JUDGMENT & ORDER : Ajit Borthakur, J. Heard Mr. B. K. Mahajan, and Mr. A. Chamuah, learned counsel, for their respective accused-appellants. Also heard Mr. P. N. Choudhury, learned standing counsel, CBI. 2. Both appeals under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, are preferred against the judgment & order, dated 12.02.2014, passed by the learned Special Judge, Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI), Assam, Guwahati, in Special Case No. 09/2005 convicting the accused-appellant Sri Chittaranjan Roy and Sri Khireswar Saikia under Sections 120B/420 IPC read with section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988(for short 'PC Act'). 3. The prosecution case, in brief, may be stated thus: Shri N. N. Barkakaty, the then Chief Executive Director, Assam State Cooperative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Ltd.(for short 'ASCARD'), Guwahati, lodged two First Information Reports, on 06.04.1998, before the Officer-in-Charge, Paltan Bazar P.S. alleging that Md. Pahar Khan, the then General Manager and Sri Khireswar Saikia, the then Chief Executive Director of the said Bank committed financial irregularities during the period 1995-96. It was alleged that Md. Pahar Khan, while working as General Manager i/c recommended for sanction and payment of Rs. 11.43 lakh, for consultancy fee to the accused-appellant irregularly, w.e.f. 01.12.1994, during continuation of Sayed Ahmed Ali as Consultant of the Bank, without maintaining any record of service rendered by him. Investigation, Trial And Conviction: Based on the above 2(two) FIRs, Paltan Bazar P.S. Case Nos. 199/1998 and 202/1998 were registered, which were subsequently transferred to the C.B.I., pursuant to the Notifications of the Govt. of India and the Government of Assam, whereupon R.C. 5 and 6/E/2001-Cal were registered, on 08.02.2001 by CBI/EOW/Kolkata. On completion of investigation, the CBI laid a charge-sheet under Sections 120B/420 IPC and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, against the accused appellants, namely, Chitta Ranjan Roy, Sri Khireswar Saikia, and 2(two) others, namely, Md. Pahar Khan and Md. Imran Shah. The learned trial Court, after furnishing copy of the relevant papers, collected during investigation to the accused-appellants and others and hearing the learned counsels of both the sides framed charges under the aforesaid charge-sheeted penal Sections, on 06.03.2009. The charges having been read over and explained to the accused-appellants and others, they pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, during trial, the prosecution examined as many as 16 (sixteen) witnesses, while the defence cross-examined them. The charges having been read over and explained to the accused-appellants and others, they pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, during trial, the prosecution examined as many as 16 (sixteen) witnesses, while the defence cross-examined them. After closing the evidence of the prosecution side, the statement of the accused-appellants were recorded under Section 313 Crpc, 1973. Accused-appellants pleaded not guilty. No defence witness was examined. Thereafter, the learned trial Court, after hearing the learned counsels of both the sides and appreciation of evidence on record, held that the accused-appellants, namely, Chitta Ranjan Roy and Khireswar Saikia guilty of the charges and convicted and sentenced them each to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6(six) months, under Section 120B IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 2(two) years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) in default rigorous imprisonment for 2(two) months under Section 420 IPC. The appellant Khireswar Saikia was further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1(one) year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) only in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15(fifteen) days under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988. Grounds in Criminal Appeal No. 126/2014 Appellant - Chitta Ranjan Roy 1. That the learned trial Court has misread the evidence and failed to take into consideration the important piece of evidence favourable to the accused-appellant; 2. That the learned trial Court relied upon the evidence of PW-1, 4, 6 and 7, who stated that the accused-appellant was appointed as Consultant