W.3, Deputy General Manager of the Bank had sanctioned prosecution of the appellant/accused for offences under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 under Ex.P.10 on 27.06.1995. 9. P.W.5, Officer of the bank deposed to having handed over cheque books, cheque loose leaves and the cheque book issue register to the appellant/accused. 10. P.W.6, who was the officer entrusted with the duty of checking the ledger at counter No.6 had deposed to having found entries regards the two cheques on the evening of 17.10.1994 in the Section Day Book – Ex.P.5, but that he did not find the related cheques pertaining to the two transactions. His further evidence is in keeping with that of P.W.2. He also deposed to the entries in Ex.P.6- ledger sheet, relating to the two cheques in question, being in the hand of appellant/accused. 11. P.W.7, besides informing of being the administrative incharge has deposed that it was his duty to clear cheques of high value for payment by counter signing them. He further deposed to the cheque books, records and account opening forms being in the custody of the appellant/accused and that it was the appellant/accuseds duty to verify the ledger, availability of balance towards payment of cheques and to forward the instruments to the concerned official for permitting payment. He deposed that P.W.2 had informed him on 17.10.1994 that while the Section Day Book - Ex.P.5 revealed entries relating to the two cheques in question, the said cheques were not available and that he had not made the entries there regards in Ex.P.5. He further deposed that thereafter on 18.10.1994. P.W.2 informed him of Exs.P.1 and P.2 cheques being available at the ledger section and of the appellant/accused having made the relevant entries and affixing his initial in Ex.P.5. P.W.7 further deposed to the appellant/accused having informed of passing the cheques, since P.W.2 was not available at counter No.6 when the concerned party presented the cheques for payment. W hen informed that the month September wrongly had been entered in Ex.P.6, appellant/accused had informed of having made a mistake, effected and initialled the correction. P.W.7 further deposed to the appellant/accused having informed of passing the cheques, since P.W.2 was not available at counter No.6 when the concerned party presented the cheques for payment. W hen informed that the month September wrongly had been entered in Ex.P.6, appellant/accused had informed of having made a mistake, effected and initialled the correction. Deposing to the manner in which cheque books and loose leaves are issued, P.W.7 informed that the entries regarding issue of cheques involved in the offending transactions ought to have been made at page 90 of cheque book issue register Ex.P.11, of such page having been torn out and that at the time of enquiry by the Internal Security officer, such page, torn to pieces was found in a box maintained by the appellant/accused for keeping used cheque books. Torn sheet was marked as Ex.P.13. P.W.7 further deposed to Ex.P.13 being entries relating to use of cheques Exs.P.1 and P.2 as loose leaves, but that Exs.P.1 and P.2 did not reflect the position that they were issued as loose leaves. Ex.P.6-ledger sheets of A/c No. 21210 reflected Exs.P.1 and P.2 cheques. 12. P.W.8, Assistant Manager informed of having been incharge of the Section Day Book and finding the two corrections in Ex.P.5, with regard to two entries of Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/-. P.W.8 further deposed to the manner of relating entries in the Section Day Book with that in the Token Register book, he found that two entries in the Section Day Book had not been written by the clerk, that the ink used was different and on questioning, P.W.2 informed that he was not aware of the last two entries (i.e) the entries relating to the two cheques used in the offending transactions. He further deposed to the vouchers relating to such transactions having gone missing and that the appellant/accused, who was incharge of counter No.5, had entered two amounts in the Section Day Book without the knowledge of the officer in charge of counter No.6. 13. P.W.9, working at the branch, deposed to the appellant/accused informing her the need to make a huge payment and to verify if sufficient cash was available. 14. P.W.10, Customer deposed to knowing the appellant/accused and of having withdrawn a sum of Rs.4,42,000/- from his account on 17.10.1994. 15. 13. P.W.9, working at the branch, deposed to the appellant/accused informing her the need to make a huge payment and to verify if sufficient cash was available. 14. P.W.10, Customer deposed to knowing the appellant/accused and of having withdrawn a sum of Rs.4,42,000/- from his account on 17.10.1994. 15. P.W.11, deposed to handing over cash from his counter to the cashier at the request of such cashier and that such cashier acted on the representation of the appellant/accused that heavy payments had to be made. 16. P.W.12, Retired Deputy General Manager of the bank informed the procedure for opening and closing of accounts, of having required P.W.6 to check the ledger relating to counter No.6 for 17.10.1994 and having requested P.W.8 to check the Day Book adjustment on 18.10.1994. 