JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. (oral) Present criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant, who is currently serving out his sentence, being aggrieved against the judgment and order dated 11.08.2014, passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act (C.B.I.), Dehradun, whereby he was convicted and sentenced for the various offences enumerated here-in-under. 2. Convict-appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC, Section 120B IPC read with Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and six months alongwith a fine of Rs. 1000/-, on each count. It was also directed that in default of payment of fine in respect any of the above offences, the convict-appellant shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently by the trial court. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, prosecution story, in a nutshell, is that on the basis of a written complaint of S.K. Rohilla, Dy. General Manager, Central Bank of India, Regional Office, Dehradun, a case RC0072012A0006 was registered on 28.06.2012 by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Branch Dehradun, under Sections 120B, 420, 489, 471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against Romy Malhotra, Prempal, Ran Kumar, Ravinder Kumar, Ravinder Kumar Sharma (present appellant), Ashok Jain, P.K. Jain, the then Asstt. Manager and D.K. Rathi, the then Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Aryanagar, Dehradun. It is alleged in that complaint that Ravinder Kumar Sharma applied for cash credit limit loan in the name of M/s Sharma Industries, in the month of October 2011. P.K. Jain, the then Asstt. Manager, conducted a pre-inspection of site of unit, address, documents and property of borrower and recommended the loan. On 14.10.2011, a cash credit limit of Rs. 75 lacs was sanctioned by D.K. Rathi, the then Branch Manager. 4. It is also alleged that on 10.10.2011, a cash credit limit loan of Rs. 72 lacs was sanctioned in favour of M/s Bharat Manufacturing, whose proprietor was Prem Pal. This loan was under Cent Sahyog Scheme, in which no collateral security and guarantor was required. The pre-inspection and verification of borrower was carried out by P.K. Jain, Asstt. Manager. On the basis of his report, D.K. Rathi has sanctioned this loan. 5. 72 lacs was sanctioned in favour of M/s Bharat Manufacturing, whose proprietor was Prem Pal. This loan was under Cent Sahyog Scheme, in which no collateral security and guarantor was required. The pre-inspection and verification of borrower was carried out by P.K. Jain, Asstt. Manager. On the basis of his report, D.K. Rathi has sanctioned this loan. 5. It is further alleged that on the basis of pre-sanction verification and recommendation of P.K. Jain, the then Asstt. Manager, cash credit limit loan of Rs. 75 lacs was sanctioned by D.K. Rathi, the then Branch Manager on 25.10.2011 in favour of M/s Chela Ram and Sons, whose proprietor was Ravinder Kumar Chela Ram under Cent Sahyog Scheme. 6. Allegations were also levelled that on 14.11.2012, two cash credit limit loan of Rs. 75 lacs each were sanctioned by D.K. Rathi, under Cent Sahyog Scheme in favour of M/s Sharma Industry, whose proprietor was Ravinder Kumar Sharma, and M/s Krishna and Co., whose proprietor was Ran Kumar and that pre-sanction verification and recommendation in both the loans were by P.K. Jain, the then Asstt. Manager. 7. In a nutshell, all the aforesaid loans were obtained by the aforesaid borrowers on the strength of fake / false documents and in this way, the bank was cheated by the accused persons, including the present appellant, to the tune of Rs. 3.61 crores. 8. An FIR to this effect was lodged on 28.06.2012. After completion of investigation, a chargesheet was submitted against the appellant and other accused persons, namely, Romy Malhotra, Prempal, Ran Kumar, Ashok Jain, P.K. Jain, Ravinder Kumar and D.K. Rathi. Chargesheet was submitted against accused-appellant Ravinder Kumar Sharma for the offences punishable under Section 120B IPC read with Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. When the trial began, charges for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC, Section 120B IPC read with Sections 419, 420, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act were framed against the accused appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 9. As many as 40 prosecution witnesses were examined. 9. As many as 40 prosecution witnesses were examined. They were – PW1 Raj Kiran Rai, PW2 Harvansh Lal, PW3 Suresh Kumar, PW4 Salim Akhtar, PW5 Atul Dimri, PW6 Harish Mehra, PW7 Rajeev Bhatnagar, PW8 R.C. Sharma, PW9 O.P. Gupta, PW10 Nikaal Singh, PW11 Suresh Kumar Rai, PW12 Satendra Saini, PW13 Atul Srivastava, PW14 A.S. Bhatia, PW15 Surendra Singh, PW16 Manish Mishra, PW17 Charanjeet Singh, PW18 Deena Nath, PW19 K.D. Bhatt, PW20 Surendra Singh Bhandari, PW21 Janardhan Joshi, PW22 R. Radhakrishnan, PW23 Vinay Kumar, PW24 Gurucharan Singh, PW25 Smt. Kaushalya, PW26 Naveen Chandra Pant, PW27 Chitresh Kumar, PW28 Rajpal Rana, PW29 P.K. Josh, PW30 Vinod Kumar Joshi, PW31 Kamaljeet Singh, PW32 Tara Chand Gupta, PW33 Ramveer Singh, PW34 Mohita Bhandari, PW35 Anjani Kumar Singh, PW36 Harsh Kumar, PW37 Sanjay Madan, PW38 Kamlesh Chandra Tiwari, PW39 Mohd. Rijwan and PW40 Chandra Bhan Singh. 