on 20.11.1995 and further, no document could be produced by the prosecution to show the appointment letter whereby the accused-appellant was appointed as Consultant of the Bank; 3. That the learned trial Court did not appreciate the fact that there is no proof that the accused-appellant joined as a Consultant and his name was used by the Bank officials for their personal gain; 4. That there is no evidence to show that the accused-appellant submitted any bill before the Bank for payment of Rs. 12,00,000/- and subsequently, the said amount was received by the accused-appellant; 5. That to punish a person for the offence of cheating ingredients of Section 415 IPC are to be fulfilled; 6. That those seized payment receipts are neither available in the case record nor cited in the list of documents submitted with the charge-sheet; 7. That PW. 12,00,000/- and subsequently, the said amount was received by the accused-appellant; 5. That to punish a person for the offence of cheating ingredients of Section 415 IPC are to be fulfilled; 6. That those seized payment receipts are neither available in the case record nor cited in the list of documents submitted with the charge-sheet; 7. That PW. 14 categorically stated that he did not annex any seizure list with the charge sheet; 8. That the learned trial Court arrived at a wrong decision in considering Ext. 2 to 11 as none of the investigating officers could say from where those documents were collected; 9. That the learned trial Court wrongly considered the specimen signatures of the accused-appellant as PW. 13 admitted that he did not issue any notice under section 160/91 Cr.P.C and the accused-appellant specifically denied about giving specimen signatures to the investigating agency; 10. That there is no material to prove that the Bank delivered the money to the accused-appellant and that the alleged money was deducted from the account of the Bank nor could they produce any relevant document of accounts or entry in any bank book that the money was paid; and 11. That the prosecution could not prove that the accused-appellant was an employee of the Bank and no prosecution sanction was obtained for prosecuting the accused-appellant. Grounds in Criminal Appeal No. 196/2014 Appellant - Khireswar Saikia 1. That it clearly reveals from evidence that the Board of Directors (B.O.D.) had resolved for appointment of either Sayed Ahmed Ali, ex-Minister or any suitable person as Consultant vide Resolution No. 4, dated 05.11.1994, and therefore, payment of Rs. 11,43,440/- to Chitta Ranjan Roy for procuring loan of Rs. 10 crores from Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. cannot be construed as an illegal act on the part of the present appellant, who was the CED i/c of ASCARD Bank; 2. That the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that by subsequent order vide Ext.-1 Chitta Ranjan Roy was appointed as consultant and he was also working with the Bank since long; 3. That the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence of PW1 Ajit Gogoi who categorically stated that at the relevant point of time, Chitta Ranjan Roy as consultant had procured a loan of Rs. 10 crores from the Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. That the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence of PW1 Ajit Gogoi who categorically stated that at the relevant point of time, Chitta Ranjan Roy as consultant had procured a loan of Rs. 10 crores from the Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. and therefore, the payment made to him towards consultancy fee cannot be construed as an illegal act; 4. That the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence of PW-14 Inspector Sunirmal Roy, who investigated the case and filed the charge sheet, admitted in his evidence that in the charge sheet at Paragraph No. 13, he stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, held on 12.05.1996, wherein appointment of Sri Chitta Ranjan Roy as well as payment already made to him, on account of consultancy fee, was approved and since his appointment as consultant and payment made to him were approved by the Board of directors on 12.5.96, it reveals that there was no criminality on the part of him as alleged by the prosecution. Evidence: 4. Now, let us look to the evidence on record. PW-1 Ajit Gogoi, the then Supervisor of ASCARD Bank, stated that he knows Khireswar Saikia who was working as Chief Executive Director of the ASCARD Bank during the relevant period. Pahar Khan was working as General Manager of ASCARD Bank and Imran Shah was working as Advisor. It is also stated by PW-1 that he knows Chitta Ranjan Roy, who was appointed as legal consultant of the Bank, has recognized Ext.