JUDGMENT : Biplab Kumar Sharma, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 4th November, 2004 of the learned Special Judge, CBI, Guwahati in Special Case No. 16/2004, convicting and sentencing the accused/appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3(three) months for the offence under Section 120(B) IPC; rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) year and fine of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only and in default rigorous imprisonment for 3(three) months for the offence under Section 409 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) year and fine of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees One Thousand) only in default rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) month for the offence under Section 5(1)(c) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for l(one) year and fine of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees One Thousand) only in default, rigorous imprisonment for another l(one) month for the offence under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. All the sentences were to run concurrently but the accused/appellant has not undergone the sentence fully in view of the order dated 22nd December, 2004 passed in Misc. Case No. 629/2004, by which the execution of the sentence was stayed. As recorded in the impugned judgment of conviction, the accusation against the accused/appellant identified in the impugned judgment is A-1 and another Shri Deb Raj Singh identified as A-2 (since deceased) was that he entered into a criminal conspiracy with A-2, who happened to the managing partner of M/s. Everlite Engineering Industry, Panitola, Tinsukia to cheat various Banks and pursuant to such criminal conspiracy, they siphoned away huge sum of public money from the Banks in question. It was alleged that the accused/appellant in his capacity as Branch Manager, Allahabad Bank, Tinsukia and that of Duliajan Branch misappropriated an amount of Rs. 42.40 Lakhs being the cash remittance from different Branches of Allahabad Bank and also from the Bank of Baroda. In the said process, the accused/appellant abused and misused his official position as public servant. 2. On the basis of the FIR lodged by one Shri S.K. Saikia, the then SP, CBI, ACB, Shillong, a case was registered under Sections120(B)/409/420/461/471 IPC as well as under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 against the accused persons, i.e. A-1 and A-2. 2. On the basis of the FIR lodged by one Shri S.K. Saikia, the then SP, CBI, ACB, Shillong, a case was registered under Sections120(B)/409/420/461/471 IPC as well as under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 against the accused persons, i.e. A-1 and A-2. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted alleging commission of the offence, as aforesaid. In due course, charge was framed against the accused/appellant under Section 120(B)/409 IPC and under Section 5(1)(c)/5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. On the other hand, charges under Section 120(B)/420 IPC were framed against the accused A-2. Charges levelled against the accused/appellant being read over and explained, he pleaded not guilty of the same and claimed to be tried. 3. During trial, prosecution examined as many as 32(thirty-two) witnesses. It also placed reliance on a number of documents. The accused was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. The defence examined 1 (one) witness. Before conclusion of the trial, accused A-2 died and as such, the case against him stood abated. On the basis of the evidence on record including the confessional statement (Exhibit-204), the learned trial Court having convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as aforesaid, he preferred this appeal. As noted above, ever since the appeal was admitted, the impugned sentence is under order of suspension. 4. I have heard Mr. D. Talukdar, learned counsel for the accused/appellant and have also heard Mr. P.N. Choudhury, learned senior retainer counsel, CBI. I have also perused the entire materials on record. 5. Mr. Talukdar, learned for the accused/appellant has submitted that there being no cleansing evidence towards establishing the charges levelled against the accused/appellant, he is entitled to acquittal. Mr. Choudhury, learned senior retainer counsel representing the CBI, however, submits that from the evidence of PWs, discussed in detail in the impugned judgment of conviction, it is a clear case of conviction and accordingly, the learned trial Court rightly convicted the accused/appellant with the aforesaid sentence. He further submits that the accused/appellant himself having admitted the charges levelled against him in his confessional statement and there being corroborative evidence, the impugned judgment needs no interference. 6. He further submits that the accused/appellant himself having admitted the charges levelled against him in his confessional statement and there being corroborative evidence, the impugned judgment needs no interference. 6. At this stage, it will be appropriate to reproduce the confessional statement (Exhibit-204):-- "I, Sri N.K. Mahapatra, the then Branch Manager of the Duliajan Branch give my statement as under: I confirm my statement given earlier and state again that during my tenure as Manager of Allahabad Bank, Tinsukia and Duliajan Branch, I helped Sri D.R. Singh of M/s. Every Lite Engineering Industries, Panitoal, Tinsukia in good faith for promoting Bank business. He was accommodated in Tinsukia Branch by allowing withdrawal in the tune of Rs. 11.50 Lakhs against over draft account under Duliajan Branch. The tune of roughly Rs. 280000/- in aggregate the aforesaid withdrawal was allowed by exceeding my financial power and I had to bring down the outstanding or to arrange security cover in shape of fixed deposit to avoid detection by any senior officer by borrowing from outside service. This was done with the consent of D.R. Singh in writing and also sometime against the bearer cheque he also promised that he will pay back the amount as and when payments are received by him from O.N.G.C. I cannot remember at this stage how much money was adjusted by this manner and the exact date. But I can give few instances in support of my aforesaid claim in giving below. FDR for Rs. 100000 was arranged as security through Sri S.K. Singhal and was placed as security at Duliajan. Subsequently the entire amount was credited in the account to bring down the balance- Sri D.R. Singh himself signed as S.K. Singhal in relevant voucher while crediting the amount. And I had to return the money to S.K. Singhal from Bank fund unauthorizedly without the knowledge of Bank. Similarly other FDR's were created either in his name or fictitious name to the tune of several