JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, Judge Assailing the judgment dated 27.6.2011, passed by learned Sessions Judge, (Special Judge), Shimla in Session Trial C.C. No.28-S/7 of 2005, titled as Central Bureau of Investigation, Shimla versus Yash Pal Dhiman, appellant has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2.It is the case of the prosecution that accused Yashpal Dhiman was working as a Clerk with the Canara Bank Baddi Branch. Complaint was received by the Central Bureau of Investigation with regard to the functioning of the accused. After initial investigation, F.I.R. No.RC CHG2004A0019 dated 23.8.2004 (Ex.PW47/1) was registered at Police Station, CBI/SPE/ACB, Chandigarh, under the provisions of Sections 408, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A, of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13 (a) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Investigation revealed that the accused had been receiving money from various customers of the bank in cash and instead of depositing the same in their separate accounts, was putting it to his personal use. Also, he forged documents for making various debit and credit entries with respect to the account holders of the bank. He would issue debit and credit notes. He opened accounts of his acquaintance, which he would conveniently use to show and reflect balance as per need and requirement of various customers. Investigation further revealed that with regard to the accounts of Hans Raj (PW-1) Yash Pal (PW-2), Ram Krishan (PW-3) and Ram Dass (PW-4), accused misappropriated and converted to his own use a sum of ‘7,00,000/-; ‘3,80,000/-; ‘4,63,000/- and ‘9,50,000/- respectively. In fact, accused caused loss to the customers of the bank to a sum of ‘24,40,000/- by misappropriating the amounts. Investigation further revealed that bank initiated disciplinary action against the accused and in the inquiry he was held guilty of having mis-conducted himself by the Inquiry Officer Sh. K. K. Kakkar (PW-30), which also resulted into his termination from the service. 3.After completion of investigation, Challan was presented in the Court for trial. The accused was charged for having committed offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 408, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A, of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13 (a) (c ) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. The accused was charged for having committed offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 408, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A, of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13 (a) (c ) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4.In order to establish its case, in all, prosecution examined as many as forty seven witnesses. Statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also recorded, in which he put the following defence:- “I am innocent and has been made scope goat in this case. I have not misappropriated any amount and had credited/debited vouchers if any at the instructions of customers. I was forced by CBI to deposited the alleged misappropriated amount which I had deposited after selling my land and house and raising loans from relatives in banking system there used to be separate secrit course for entering and passing vouchers in computer. It is the officers who had passed the vouchers. None of the vouchers vide which the amount was stated misappropriated had been passed by me.” 5.No evidence was lead by the accused in his defence. 6. Appreciating the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, the Court below convicted the accused for having committed offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and was sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year in relation to each of the offences and also pay fine of ‘500/- each in a similar manner. However, sentence was to run concurrently. Hence, the present appeal. 7.Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record, I am of the considered view that no case for interference is made out in the present appeal. The Court below has correctly and completely appreciated the material placed on record by the parties. It cannot be said that there is any perversity, either in the findings of fact or application of law, which has resulted into perversity and travesty of justice. Correct principles of law have been applied while appreciating the material so placed on record. 8.The record in the instant case is voluminous. I have carefully perused the same. It cannot be said that there is any perversity, either in the findings of fact or application of law, which has resulted into perversity and travesty of justice. Correct principles of law have been applied while appreciating the material so placed on record. 