JUDGMENT : L. Narasimha Reddy, J. The plaintiff in O.S.No.33 of 1994 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam filed this appeal feeling aggrieved by the dismissal thereof. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit. The suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.19,10,393.30 ps. against defendants 1 to 4. While the 1st defendant is a former accountant of the plaintiff-bank, the 2nd defendant worked as Messenger and the 3rd defendant is the brother-in-law of the 1st defendant. The 4th defendant is Kaikaluru Branch of Andhra Bank. It was pleaded that on 24.06.1989, the plaintiff received a parcel of printed demand drafts, to be used in its transactions and the same are verified by the 1st defendant. He is said to have handed over the charge to another employee, while going on leave. Over the period, as many as 71 demand drafts, said to have been issued by the plaintiff, for a sum of about Rs.8,00,000/-, were presented by two individuals, by name Alluri Sitarama Raju and Alluri Ranga Raju before the 4th defendant and they, in turn, were sent for clearance to the plaintiff-bank. The demand drafts were said to have been encashed. In the reconciliation, undertaken on 01.06.1990, it was noticed that 71 demand drafts, referred to above, were not issued by the Branch of the plaintiff at all. A complaint was submitted to the Police and in the course of investigation, it was found that the 1st defendant acquired valuable items of property, such as gold and Indira Vikas Patras, his brother-in-law, the 3rd defendant introduced Alluri Ranga Raju while opening of account in the 4th defendant Branch and Ranga Raju, in turn, acted as an introducer for Alluri Seetarama Raju to open another account. Stating that both the account holders are fictitious persons and fraud was committed upon it, the plaintiff initiated proceedings on several fronts. The criminal case ended in acquittal and the departmental proceedings initiated against defendants 1 and 2 ended in exonerating them from the charges. The suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.19,10,393.30 ps. It was pleaded that but for the negligence exhibited by the 4th defendant and collusion on the part of defendants 1 to 3, fraud would not have taken place. Defendants 2 and 3 remained ex parte. The suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.19,10,393.30 ps. It was pleaded that but for the negligence exhibited by the 4th defendant and collusion on the part of defendants 1 to 3, fraud would not have taken place. Defendants 2 and 3 remained ex parte. The 1st defendant pleaded that after receiving the parcel, he verified the same and handed over the charge thereof to his next incumbent. He stated that at no point of time, the demand drafts were handled or signed by him. The 4th defendant pleaded that as a Bank, it receives many negotiable instruments and the demand drafts that were said to have been issued by the plaintiff were presented before it and on receiving the same, they were sent for clearance. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff itself was negligent in verifying the demand drafts before clearing them and that the 4th defendant cannot be held liable in any manner. Shelter was taken under Section 131 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial Court dismissed the suit. Sri K.Gopala Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the plaintiff, submits that standard of proof that is required in the proceedings before a criminal Court or for that matter, in the departmental proceedings, is substantially different and the mere fact that both the proceedings ended against it, cannot constitute the basis to dismiss the suit. He submits that the 4th defendant has forwarded as many as 71 demand drafts for clearance and it was under obligation to verify whether the account holders, who presented them are genuine or fictitious persons and on account of the negligence on the part of the 4th defendant, the plaintiff parted with substantial amounts. He submits that the evidence on record clearly indicated that the demand drafts went into wrong hands on account of negligence on the part of the 1st defendant and they came to be presented before the 4th defendant on account of the collusive activities of defendants 2 and 3. He contends that the trial Court did not appreciate the evidence on record on proper lines and the suit deserves to be decreed. Sri C.Pratap Kumar, learned counsel for the 1st defendant, Sri T.Suryakaran Reddy, learned counsel for the 2nd defendant and Smt.Sesharajyam, learned Standing Counsel for the 4th defendant advanced arguments. The appeal was dismissed for default against the 3rd defendant. Sri C.Pratap Kumar, learned counsel for the 1st defendant, Sri T.Suryakaran Reddy, learned counsel for the 2nd defendant and Smt.Sesharajyam, learned Standing Counsel for the 4th defendant advanced arguments. The appeal was dismissed for default against the 3rd defendant. The contention of the learned counsel is that the framing of the suit itself was not proper, inasmuch as it was filed for recovery without even seeking a declaration as to the liability of the defendants. They submit that once a finding was recorded by the criminal Court to the effect that the prosecution failed to prove its case as to the misappropriation or other activities on the part of its employees and once it has exonerated the employees i.e. defendants 1 and 2 of the charges framed in the departmental proceedings, there was absolutely no basis for the suit at all. They submit that if, in fact, the plaintiff has sustained any loss, it is squarely on account of its own negligence. Other grounds were also urged. The trial Court framed the following issues and additional issues for its consideration. Issues: (1) Whether the plaintiff-bank is negligent as pleaded in the written statement. (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount from the 4th defendant (3) Whether the 4th defendant is entitled for exemplary costs. Additional Issues: (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount from D1 (2) Whether D1 is entitled to exemplary costs as prayed for. On behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A3 were filed. The 1st