Judgment Prafulla C. Pant, C.J. Both of these appeals are directed against judgment and order dated 3-12-2007/6-12-2007 passed by Special Judge, (CBI) Shillong, in Special Case (CBI) No. 2 of 1993 whereby accused/appellants Shri. Ganga Prasad Nath (for short G.P. Nath) and Shri. Ashutosh Modak were convicted under Section 120(B), 420and 406 IPC, and each one of them has been sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 6(six) months under Section 120(B) IPC, imprisonment for a period of 1(one) year under Section 406 IPC and imprisonment for a period of 2(two) years and to pay fine of ` 20,000/- under Section 420 IPC. Accused/appellant Ashutosh Modak has been further convicted and sentenced under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for a period of 1(one) year and directed to pay fine of ` 20,000/- in default of payment of which he is required to undergo imprisonment for a further period of 6(six) months. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the lower court record. 2. Brief facts of the case are that accused G.P. Nath is husband of Smti. Usha Rani Nath, an LIC Agent with code No. 2294 of 483, who used to collect premiums from the policy holders on behalf of his wife. Accused G.P. Nath, had a Savings Bank Account with United Bank of India, Shillong Branch where he got acquainted with accused Ashutosh Modak who was a Bill Collector in said Bank. Accused G.P. Nath himself was a teacher in Anath Ashram L.P. School. Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short LIC) had 3(three) accounts with the Shillong Branch of said Bank out of which one account was meant for depositing LIC premiums deposited by policy holders. The prosecution case is that accused/appellants Ashutosh Modak and G.P. Nath entered into a conspiracy under which Ashutosh Modak opened a Savings Bank Account with Shillong Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. in 1991 for the purpose of using the account for the agency work of LIC being performed by accused G.P. Nath. Modus operandi of accused G.P. Nath was to collect premiums in cash from different policy holders but he used to show the payment of premiums by presenting cheques obtained from 5(five) different account holders. The amount used to be filled by G.P. Nath himself before the same was presented in the LIC counter. Modus operandi of accused G.P. Nath was to collect premiums in cash from different policy holders but he used to show the payment of premiums by presenting cheques obtained from 5(five) different account holders. The amount used to be filled by G.P. Nath himself before the same was presented in the LIC counter. On request of accused G.P. Nath, accused Ashutosh Modak also used to give him signed blank cheques of the account opened by him with Shillong Cooperative Urban Bank. After the LIC sent the cheques to United Bank of India for collection of the sum in its account, accused Ashutosh Modak used to withhold the cheques before the same were sent to the drawee bank. As many as 36 cheques were withheld by accused Ashutosh Modak in the year 1991 which were presented by accused G.P. Nath at the LIC counter. 15 policy holders who were cheated, corroborated the fact as to how they made payment to accused G.P. Nath, and the same was not deposited. After investigation, it was found that a sum of ` 1,66,300.85p was misappropriated by accused/appellant G.P. Nath and Ashutosh Modak. First Information Report was registered on 20-2-1993 regarding the above mentioned transactions of the year 1991-92 with Central Bureau of Investigation (for short CBI). After investigation, charge sheet was filed against both the accused G.P. Nath and Ashutosh Modak in respect of offences punishable under Section 120(B), 420, 406 IPC and one punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13 (I)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. On receipt of the charge sheet and after hearing the parties, the then Special Judge (CBI) Shillong vide its order dated 14-12-1994 discharged accused Ashutosh Modak on the ground that the 'sanction for prosecution was not accorded by competent authority'. Consequently, CBI obtained fresh sanction and filed fresh charge sheet on 13-1-1995, on which after hearing the parties, charge in respect of offences punishable under Section 120(B), 420, 406 IPC were framed against both accused G.P. Nath and Ashutosh Modak. Against accused Ashutosh Modak, a charge in respect of offence punishable under Section 13(2)of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was also framed. Both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution got examined PW1 Jagadish. Against accused Ashutosh Modak, a charge in respect of offence punishable under Section 