lakhs to secure his account and the proceed were utilized in similar manner with the knowledge of Sri D.R. Singh with the understanding that either he will return the on received of payment from O.N.G.C. or I may account for his cheque after receiving payment of O.N.GC. But he diverted the payment by him through other Bank and I had honour the debt by repaying the same from Bank fund unauthorizedly. But he diverted the payment by him through other Bank and I had honour the debt by repaying the same from Bank fund unauthorizedly. Amount was then brought to his account by TT, draft and cash from other sources in similar fashion and the repayment was made by me from Bank fund unauthorizedly. Then I was instrumental by boosting the business through Bank fund without the knowledge of Bank and Sri D.R. Singh could get out without repaying a single penny arranged by me in the aforesaid manner and raised his credit......... to secure further advance from Bank. In the above connection I further recollect one Sri Gopi Agarwala also created his FDR which was held as security on Mr. Singh's account, later on utilized by him. Sri Gopi Agarwal resides at Tinsukia." 7. Although it was argued that the confessional statement having been recorded after about 1 (one) year (9) nine months of the arrest of the accused/appellant, it lost its sanctity but as submitted by Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel representing the CBI and also as discussed in the impugned judgment of conviction, the same was voluntarily made, although in his statement made under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused/appellant pleaded that force was applied on him to make the confessional statement. 8. The confessional statement was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate (PW-28). On a scrutiny of the aforesaid confessional statement as well as the testimony of PW-28, it is found that the confessional statement was recorded by PW-28 on 16th October, 1990, whereas the accused/appellant was sent to judicial custody by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shillong on 15th October, 1990 with no information on his being sent to police custody in between. The accused/appellant never raised any objection before the PW-28 and/or revealed anything that he was subjected to harassment or ill treatment from any quarter. He remained silent all throughout in respect of the said confessional statement till he took the plea of force being applied in his statement made under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. Not only that, he was a top official of the Bank and is also highly qualified and intelligent person. When these aspects of the matter are considered in their totality, it cannot be said that the confessional statement of the accused/appellant was not voluntary. 9. Not only that, he was a top official of the Bank and is also highly qualified and intelligent person. When these aspects of the matter are considered in their totality, it cannot be said that the confessional statement of the accused/appellant was not voluntary. 9. On careful reading of the evidence of the PWs, particularly, PWs-3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 20, 24, 25, 26 and 27 what has emerged is that their testimonies remained uncontroverted particularly when they were not subjected to any cross-examination. The evidence adduced by the said witnesses clearly demonstrate that the accused/appellant while was posted as Manager of Allahabad Bank, Duliajan Branch on many occasions, he, instead of accounting for Banks money in a way required by banking law and procedure, misappropriated the amounts. Such testimonies of the witnesses also find support from the documents exhibited by the prosecution, more particularly, Exhibits-7, 67, 80, 84, 85, 86, 170, 171 to 198. In tune with the said evidence, the accused/appellant also admitted in his judicial confession that public money was misappropriated. However, he tried to justify the said action with the statement that he did so on good faith for promoting the Bank's business. 10. During trial, the prosecution pressed into service the evidence of PWs-3, 4, 5,6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 20, 24, 25, 26 and 27 to prove the charge under Section 409 IPC, whereas the evidence of PWs-9, 10, 13, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22 and 23 was relied upon to show that while the accused/appellant was posted as Manager, Allahabad Bank, Tinsukia Branch, he entered into a criminal conspiracy with A-2 to cheat various Banks. Salient features of the evidence of the witnesses have been discussed in the impugned judgment of conviction in reference to the documents exhibited and the learned counsel for the appellant could not point out anything bringing any contradictions to what the PWs stated in their evidence. 11. PW-30 is the handwriting expert through whom the handwritings and signatures of the accused/appellant came to be proved. From the evidence of PW-30, it clearly revealed that Exhibits-218 to 221 and Exhib-its-228 to 231 containing various signatures and handwritings on the questioned documents were of none other than the accused/appellant. 11. PW-30 is the handwriting expert through whom the handwritings and signatures of the accused/appellant came to be proved. From the evidence of PW-30, it clearly revealed that Exhibits-218 to 221 and Exhib-its-228 to 231 containing various signatures and handwritings on the questioned documents were of none other than the accused/appellant. Such revelations coupled with the evidence adduced by the PWs clearly demonstrate that the accused/appellant was responsible for misappropriation of huge amount of money from the Bank, which was entrusted to him reposing confidence as a public servant. That apart, in the confessional statement noted above, the accused/appellant clearly admitted having entered into a conspiracy with A-2 to defraud the Banks and also to do various illegal activities just to siphon way huge money from various Banks. Thus, the element of criminal conspiracy stood duly established during trial. The evidence discussed above, has clearly established that the accused/appellant being a public servant, fraudulently and dishonestly misappropriated the Bank's money. He also misused his position and abused the same for his illegal pecuniary gain to which he was not legally entitled to. 12. In view of the above discussion, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. Consequent upon dismissal of the appeal, the accused/appellant shall now surrender before the learned trial Court to undergo the period of sentence imposed by the impugned judgment of conviction. The Registry shall transmit the records to the learned trial Court alongwith a copy of this order. Appeal Dismissed.