defendant deposed as P.W.1 and he filed Ex.A1 certified copy of the judgment in C.C.No.50 of 1993 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kaikaluru. The suit was dismissed. In view of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the following points arise for consideration: (a) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff in the present form is proper. (b) Whether the plaintiff has proved that it is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendants? and (c) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court suffers from any legal or factual infirmity. Point No.1: The suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.19,10,393.30 ps. (b) Whether the plaintiff has proved that it is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendants? and (c) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court suffers from any legal or factual infirmity. Point No.1: The suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.19,10,393.30 ps. In case the relief claimed in the suit is on the basis of any loan transaction or other acknowledged dealings, the claim of the plaintiff can certainly be treated as proper and valid. The amount was claimed on the ground that the defendants were responsible in encashment of 71 demand drafts, which were not at all issued by the plaintiff. If the plaintiff was of the view that the defendants either individually or collectively were responsible for bringing into existence the demand drafts in question, it ought to have sought for a declaration to the effect that any particular defendant or all of them put together, are responsible for bringing into existence, such demand drafts. It was also under obligation to plead the respective roles that are said to have been played by the concerned defendants, in the process. No such effort was made. It is only when a particular amount was determined by a Court of law or it is covered by any negotiable instrument or a legal transaction between the parties, that a suit can straightaway be filed for recovery thereof. Once the plaintiff is not able to assert any such transactions and the claim is based on the allegations as to acts of negligence on the part of the defendants, the prayer in the suit is totally improper, in the absence of any prayer for declaration regarding the acts and omissions on the part of the defendants. The point is answered accordingly. Point No.2: Assuming that the frame of the suit is proper, it has to be seen whether the plaintiff proved its case against the defendants. The basis for filing the suit is that as many as 71 demand drafts, said to have been issued by it were presented before the 4th defendant by two individuals i.e. Ranga Raju and Sitarama Raju. The 4th defendant forwarded the same for clearance to the plaintiff and such clearance has, in fact, been affected. It is only at the stage of reconciliation, that they found that 71 demand drafts were not issued by it. The 4th defendant forwarded the same for clearance to the plaintiff and such clearance has, in fact, been affected. It is only at the stage of reconciliation, that they found that 71 demand drafts were not issued by it. The starting point for tracing the fraud and taking steps to recover the amount would be, the fixation of liability on any of its employees, for the loss of demand drafts, and then, ascertainment of the person or persons, who have issued the same. Another stage is to verify as to how such demand drafts were cleared, without proper verification. The plaintiff did take steps in this direction. A complaint was submitted to the Police and the same was tried as C.C.No.50 of 1993 by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kaikaluru. Defendants 1 and 2 were shown as accused therein. The case, however, ended in acquittal. No appeal was filed against it and the order of acquittal became final. Another front on which the plaintiff made an endeavour was by initiating departmental proceedings against defendants 1 and 2. It is too well known that the standard of proof that is required in criminal case is too stringent and in a departmental proceedings, the standard of proof is relatively moderate. Preponderance of evidence, as against proof beyond doubt, is sufficient. Despite such a facility, the plaintiff was not able to prove the charges against defendants 1 and 2. Once it has failed in the proceedings before a criminal Court and the departmental proceedings, to fix the liability upon defendants 1 and 2, it just cannot think of improving its case in a civil suit. The 3rd defendant is the stranger to them. It is only when he is a customer or has borrowed any amount that it could have thought of recovering any amount from him. The 4th defendant is a branch of Andhra Bank. The effort made by the plaintiff vis-à-vis the 4th defendant is that two fictitious accounts were permitted to be opened in the name Sitarama Raju and Ranga Raju and those two fictitious persons, in turn, have committed fraud. Basically, it is not for the plaintiff to verify and comment on how the transactions in the 4th defendant-bank are taking place. In its routine business, the 4th defendant has opened the accounts and entertained the demand drafts presented by its account holders. Basically, it is not for the plaintiff to verify and comment on how the transactions in the 4th defendant-bank are taking place. In its routine business, the 4th defendant has opened the accounts and entertained the demand drafts presented by its account holders. The actual verification is required to take place in the branch, which arranges cash against the demand drafts. Even while being under such obligation, the plaintiff was totally negligent and to cover its lapses, it sought to proceed against the defendants. We find that the plaintiff failed to prove its entitlement to recover the amounts from the defendants. Point No.3: We have gone through the evidence on record and the judgment rendered by the trial Court. We find that every issue was analyzed in its proper perspective and correct findings were recorded. We do not find any legal or factual error in the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous petitions filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of.