JUDGMENT : U. Durga Prasad Rao, J. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.04.2006 in C.C. No. 28 of 2005 passed by learned Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad convicting A. 1 for the offences under Sections 120-B r/w 420 I.P.C. and 420 I.P.C. and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for three months for the offence under Section 120-B r/w 420 I.P.C. and also to suffer R.I. for four years and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to under S.I. for six months for the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. and further directing that the substantial sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently, A.1 preferred the instant criminal appeal. 2. The facts which led to file the appeal are briefly thus: (a) Appellant/A.1 is the proprietor of M/s. Sinclair Laminates, Tarnaka, Hyderabad engaged in manufacturing laminated furniture. A.2 in the main case, was the Manager (Advances) in regional office of Indian Overseas Bank (I.O.B), Hyderabad during the relevant period of the offence and later he was dismissed from service w.e.f. 28.03.1988. He was looking after all the matters pertaining to advances and clearing of advances of all the branches in the region. While-so, the prosecution case was that both the accused conspired together and cheated the I.O.B. in the matter of giving advances to M/s. Sinclair Laminates, the concern of A.1 by discounting cheques for huge amounts which were issued without any bank balances and to honour them when presented for payment, floating of bogus firms during the year 1985. By dint of the above acts, both the accused caused wrongful loss to the I.O.B. to a tune of Rs. 3,45,500/-. (b) Crime No. R.C. 47 (S)/86 of SPE, Hyderabad was registered and charge-sheet was laid against A.1 and A.2. Case was taken on file in C.C. No. 16 of 1989. However, as A.1 was absconding and could not be traced, case against him was separated and numbered as C.C. No. 33/1989 and original Case C.C. No. 16/1989 was disposed of against A. 2. Case was taken on file in C.C. No. 16 of 1989. However, as A.1 was absconding and could not be traced, case against him was separated and numbered as C.C. No. 33/1989 and original Case C.C. No. 16/1989 was disposed of against A. 2. As per the judgment dated 28.02.1990 in C.C. No. 16/1989, A.2 was convicted 'for the offences under Section 120-B r/w 420 of I.P.C. and under Section 5 (2) r/w 5 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and owing to his old age and heart ailments, the trial Court took lenient view in imposing punishment and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment till raising of the Court under each count and also sentenced him to pay fine of Rs. 500/- under each count. It appears, A. 2 has not preferred any appeal. (c) While-so, later the case against A. 1 i.e., C.C. No. 33/1989 was treated as L.P.C. No. 1/1994 and subsequently on his apprehension, case was renumbered as C.C. No. 28/2005 and trial was taken place after framing charges against him. (d) During trial, P.Ws. 1 to 13 were examined and Exs. P. 1 to P. 81 and Exs. X. 1 and X. 2 were marked on behalf of prosecution. Ex. D. 1 was marked on behalf of accused. (e) The trial Court as per its judgment dated 28.04.2006 came to the conclusion that A.1 was guilty of the offences under Section 120-B r/w 420 I.P.C. and 420 I.P.C. and sentenced him accordingly as stated supra. Hence the appeal by A. 1. 3. Heard arguments of Sri T. Bali Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for Sri K. Suresh Reddy, learned counsel for appellant/A.1 and Sri P. Kesava Rao, learned Special Standing Counsel ("Spl. S.C") for CBI. 4. The argument of learned counsel for appellant is twofold. Hence the appeal by A. 1. 3. Heard arguments of Sri T. Bali Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for Sri K. Suresh Reddy, learned counsel for appellant/A.1 and Sri P. Kesava Rao, learned Special Standing Counsel ("Spl. S.C") for CBI. 4. The argument of learned counsel for appellant is twofold. (a) Firstly, that since A.2 was convicted for the offence under Section 120-B r/w 420 I.P.C. and not under Section 420 I.P.C. independently, the present appellant/A.1 also cannot be liable to be convicted for the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. independently because of the fact that each time when the cheques of appellant/A.1 were discounted A. 2 was supporting the transaction by using his influence with bank officers and in such a situation, A. 1 will be liable for the offence under Section 120-B r/w 420 I.P.C. only and he cannot be liable to be convicted for the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. since it cannot be postulated