13(2)of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was also framed. Both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution got examined PW1 Jagadish. Dutta (Assistant Teacher of Anath Ashram L.P. School situated at Mawprem), PW 2 Pradip Chandra Paul (a policy holder of LIC), PW 3 Nirmal Kumar Nandi (a Clerk of State Bank of India), PW 4 Krishna Padak Kuri, (another policy holder of LIC), PW 5 Kalipadau Kuri (also LIC Policy Holder), PW 6 Bijoy Adhikari (whose daughter was a student in the school where G.P. Nath used to work and who was persuaded by said accused to have a policy with LIC), PW 7 R.K. Banik (Development Officer of LIC), PW 8 Raghubir Saini, (yet another policy holder of LIC), PW 9 Prabhash Chandra Dutta (who also got his LIC policy through G.P. Nath), PW 10 Subrata Poddar (similarly situated policy holder of LIC who also used to make payment of premiums like above mentioned other account holders to accused G.P. Nath), PW 11 S.M. Bhoumick, (Branch Manager of United Bank of India), PW 12 Subhas Chandra Kuri, (who also obtained LIC from accused G.P. Nath and made payment of premium like above mentioned others in cash to him), PW 13 Gaurang Kumar Paul (who had taken as many as five LIC policies through accused G.P. Nath), PW 14 Bhawanlal Jain (also LIC policy holder who also used to pay premiums in cash to accused G.P. Nath), PW 15 Hiren Chandra Nath, (Assistant Administrative Officer of LIC), PW 16 Purimal Nandey, (also an account holder who paid cash premiums to accused G.P. Nath), PW 17 Bishnupada Kuri (who opened an account with Shillong Cooperative Urban Bank, and from whom accused G.P. Nath took cheque book for depositing LIC premiums), PW 18 Nalini Kanta Nandi, (yet another policy account holder who disclosed that accused G.P. Nath used to take cash towards premiums of LIC and used to give katcha receipts), PW 19 Nilandra Borthakur, (Cashier, LIC), PW 20 Mehir Kanti Paul, (who had an account with State Bank of India and whose cheque book was also allegedly used by accused G.P. Nath), PW 21 Shondro Kharkongor, (an Officer of United Bank of India), PW 22 Sushanta Kumar Roy, (also a policy holder of LIC), PW 23 Gogesh Chandra Saha, (Assistant Regional Manager of United Bank of India), PW 24 Smti. B. Passah (produced but discharged and not examined), PW 25 Sami Bhattacharjee, (a colleague of accused G.P. Nath in Anath Ashram Lower Primary School), PW 26 B.D. Kharpran Dali, (Secretary of Shillong Co-operative Urban Bank), PW 27 Sikanta Mazumdar, (Branch Manager of Ka Bank Nongkyndong, Ri Khasi Jaintia, Umpling Branch), PW 28 Jormanik Syiem, (also an employee of aforesaid Ka Bank Nongkyndong, Ri Khasi Jaintia, Shillong), PW 29 T. Thangzalian, (CBI Inspector who investigated the crime), PW 30 V.G.S. Bhatnagar, (Government Handwriting Expert), PW 31 Prasanta Mawthoh, (witness of seizure memo), PW 32 A.K. Brahma, (before whom specimen signatures of accused Ashutosh Modak and accused G.P. Nath were taken), PW 33 Smt. T. Lyngdoh, (also witness of specimen signatures of both the accused), PW 34 Robindra Ch. Gupta, (Chief Manager of United Bank of India who accorded sanction for prosecution), PW 35 Mamindra Sarania, (Inspector of CBI in whose presence search was conducted in the house of accused G.P. Nath), PW 36 P. Mawa, (Officer of Central Bank of India, also witness of the search in the house of accused G.P. Nath), PW 37 Manoranjan Bhadra, (an employee of Central Bank of India, also witness the search operation by CBI in the house of the accused G.P. Nath) and PW 38 Krishna Mangal Das, (Inspector of Police who also accompanied the CBI team to the house of accused G.P. Nath). 5. The documentary and oral evidence were put to the accused under Section 313 of CrPC in reply to which they alleged that the same is not correct. However, no evidence in defence was adduced by either of the two accused. The trial court, after hearing the parties found that the prosecution has successfully proved the charge of the offences punishable under Section 120(B), 406 and 420 against both the accused. It further found that as against accused Ashutosh Modak, charge of offence publishable under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is also proved. They were convicted accordingly and sentenced after hearing the parties to sentence, to various terms of imprisonment as mentioned in paragraph one of the judgment. 6. It further found that as against accused Ashutosh Modak, charge of offence publishable under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is also proved. They were convicted accordingly and sentenced after hearing the parties to sentence, to various terms of imprisonment as mentioned in paragraph one of the judgment. 