-1, the file regarding appointment of consultancy service. He recognized Ext.-1/24, the letter given by Syed Ahmed Ali, dated 19.01.1995, requesting the CED for providing peon, whose name and address were given in the said letter as Abdul Mosa. Ext. 1/32 is the order of appointment of said personal peon of Syed Ahmed Ali, namely, Abdul Mosa. Ext. 1/37 are the notings in the file for appointment of consultancy service pertaining to Syed Ahmed Ali which was recommended, passed and approved from time to time by Khireswar Saikia, Pahar Khan and Imran Shah. He also stated that as per resolution though only one consultant was required to be appointed, subsequently Chitta Ranjan Roy was appointed in the same post by giving retrospective effect. He also stated that as per resolution though only one consultant was required to be appointed, subsequently Chitta Ranjan Roy was appointed in the same post by giving retrospective effect. Ext.1/64 is the order, dated 20.11.1995, whereby Chitta Ranjan Roy was appointed as consultant of ASCARD Bank w.e.f. 01.12.1994 by giving retrospective effect and Ext.1/65 is the initial of Khireswar Saikia, dated 28.11.1995. He recognized Ext.1/57, the initial of Khireswar Saikia, who recommended Advisor Imran Shah for payment of Rs. 12 lakhs as consultancy fees to Chitta Ranjan Roy. He further stated that Chitta Ranjan Roy requested to grant Rs. 12 lakhs as his consultancy fees and accordingly Rs. 12 lakhs was paid to him. Exts. 2 to 11 are the money receipt vouchers by which Chitta Ranjan Roy received the money from ASCARD Bank and Exts. 2/1 to 11/1 are the initials of Chitta Ranjan Roy. In cross-examination, PW-1 stated that he never dealt with Ext.-1 file and whatever he deposed in his chief was made, after going through Ext.-1. He further stated that Ext.-1 file was maintained in the General Administration Department by different persons. One Hassan Ali was the Dy. Manager of the said Section and he also used to process the file. According to him, as Syed Ahmed Ali who was appointed as Consultant could not discharge his duties well due to old age so by Ext.1/64 Chitta Ranjan Roy was appointed as consultant. Since Chitta Ranjan Roy was working for a long time, his appointment was given with retrospective effect. PW-2 Sudip Sarkar, the then Administrative Officer, Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd., Kolkata, stated that the Peerless gave loan to the ASCARD Bank to the tune of Rs. 10 crores. Ext.18 is the letter, dated 23.6.95, whereby a demand draft of Rs. 5 crores was forwarded to the ASCARD Bank as first instalment and Ext.-20 is the letter, dated 07.07.1995, given by Peerless to Imran Shah, whereby a demand draft of Rs. 5 crore was forwarded to the ASCARD Bank as 2nd and final Instalment. He further stated that Ext. 32 is the loan agreement, dated 19.6.95, entered between ASCARD Bank and Peerless Company. Ext. 33 and Ext. 34 are the promissory notes and Ext. 35 is the acknowledgment letter showing receipt of Rs. 10 crores from the Peerless. In cross-examination, he stated that he simply handed over the files containing Ext. He further stated that Ext. 32 is the loan agreement, dated 19.6.95, entered between ASCARD Bank and Peerless Company. Ext. 33 and Ext. 34 are the promissory notes and Ext. 35 is the acknowledgment letter showing receipt of Rs. 10 crores from the Peerless. In cross-examination, he stated that he simply handed over the files containing Ext. 12 to Ext. 35 to CBI as directed by A. K. Mukhuty, the then General Manager, Peerless Company. He further stated that on 23.06.1995, Rs. 5 crores and subsequently, on 07.07.1995, the balance Rs. 5 crores was paid to ASCARD Bank by their company. PW-3 Nityananda Borkakoty, the informant recognized Ext. 36, the First Information Report (FIR), dated 06.04.1998, filed by him at Paltan Bazar P.S. and Exts.36/1 to 36/6 are his signatures in the FIR. Ext. 37 is his another complaint, dated 06.04.1998, lodged at Paltan Bazar P.S. and Exts.37/1 to 37/7 are his signatures. He further stated that by both the FIRs, he