8.The record in the instant case is voluminous. I have carefully perused the same. 9.It is not in dispute that petitioner was employed as a Clerk and posted at Baddi Branch of Canara bank. It is also not in dispute that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner wherein he was held guilty and his services stood terminated. Order passed by the disciplinary authority has attained finality. It is a settled principle of law that findings of the disciplinary authority cannot be made basis for convicting the accused in a criminal trial. Thus, uninfluenced of the said factual matrix, this Court has proceeded to examine the material on record while deciding the present appeal. 10.It is not in dispute that during the pendency of investigation itself, accused deposited the entire amount of ‘24,40,000/- with the Bank, to which the bank and its customers were put to loss. Accused has taken a defence that he was forced by the CBI to do so, but however accused has neither led any evidence nor cross-examined the prosecution witnesses to make this defence probable. Testimonies of prosecution witnesses in this regard are unshaky. Accused has also taken a defence that the other employees of the bank misused the circuit course of the computer, for entering and passing vouchers in the computer and none of the vouchers processed by him would reveal misappropriation of any amount. Now this defence taken by the accused is palpably false and not borne out from the record. During investigation, he did not name any other officer who allegedly was his accomplice or who independently acted and entered transactions which were illegal and as a result thereof accused stands falsely implicated. There is no evidence on record to this effect. Also, defence taken by the accused is improbable. 11. During investigation, he did not name any other officer who allegedly was his accomplice or who independently acted and entered transactions which were illegal and as a result thereof accused stands falsely implicated. There is no evidence on record to this effect. Also, defence taken by the accused is improbable. 11. With regard to the defence taken by the accused that no amount stood misappropriated in relation to the vouchers he had signed, it be only observed that it is the case of prosecution that accused had in fact forged the vouchers to reflect debit and credit entries in relation to various customers who had opened their accounts with the branch of Canara Bank at Baddi, where accused was posted. 12. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined various customers, namely Shri. Hans Raj (PW-1), Sh. Yash Pal (PW-2), Sh. Ram Krishan (PW-3), Sh. Ram Dass (PW-4), Sh. Jai Pal (PW-5), Sh. Lachhami Dass (PW-6), Sh. Bishamber Singh (PW7), Smt. Sarswati Devi (PW-8), Sh. Satish Kumar (PW-9), Smt. Nirmala Devi (PW-10), Sh. Kashmiri Lal (PW-1 1), Smt. Sunita (PW-12), Sh. Hari Dass (PW-13), Sh. Amar Singh (PW-14), Smt. Geeta Devi (PW-15), Sh. Ram Lok (PW-16), Sh. Akhtar Hussain (PW-1 7), Sh. Hem Raj Sharma (PW-18), Sh. Gopal Ram (PW-19), Sh. Jarnail Singh (PW-20), Smt. Swarno Devi (PW-21), Smt. Reeta Devi (PW-22), Sh. Dharam Pal (PW-23), Sh. Sushil Kumar (PW-24), Sh. Rajesh Bansal (PW-25), Sh. Dharam Pal Chauhan (PW-26), Sh. Sanjeev Verma (PW-31), Sh. Ramesh Wadhawan (PW­32), Sh. Narinder Jain (PW-33), Sh. Jagram Pal (PW-34), Sh. Bhupinder Kumar (PW-35), Sh. Madan Lal (PW-36), Sh. Gurbux Singh (PW-37), Sh. Krishan Dev (PW-38), Sh. Sat Pal (PW-39), Sh. B.S. Rana (PW-41) and Sh. Rattan Chand Dhiman (PW-43). 13. Out of these witnesses, Sh. Jai Pal (PW-5), Shri Lachhami Dass (PW-6), Smt. Geeta Devi (PW-15), Sh. Ram Lok (PW-16), Sh. Akhtar Hussain (PW-17), Sh. Jarnail Singh (PW-20), Smt. Swarno Devi (PW-21) and Smt. Reeta Devi (PW-22) have not fully supported the prosecution case. At this juncture, it be only observed that even though these witnesses did not initially support the prosecution case, but however when cross examined by the Public Prosecutor, they deposed in favour of the prosecution. 14.PW-1 has categorically deposed that debit vouchers (Ex.PW1/1) to Ex.PW1/16 and PW1/E as also credit vouchers Ex.PW1/17 to Ex.PW1/33-A are not in his handwriting. At this juncture, it be only observed that even though these witnesses did not initially support the prosecution case, but however when cross examined by the Public Prosecutor, they deposed in favour of the prosecution. 14.PW-1 has categorically deposed that debit vouchers (Ex.PW1/1) to Ex.PW1/16 and PW1/E as also credit vouchers Ex.PW1/17 to Ex.PW1/33-A are not in his handwriting. To the same effect are testimonies of Sh. Yash Pal (PW-2), Sh. Ram Krishan (PW-3), Sh. Ram Dass (PW-4) and Sh. Satish Kumar (PW-9) who have categorically denied having executed the debit/credit vouchers which are Ex.PW2/1 to Ex.PW2/23, Ex.PW3/1 to Ex.PW3/1 5, Ex.PW4/1 to Ex.PW4/1 1 and Ex.PW9/5 to Ex.PW9/68. Testimonies of these witnesses are un­shattered. They have categorically deposed that they had authorized none, including the bank official, much less the accused to make entries of debit and credit of their accounts. Conjoint reading of testimonies of these witnesses would also reveal that a sum of ‘24,40,000/- was misappropriated from the accounts of Shri. Hans Raj (PW-1), Sh. Yash Pal (PW-2), Sh. Ram Krishan (PW-3), Sh. Ram Dass (PW-4). In relation to the account of Sh. Satish Kumar (PW-9), entries of debit and credit were made without authorization. 