6. PW 2 Pradip Chandra Paul, PW 3 Nirmal Kumar Nandi, PW 4 Krishna Padak Kuri, PW 5 Kalipadau Kuri, PW 6 Bijoy Adhikari, PW 8 Raghubir Saini, PW 9 Prabhash Chandra Dutta, PW 10 Subrata Poddar, PW 12 Subhas Chandra Kuri, PW 13 Gaurang Kumar Paul, PW 14 Bhawanlal Jain, PW 16 Purimal Nandey, PW 18 Nalini Kanta Nandi and PW 22 Sushanta Kumar Roy have adduced evidence that they had taken LIC policies through Smti. Usha Rani Nath (wife of accused G.P. Nath). They further told that accused G.P. Nath collected premiums in cash from them regarding which later they came to know that the same was not deposited in their account of the policy. There is nothing on record to disbelief their testimony as they had no enmity with accused G.P. Nath. The trial court has rightly believed their testimony as the same got corroborated from the documentary evidence on record. As such, after going through their testimony this court is of the view that charge of criminal misappropriation and cheating are clearly proved on the record, against accused/appellant G.P. Nath. 7. Regarding conspiracy between accused/appellant Ashutosh Modak and G.P. Nath in connection of the crime, the most important document on record are Ext. 140 and Ext. 141. By these documents, accused Ashutosh Modak appears to have handed over the retained 36 cheques to the Manager of United Bank of India, after the LIC made enquiries regarding the fate of the cheques in the second half of 1992. PW 11 S.M. Bhoumick, Branch Manager of United Bank of India has proved that accused Ashutosh Modak who was the Bill Collector in the Shillong Branch returned the cheques mentioned in Ext 140 and Ext 141. PW 11 S.M. Bhoumick, Branch Manager of United Bank of India has proved that accused Ashutosh Modak who was the Bill Collector in the Shillong Branch returned the cheques mentioned in Ext 140 and Ext 141. The aforesaid cheques are on the record and exhibited after the signatures of accused Ashutosh Modak were proved by the evidence of the handwriting expert (PW 30, Shri. V.G.S. Bhatnagar), PW 23 Gogesh Chandra Saha, the then Assistant Regional Manager of United Bank of India have also corroborated the above evidence against him and he has also proved the signatures of accused Ashutosh Modak in Ext. 137 which pertains to opening of Savings Bank Account by accused Ashutosh Modak in Shillong Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., after he entered into conspiracy with co-accused G.P. Nath. Having re-appreciated the evidence on record, this court is in concurrence with the trial court that charge of offences punishable under Section 120(B), 406 and 420 were proved against both the accused G.P. Nath and Ashutosh Modak. From the evidence on record, the charge of offence punishable under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 also stands proved against accused Ashutosh Modak. 8. On behalf of the appellants, first of all it is pointed out that in the First Information Report, there are 3(three) accused named but out of them, accused Mehir Kanti Paul (PW 20) was not charge sheeted for the best reasons known to the prosecution. In reply to this, learned counsel for the CBI submitted that since the evidence collected was not sufficient to make out any offence against him, as such, he was made prosecution witness (PW 20) who has also corroborated the prosecution story as against accused G.P. Nath. In my opinion, since there is no sufficient evidence on record to show that Mehir Kanti Paul had also complicity in the crime, as such, not making him accused in the charge sheet is not fatal for the prosecution, as against accused/appellants G.P. Nath and Ashutosh Modak. 9. Second argument advanced on behalf of the appellant Ashutosh Modak is that the sanction (Ext. 222) accorded for prosecution of Ashutosh Modak is not valid. In support of this, attention of this court is drawn to Jaswant Singh vrs. State of Punjab AIR 1958 SC 124 , Raghubir Singh vrs. State of Haryana (1974) 4 SCC 560 , Romesh Lal Jain vrs. 222) accorded for prosecution of Ashutosh Modak is not valid. In support of this, attention of this court is drawn to Jaswant Singh vrs. State of Punjab AIR 1958 SC 124 , Raghubir Singh vrs. State of Haryana (1974) 4 SCC 560 , Romesh Lal Jain vrs. Naginder Singh Rana (2006) 1 SCC 294 , State (Anti-Corruption Branch) NCT Delhi vrs. Dr. R.C. Anand (2004) 2 SCC 615 and Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan vrs. State of Gujarat (1997) 7 SCC 622 . It is further contended that the sanction quashed earlier was identical to the sanction (Ext 222) subsequently obtained. I have considered the relevant record and also went through the cases referred on behalf of the accused/appellants. Earlier sanction was not granted by the competent authority, as such, same was rejected, and accused was discharged. Subsequently, fresh sanction was obtained from the competent authority and fresh charge sheet was filed by CBI. I agree with learned counsel for CBI that since the evidence collected by CBI was the same, as such, the contents in the sanction if identical to the first one, that by itself is not sufficient to hold that the subsequent sanction is defective or that there was no application of mind on the part of the competent authority, i.e. PW 34 Robindra Ch. Gupta, Chief Manager of United Bank of India. 