intimated the police with regard to the financial anomalies in the ASCARD Bank. In cross-examination, he further stated that he lodged the FIR as per resolution of the B.O.D. of the Bank. The exhibited FIRs were drafted by his office staff and he does not have any personal knowledge about the facts of the case. PW-4 Sri Ashit Ranjan Sarkar, the then Deputy Manager, ASCARD Bank, deposed that Ext-1 is the file pertaining to appointment of consultancy service of ASCARD Bank and Chitta Ranjan Roy was appointed as consultant in ASCARD Bank, on 20.11.1995, by the then CED, Khireswar Saikia. His appointment was made with retrospective effect from 01.12.1994. He further stated that at that point of time there was another consultant, namely Syed Ahmed Ali. According to him, Chitta Ranjan Roy was appointed as Consultant for the purpose of obtaining loan of Rs. 10 crores from Peerless, but the said loan had already been obtained by ASCARD Bank in the month of July/August 1995, that is prior to the appointment of Chitta Ranjan Roy. He stated that on 14.01.1996 Abdul Ali Ahmed, the Accounts Assistant and Cashier-in-Charge put up a Note to the Manager i/c, Finance and Accounts, to approve an amount of Rs. 12 lakhs as consultancy bill submitted by Chitta Ranjan Roy. Thereafter, on the same day, Khireswar Saikia put up a Note before the Advisor Imran Shah for considering the payment of Rs. 12 lakhs as consultancy bill submitted by Chitta Ranjan Roy. Thereafter, on the same day, Khireswar Saikia put up a Note before the Advisor Imran Shah for considering the payment of Rs. 12 lakhs to him and accordingly, on 16.05.1996, the bill was approved and payment was made. Ext. 2 to Ext. 11 are the money receipts, signed by Chitta Ranjan Roy acknowledging receipt of the amount. According to him, Chitta Ranjan Roy did not play any role for obtaining loan from Peerless as the loan had already been disbursed by Peerless before Chitta Ranjan Roy was appointed as consultant for the purpose. During cross-examination, he stated that Chitta Ranjan Roy was appointed as consultant vide resolution of the Board, dated 05.11.1994, but the said resolution was not signed by anybody. Chitta Ranjan Roy did not submit any formal joining report but sought for remuneration of Rs. 12 lakhs, through an application. According to him, vide Ext.-2 to Ext.-11, the money receipts, an amount of Rs. 11,42,440/-, was paid to Chitta Ranjan Roy as his consultancy fee. He recognized Ext.1/64, the appointment order of Chitta Ranjan Roy as consultant w.e.f. 01.12.1994. PW-5 Hassan Ali, was the Deputy Manager, GAD Section, ASCARD Bank, from 1995 to 1997. He stated that if any consultant or a Retainer was to be appointed by the Bank or service of any Retainer was to be hired by the Bank then approval of the Board of Director was required. The approval of Board of Director was to be passed in the form of a resolution. He further stated that if the salary or honorarium was to be paid to any consultant or retainer then also the approval of the Board was required. During cross-examination, however, he stated that he does not know the facts of the present case. PW-6 Abdul Ali Ahmed, the then Accounts Assistant of ASCARD Bank, stated that on 20.11.1995, Chitta Ranjan Roy was appointed as Consultant for the said Bank and his appointment was made effective from 01.12.1994, although the order was issued on 20.11.1995. His appointment order was issued by the then CED i/c Khireswar Saikia. He stated that Chitta Ranjan Roy prayed before the CED i/c for payment of an amount of Rs. 12 lacs as remuneration for the purpose of liasoning with various financial institutions, Govt. Deptts., Peerless, NABARD etc. His appointment order was issued by the then CED i/c Khireswar Saikia. He stated that Chitta Ranjan Roy prayed before the CED i/c for payment of an amount of Rs. 12 lacs as remuneration for the purpose of liasoning with various financial institutions, Govt. Deptts., Peerless, NABARD etc. He further stated that the prayer of Chitta Ranjan Roy was put up on the file on 14.01.1996 by him and Ext.1/53 was the relevant noting in his handwriting. The same was put up before the Manager, Finance & Accounts, who, in turn, placed the note before the CED i/c for payment. Thereafter, the CED i/c put up the said matter before the Advisor on 14.01.1996 and accordingly, the same was approved by the Advisor Imran Shah