15.The question which now needs to be considered is as to whether it was the accused who had actually forged these documents and entered into these illegal transaction. The fact that accused was posted on the seat having exclusive control and authorization to make such entries evidently stands established on record through the testimony of bank officials namely, Sh. Jai Singh (PW-40), Sh. Ashok Kumar (PW-42), Sh. Desh Lal Thusoo (PW-44) and Sh. S.V. Raman PW-45). In any event, this fact is not disputed by the accused during trial. It is evidently clear from the line of cross-examination of all the witnesses and the suggestions put to them. Bank officials in their un­shattered testimonies have unequivocally deposed that since accused was a local person, on his asking they had been passing debit and credit notes. These notes were placed by the accused before them. It be only observed that there was no requirement for the Bank Manager to have verified the entries of debit and credit notes directly from the customers. These notes were placed by the accused before them. It be only observed that there was no requirement for the Bank Manager to have verified the entries of debit and credit notes directly from the customers. The transactions appeared to have been conducted in the normal course of business as the sum involved in each transaction was not astronomically high so as to invoke suspicion or doubt in the mind of the Bank Manager. 16.The Investigating Officer, Shri R. Upasak, (PW-47) has categorically deposed that specimen signatures of the accused were taken in the presence of independent witnesses, namely Shri Kherit Lal Meena (PW-27), Shri Arvind Sharma (PW-28) and Shri Bhushan Lal Gill (PW-29). Careful reading of statements of these witnesses corroborates such version. It has also come on record that vouchers and specimen signatures were in fact sent for opinion of the expert. Report (Ex.PW46/141) and reasons in support thereof (Ex.PW46/142) of witness i.e. Shri Mohinder Singh (PW-46) stand duly proved in accordance with law. By cross- examining these witnesses, an attempt was made by the accused to prove that there can be similarity of handwriting of two different persons but however it stands clarified by the witness that similarity would be superficial in nature and can be recognized by an expert.According to this expert, handwriting on documents i.e. Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW46/3 as also Ex.PW19/8 matched with the handwriting of the accused. It be also observed that the expert has come to the conclusion that signatures on the documents in question did not match with that of the respective account holders/customers who stand examined in Court. Report evidently establishes that the documents in question i.e. debit and credit notes, which were subject matter of examination by an expert, were in fact in the handwriting of the accused. 17. It is the contention of accused that the Investigating Officer committed grave irregularity by not obtaining his signatures in the presence of the Magistrate in view of Section 311 (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The contention only merits rejection for the reason that it is not the mandate of Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that in all cases, signatures of accused are necessarily to be obtained under the direction or in the presence of the Magistrate. 18. The contention only merits rejection for the reason that it is not the mandate of Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that in all cases, signatures of accused are necessarily to be obtained under the direction or in the presence of the Magistrate. 18. Thus, in my considered view, prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt, by leading clear, cogent and convincing piece of evidence in relation to the charged offences. 19. It be also observed that customers of the bank who stood examined as prosecution witnesses, in no uncertain terms, have deposed that the bank has compensated them in relation to their respective monetary claims. Significantly, Sh. Satish Kumar (PW-9) whose account showed that there were unauthorized withdrawals to the extent of ‘22,00,600/- had never signed any withdrawal form. 20. The accused with dishonest intent cheated and deceived the customers of the bank by using their money deposited by them for his personal use. He also forged documents in the shape of valuable security with an intent of cheating the bank as also its customers. He fraudulently and dishonestly used the documents which he had forged. The accused falsified the accounts of customers of the bank of which he had access to. With fraudulent and dishonest intent, he misappropriated the property of the bank as also its customers and converted to his own use by abusing his position. For all the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. All pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the accused are cancelled. The accused is directed to immediately surrender before the Trial Court to serve out the sentence. Records of the Courts below be immediately sent back.