10. Thirdly, it is submitted on behalf of accused/appellant Ashutosh Modak that had he conspired with accused G.P. Nath and returned the cheques as alleged, the bank would have taken disciplinary proceedings against him. I am unable to accept the submission on behalf of the accused Ashutosh Modak for the reason that merely for the reason that the bank did not initiate departmental proceedings against accused Ashutosh Modak, it cannot be said that his involvement in the crime is doubtful particularly, when it is proved on the record before the trial court from the oral as well as the documentary evidence, that accused Ashutosh Modak did conspire with accused G.P. Nath in retaining the cheques to cheat the policy holders. He had gone to the extent of opening his account with Shillong Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. and cheques used to be issued from his said account by him for depositing premiums of various LIC policy holders without having sufficient funds in it. He had gone to the extent of opening his account with Shillong Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. and cheques used to be issued from his said account by him for depositing premiums of various LIC policy holders without having sufficient funds in it. It is possible that bank officials on enquiry from LIC came to know of the fraudulent transaction, and in order to make accused Ashutosh Modak to handover the cheques might have promised him that they will not take departmental action against him. 11. On behalf of the accused/appellant G.P. Nath, it is submitted that the investigating officer in the present case is not of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, as such, investigation of the case gets vitiated and said defect is fatal for prosecution. Section 17 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998 requires under its clause (C) that the Deputy Superintendent of Police or Police Officer of equivalent rank or above can only investigate the offence punishable under said Act. However, proviso to Section 17 empowers the Inspector of Police also to investigate the crime. Apart from this, in respect of conviction and sentence recorded under Section 120(B), 406 and 420 IPC, Section 17(C) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has no application. As such, the case of State of Karnataka vrs. B. Narayana Reddy (2002) CRI.L.J. 845, State Inspector of Police, Visakhapatnam vrs. Surya Sankaram Karri (2006) 7 SCC 172 is of little help to the appellants. 12. Lastly, on behalf of the accused/appellants attention of this court was drawn to the case of Shaikh Maqsood vrs. State of Maharashtra (2009) 6 SCC 583 and Ranvir Yadav vrs. State of Bihar (2009) 6 SCC 595 , and it is argued that the explanation given by the accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC is not properly considered by the trial court. I have carefully gone through the above two judgments. This court is of the view that what the Apex Court has emphasized is that recording of statement under Section 313 CrPC is not a mere formality rather all incriminating evidence must be put to him. In the present case, I have gone through the statements of the two accused recorded under Section 313 CrPC and found that all incriminating evidence against them has been put, and their replies obtained. In the present case, I have gone through the statements of the two accused recorded under Section 313 CrPC and found that all incriminating evidence against them has been put, and their replies obtained. As such, there is no infirmity in recording 313 CrPC nor any explanation given by the two accused in their defence is sufficient to disbelief the prosecution evidence discussed above. As such impugned judgment and order suffers from no illegality. 13. For the reasons as discussed above, in the opinion of this court, both the appeals are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed. Accused/appellants G.P. Nath and Ashutosh Modak shall surrender before the trial court immediately to serve out the sentence awarded by the trial court. The lower court record be sent back to the trial court to ensure the compliance of this and to make the two appellants serve out the sentence awarded against them.