17. P.W.13, clerk cum cashier, who was incharge of the cash receipt counter on 17.10.1994, deposed to having been asked by the appellant/accused if funds were available to make a large payment. 18. P.W.14, another clerk at the cash receipt counter, deposed that P.W.1 had informed of the appellant/accused stating that large payments were to be made that day and of his handing over bundles of Rs.100/- denomination to P.W.1 on such representation. 19. P.W.15, person in whose savings bank account the offending transactions were carried out has turned hostile. She deposed that she had not opened such account. 20. P.W.16, Investigating Officer deposed to registration of the FIR – Ex.P.14 upon instruction of Superintendent of Police, Chennai, of having conducted search at the premises of the appellant/accused, of finding 94 loose sheets, correspondences and the current account pass book in the name of one "Ever Bright Agencies". The search list dated 19.04.1995 was marked as Ex.P.16. He deposed to having examined witnesses. Regards P.W.15, Account holder who has turned hostile, he deposed that she had informed him of having opened Savings Bank Account No.21210 with the Sowcarpet branch, Indian Bank, of one Suresh Mittal helping her in carrying out transactions in the account, that Exs.P.1 and P.2 cheques were not signed by her and that she had forwarded Ex.P.18 requisition letter to close the said account through the said Suresh Mittal. P.W.16 deposed to having collected specimen signature of P.W.15 from the bank as also obtaining the specimen signatures of the appellant/accused and his wife and having sent the same to the Government examiner, Hyderabad for expert opinion. P.W.16 deposed to having collected specimen signature of P.W.15 from the bank as also obtaining the specimen signatures of the appellant/accused and his wife and having sent the same to the Government examiner, Hyderabad for expert opinion. The opinion of the expert has been marked as Ex.P.23. He also informed that upon enquiry he learnt that no person by name Kumar resided at the address informed on the rear of Exs.P.1 and P.2. P.W.16 has preferred the charge sheet informing commission of offence under Sections 120B, 201,420,467,471,468,477A IPC and 13 (1) (d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 before Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 30.03.1995. 21. P.W.17, Assistant General Manager has spoken to forwarding of the report of the vigilance department of the bank – Ex.P.24 to the Superintendent of Police/CBI/ Chennai giving rise to registration of Ex.P.14 – FIR. 22. P.W.18, Government examiner of questioned documents, Government of India Laboratory at Hyderabad, deposed to having effected comparison between the disputed documents and admitted writings. His findings implicated the appellant/accused. 23. Heard Mr.R.Rajasekaran, learned counsel for appellant/accused and learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI. 24. Learned counsel for appellant/accused submitted that the appellant/accused had nothing to do with wrongful withdrawals of Rs.2,00,000/-and Rs.2,50,000/- effected through two cheques on 17.10.1994. It was the prosecution case that such amounts had been paid over to one Kumar. The evidence of P.W.1 that this appellant/accused had identified Kumar as a known person entitled to receive payment was false. Upon being duly satisfied of the availability of balance in the account, this appellant/accused had passed the cheques for payment and payment had been effected only upon the cheques being counter signed for payment by P.W.7. Payment had been effected on the cheques only upon P.W.7 being satisfied that there was sufficient balance in the account. The evidence of P.W.7 was to the effect that the two cheques Exs.P.1 and 2 were issued in respect of S.B.A/c. No.21210 belonging to P.W.15. P.W.7 had also deposed to not verifying if P.W.5, in whose custody cheque books, loose leaves and other records were, had infact handed over the same to the appellant/accused. Therefore, there was no proof that the appellant/accused had access to the cheques and consequently the prosecution case of his having misused the same could not stand. P.W.7 had also deposed to not verifying if P.W.5, in whose custody cheque books, loose leaves and other records were, had infact handed over the same to the appellant/accused. Therefore, there was no proof that the appellant/accused had access to the cheques and consequently the prosecution case of his having misused the same could not stand. P.W.15, Account holder had deposed that she never had resided in Chennai and that she did not open any savings bank account with the Indian Bank, Sowcarpet branch, Chennai. P.W.8- Assistant Manager while alleging that the last two entries in Ex.P.5- Section Day Book were in the handwriting of the appellant/accused had admitted that they did not bear the signatures of the appellant. He had also stated that the person incharge of the counter would handle the Section Day Book and that persons belonging to other sections would not interfere. His further deposition is that Ex.P.5 – Section Day Book pertained to counter no.6 and that the officer in charge of such counter was P.W.7. He