notifying that the matter was discussed with the Board of Directors and finally, the Board of Directors approved the same. However, according to him, the date was not given in the official noting by which the approval of the Board was obtained. He further stated that payment to Chitta Ranjan Roy was made mostly by cash and by cheque also and Exts. 2 to 11, the vouchers showing payment of the amount to Chitta Ranjan Roy. He identified the initials of Chitta Ranjan Roy in the vouchers as Exts. 2/1 to 11/1 were made at the time of accepting the payments. From the cross-examination, it reveals that vide Ext-2 to Ext-9 and Ext.11, the payments were made in cash and vide Ext. 10, payment was made by cheque. He stated that Chitta Ranjan Roy was appointed as Consultant of ASCARD Bank to obtain a loan of Rs. 10 crores from the Peerless. PW-7 Girish Chandra Baruah deposed that during the period 1995-96, he was posted in the Head Office of ASCARD Bank at Guwahati as Manager(Finance). During that period, Khireswar Saikia was the CED. The General Manager of the Bank was Pahar Khan and Advisor of the Bank was Imran Khan. These three officers were vested with full administrative and financial powers. He stated that during 1995-96, Chitta Ranjan Roy was working as consultant of the Bank. His appointment was made for the purpose of reasoning with Peerless for obtaining loan from Peerless. The General Manager of the Bank was Pahar Khan and Advisor of the Bank was Imran Khan. These three officers were vested with full administrative and financial powers. He stated that during 1995-96, Chitta Ranjan Roy was working as consultant of the Bank. His appointment was made for the purpose of reasoning with Peerless for obtaining loan from Peerless. He further recognized Ext.1 the file, regarding appointment of the Consultant and after Ext.1 file was put up by the Accounts Asstt., before him, on 14.01.1996, he forwarded the file to the CED for approval of payment of Rs. 12 lacs to Chitta Ranjan Roy, who claimed the said money as his consultancy fee. The CED further put up the file to the Advisor Imran Shah. He stated that Chitta Ranjan Roy was appointed vide order, dated 20.11.1995, and his appointment letter was made effective from 01.12.1994 and the same was signed by Khireswar Saikia. He identified Exts.2/1 to 9/1, the initials of Chitta Ranjan Roy in the debit vouchers. In cross-examination, he stated that vide Ext. 1/64 Chitta Ranjan Roy was appointed as Consultant for the purpose of negotiation, correspondence etc., in connection with obtaining the loan of Rs. 10 crores from Peerless, Kolkata. There was resolution No. 4 of the Executive Committee, held on 05.11.1994. He further stated that as per the decision of the Executive Committee meeting, the payment of consultancy fees was given to Chitta Ranjan Roy. The Peerless disbursed the loan at the interest of 16.5%, per annum, and after getting the loan from Peerless, the ASCARD Bank decided to disburse the loan as commercial loan at the interest of 18% per annum. He stated that accused Khireswar Saikia carried out the office works for implementation of the resolution of the Board of Directors No. 23(ii), dated 12.05.1996. According to him, in Ext. 10 Cheque No is mentioned as 623795, dated 20.05.1996 for Rs. 46,810/-, but the said Cheque is not available in the record. PW-8 Bachalal Ram stated that on 12.04.1998, he was working in the Paltan Bazar Police Station as Sheristadar. He recognized Ext.38 the certified copy of the FIR No. 199/98, dated 12.04.1998, registered on the basis of the complaint, filed by N. N. Borkakoty. Ext. 39 is another FIR No. 202/98 dt. 12.04.1998 lodged by N. N. Borkakoty. PW-8 Bachalal Ram stated that on 12.04.1998, he was working in the Paltan Bazar Police Station as Sheristadar. He recognized Ext.38 the certified copy of the FIR No. 199/98, dated 12.04.1998, registered on the basis of the complaint, filed by N. N. Borkakoty. Ext. 39 is another FIR No. 202/98 dt. 12.04.1998 lodged by N. N. Borkakoty. In cross-examination, he stated that he does not know the FIR named accused persons Khireswar Saikia and Pahar Khan personally. He did not investigate into the case and therefore, does not have any personal knowledge about the case. PW-9 D.S.P. Joy Ram Das stated that two cases were registered at Paltan Bazar Police Station vide said P.S. Case No. 199/98 and 202/98. Both the