10. After the prosecution evidence was closed, incriminating evidence was put to the accused-appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which he said that the evidence adduced against him was false and he has been falsely implicated in the case. No evidence was adduced in defence. 11. After conclusion of the trial, learned trial court convicted the accused-appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC, Section 120B IPC read with Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him appropriately. Aggrieved against the order of conviction and sentence, present criminal appeal was preferred by the convict. 12. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he has nothing to say on the merits of the appeal, but will address the Court on the quantum of sentence only. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant is in jail since 13.05.2013. Learned counsel for CBI, on the other hand, argued that the case against the appellant has been proved by the prosecution beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. He, however, added that the sentence is purely the province of the Court and, therefore, appropriate sentence which the Court deems proper, be awarded to the appellant. Learned counsel for CBI, on the other hand, argued that the case against the appellant has been proved by the prosecution beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. He, however, added that the sentence is purely the province of the Court and, therefore, appropriate sentence which the Court deems proper, be awarded to the appellant. Inspite of the fact that learned counsel for the appellant argued the criminal appeal on the quantum of sentence only, the Court glanced through the evidence directed by the prosecution against the appellant in order to satisfy itself as to whether, in fact, the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the appellant or not? 13. After having perused the evidence thus brought on record, the Court is satisfied that the prosecution has, in fact, been able to prove out a case against the appellant. This Court was taken through the judgment under challenge by learned counsel for C.B.I. to assert that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned. The court below has discussed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and has also dealt with as to how such evidence, being clinching evidence, proves a case against the appellant to the hilt. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that no interference is called for in the order impugned, in as much as, neither any illegality has been pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant in the same, nor there appears to be any such infirmity. The Court is, therefore, of the view that the order impugned does not warrant any interference in so far as the conviction of the appellant in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC, Section 120B IPC read with Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act is concerned. The conviction recorded by the trial court against the appellant is, accordingly, affirmed. 14. Corruption is, and has been, a serious menace in the developing countries. It is anathema to a healthy society. The same has to be ridiculed and castigated in unequivocal terms. No words are sufficient to condemn the same. The Court is, therefore, not inclined to reduce the amount of fine, which has been imposed upon the appellant. The appellant has to deposit the same. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant is in jail since 13.05.2013. The same has to be ridiculed and castigated in unequivocal terms. No words are sufficient to condemn the same. The Court is, therefore, not inclined to reduce the amount of fine, which has been imposed upon the appellant. The appellant has to deposit the same. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant is in jail since 13.05.2013. Neither was he granted bail during trial, nor during the pendency of present criminal appeal. He has already served more than half of the sentence awarded against him by the court below. 15. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant should be directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and six months for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC, Section 120B IPC read with Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, instead of rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and six months alongwith fine(s) as was awarded against the appellant by the trial court on the above counts. 16. Accordingly, whereas the conviction recorded by the trial court against the appellant is affirmed, the appellant is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and six months on the above counts, instead of rigorous imprisonment for three years and six months awarded against him on these counts. Needless to say that all the sentences shall run concurrently, as has been directed by the trial court. 17. With the modification as above in the sentence, the criminal appeal stands disposed of. 18. Appellant Ravinder Kumar Sharma is in jail. He will serve the sentence of two years and six months, adjusting the sentence already undergone by him, as modified by this Court. It is made clear that the fine imposed upon the appellant on the above three counts by the court below remains intact and unchanged. 19. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Superintendent of jail concerned where the appellant is currently serving out his sentence. 20. A copy of this judgment be also sent to the Court below for ensuring compliance.