that A.1 committed cheating independently without the aid of A.2. Thus he prayed that appellant/A.1 may be acquitted of the charge under Section 420 I.P.C. (b) The second argument of learned counsel in the form of submission is that in case the appellant/A.1 were to be found guilty, lenience may be taken in imposing sentence for the reason that he is an old man aged about 63 years and suffering with severe heart ailments and he underwent Angioplasty and RCA Direct Stinting and POBA done to OM3 on 12.03.2013 and he is also suffering with Hypertension and diabetes. It was further submitted that the appellant/A.1 has paid the entire dues to the I.O.B., Secunderabad with interest and an affidavit of Appellant is filed to that effect. 5. Per contra, learned Spl. S.C. argued that the trial Court rightly convicted the accused for the offences under Section 120-B r/w 420 and 420 I.P.C. inasmuch as he committed those offences in conspiracy with A.2 and also independently and there is no need to interfere with the conviction recorded by the trial Court. So far as the sentence aspect is concerned, he fairly left it to the discretion of the Court. 6. In the light of above arguments, the point for determination in this appeal is: "Whether, there are merits in this appeal to allow?" 7. POINT: In respect of first argument, I perused the record and judgment of the trial Court. So far as the sentence aspect is concerned, he fairly left it to the discretion of the Court. 6. In the light of above arguments, the point for determination in this appeal is: "Whether, there are merits in this appeal to allow?" 7. POINT: In respect of first argument, I perused the record and judgment of the trial Court. In Paras 49 to 52 of the judgment, the trial Court gave reasons for recording conviction against A.1 for the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. The trial Court observed that the evidence clearly showed that the accused with a deceptive mind only opened accounts in different business names and also in his name with different spellings and he had gone to the extent of denying his relationship with P.W. 2 to escape from the clutches of the law. On perusal of the record, I endorse the finding given by the trial Court. Since A.1 involved in creating accounts in different business names, his act of cheating the I.O.B. can be held to be an independent act. Apart from it, he also conspired with A.2 in getting the cheques issued in his favour discounted by flouting the bank norms. Therefore, the trial Court was justified in convicting him for the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. independently. Accordingly, I find no merits in this argument. 8. Then coming to the aspect of sentence, the trial Court as stated supra, sentenced A.1 to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for three months for the offence under Section 120-B r/w 420 I.P.C. and also to suffer R.I. for four years and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for six months for the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. and further directed that the substantial sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. 9. Now the submission on behalf of appellant/A.1 is that he is an old man aged 63 years and suffering with heart decease and he underwent Angioplasty and stunt was put to him on 12.03.2013 and he is also suffering from Hypertension and diabetes and he paid the bank dues with interest and hence considering these facts the sentence imposed by the trial Court may be reduced to the extent possible. In support of his submission, medical record of appellant issued by Apollo Hospitals, Bangalore is filed. A perusal of the medical record shows about his heart ailment. His affidavit shows he paid entire dues to Indian Overseas Bank, Secunderabad. Considering the nature of the offence and circumstances under which it was committed and also considering the old age and ill-health of the appellant/A.1, I am of the view that for the ends of justice, a lenient view can be taken towards appellant/A.1 in imposition of sentence. It is seen that the copy of the committal warrant submitted by the trial Court shows that the A.1 was in remand from 03.08.2005 to 28.04.2006. 10. Thus while upholding the conviction recorded by the trial Court against appellant/A. 1 for the offences under Section 120-B r/w 420 I.P.C. and 420 I.P.C., the substantive sentence of imprisonment under each count is reduced to the period of remand he already undergone as mentioned supra. The fine imposed by the trial Court on two counts shall hold good. This Criminal Appeal is allowed only to the extent mentioned above. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any shall stand closed.