had further admitted that against normal practice, the Day Book was not tallied on the very date of transaction, 17.10.1994. Though P.W.9 had informed that the appellant/accused had enquired regarding the availability of cash towards making heavy payment it was significant that P.W.10, Holder of Savings Bank Account No.18157, had deposed to withdrawing a sum of Rs.4,42,000/- from his account on 17.10.1994. P.W.17, Assistant General Manager of the bank had deposed that as per the Bank manual both the first signing officer as wells as the second counter signing officer were equally responsible for passing cheques. In Ex.P.24 Complaint, P.W.17 had mentioned that both the appellant/accused as also one other person were involved. The appellant/accused wrongly had been singled out and stands falsely accused. The circumstances of the case would not permit conviction of the appellant/accused merely on the basis of the opinion of the expert. Even such opinion was inconclusive as to the writing on Ex.P.6. 25. Learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that Ex.P.6- Ledger sheets of A/C.No.21210 had been prepared by the appellant/accused towards informing the availability of sufficient balance in S.B.A/c.No.21210 and towards withdrawing two sums of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.2,50,000/- under Exs.P.1 and 2. The writing of the cheques Exs.P.1 and P.2 had been proved to be that of the appellant/accused through P.W.18, a handwriting expert. The writing of the cheques Exs.P.1 and P.2 had been proved to be that of the appellant/accused through P.W.18, a handwriting expert. The Savings Bank A/c. No.21210 has been closed on 23.05.1994. The evidence of P.W.4, the clerk in charge of counter No.5 on that day was that he had verified and found that all tokens were intact before starting work on such day, that token No.630 was available and that he did not issue such token to anybody. P.W.2 and P.W.5 the clerks entrusted with the job of verifying the balance in the accounts, the instruments and issuance of token had categorically stated that they had not issued token No.630 on such date. P.W.1 had been induced to effect delivery of sums of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.2,50,000/- to one Kumar, identified by the appellant/accused as a person known to him and entitled to receive payment and upon presentation of token No.630. Learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit that the present case was an open and shut one and the guilt of the appellant/accused stood proved to the hilt. 26. In the course of his questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant/accused has admitted to having passed the two cheques for payment and of having made entries there regards in Ex.P.6 -ledger sheet. He has also informed of admitting to wrongly noting the date as 17.09.1994 and correcting the date as 17.10.1994 and affixing his initial thereto. P.W.6 has spoken to entries in Ex.P.6 being in the hands of the appellant/accused. Comparison of appellant/accused's hand writing with that on the instruments had resulted in the expert P.W.18 informing that writings on Exs.P.1 and P.2 cheques were that of the appellant/accused. As persons working with the appellant/accused P.W s.1 and 2 have informed of knowing his handwriting and that writings on the cheques were his. The evidence of P.W.1 is categorical that it is at the instance of the appellant/accused and upon his informing of the person Kumar being a known person entitled to obtain payment that he had effected payment. It is also clear that P.W.7 has counter signed the cheques for payment only upon assurance made by the appellant/accused, that there was sufficient balance in the account. 27. The oral and documentary evidence in the case pointed unerringly to the guilt of the accused. It is also clear that P.W.7 has counter signed the cheques for payment only upon assurance made by the appellant/accused, that there was sufficient balance in the account. 27. The oral and documentary evidence in the case pointed unerringly to the guilt of the accused. Discrepancies regards the internal procedure of the bank pointed out by learned counsel for appellant/accused are not substantial and would not justify leaning in favour of the appellant/accused. Given the clear and cogent evidence against the appellant/accused, we would find in order the reasoning of the court below that P.W.7 had counter signed Exs.P.1 and P.2 cheques for payment only on the assurance meted out by the appellant/accused. Though P.W.15 - holder of the account has turned hostile, present is a case calling for acceptance of the evidence P.W.16 Investigating Officer regards the operation of such account. 28. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merits in the appeal and the same is dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed by judgment dated 03.05.2001, in C.C.No.149 of 1997 on the file of learned Principal Special Judge for CBI cases, Chennai, shall stand confirmed. The sentences shall run concurrently. Learned Principal Special Judge for CBI cases, Chennai, is directed to take necessary steps to secure the accused and commit him to prison to undergo the remaining part of his sentence.