said cases were transferred to the CID for investigation. Subsequently, these cases were transferred to the CBI for investigation and he handed-over the case diaries of both the cases to Inspector of CBI. According to him, before handing over the cases to CBI, he investigated the cases to some extent and seized certain documents and further examined few witnesses. The defence side declined to cross-examine him. PW-10 Khagendra Nath Bora was the Legal Assistant of ASCARD Bank. He knows Chitta Ranjan Roy who approached the ASCARD Bank for the purpose of loan. In his cross-examination, he stated that Chitta Ranjan Roy applied for non-firm loan and in case of non-firm loan, the land upon which the project was proposed to be implemented had to be given as security in addition to personal guarantor. According to him, he was not aware of whether any loan was sanctioned in favour of Chitta Ranjan Roy. PW-11 Ananda Bhuban Das has stated that he joined ASCARD Bank on 1st January, 2003, as its Chief Executive Director(CED) and as CED he was responsible for overall administration and also he was competent to remove Khireswar Saikia and Pahar Khan, the employees of ASCARD Bank. According to him, after going through all the documents and files placed before him and on being satisfied and after application of his mind, he issued Ext. 43, the sanction order for prosecution against Khireswar Saikia and Ext.44, the sanction order for prosecution against Pahar Khan. In cross-examination, he stated that the Board of the ASCARD Bank is the competent authority for appointment and removal of its employees. He approved the sanction orders drafted in his office. 43, the sanction order for prosecution against Khireswar Saikia and Ext.44, the sanction order for prosecution against Pahar Khan. In cross-examination, he stated that the Board of the ASCARD Bank is the competent authority for appointment and removal of its employees. He approved the sanction orders drafted in his office. He further stated that while processing Exts. 43 and 44, the sanction orders a file was maintained in their office, but he has not seen the said file in the court. In cross-examination, he denied the defence suggestion that he was not the competent authority to accord sanction for prosecution of the said amount. PW-12 Narendra Kumar, the handwriting expert, deposed that he examined the questioned documents of this case along with the specimen writings of one Riemee Shah, w/o Imran Shah, marked S-113 to S-116, specimen writings and signatures of one Imran Shah marked as S-122 to S-124, specimen writings of one Chitta Ranjan Roy marked as S-59 to S-70, and S-80. Hefurther stated by PW-12 that documents marked as X is the specimen writings of one Riemee Shah, documents marked X/1 is the specimen writings and signature of one Chitta Ranjan Roy. According to him, after examination of the documents, he prepared Ext.45, the opinion. He stated that after examining the specimen writings and questioned documents, it was found that the person, who wrote the blue enclosed writings and signatures stamped and marked as S-59 to S-70, S-79, S-80 and S-102 also wrote the red enclosed writings and signatures, similarly stamped and marked as Q.40, Q.41, Q.143 to Q.151, Q.151/1, Q.150 to Q.159, Q.205 to Q.208, Q.253 to Q.260, Q.263, Q.264, Q.264/1, Q.265 to Q. 268, Q.270, Q.273 to Q.275, Q.278 to Q.284, Q.286, Q.297, Q.311, Q.312, Q.325, Q.327, Q.328, Q.329/1, Q.340, Q.344, Q.353, Q.357 and Q.361 to Q.363. He stated that in connection with this case a supplementary opinion dated 17.07.2002 was also forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, CBI by the then GEQD, S. K. Saxena and Ext.46 is the said supplementary opinion. He stated that the supplementary opinion was given as certain other documents were also forwarded by the concerned CBI Branch, vide letter, dated 15.02.2002 and along with this letter, questioned documents marked as Q.371 to Q.582 were forwarded and specimen writings marked S-113 to S-166 were also forwarded for comparison and opinion. He stated that the supplementary opinion was given as certain other documents were also forwarded by the concerned CBI Branch, vide letter, dated 15.02.2002 and along with this letter, questioned documents marked as Q.371 to Q.582 were forwarded and specimen writings marked S-113 to S-166 were also forwarded for comparison and opinion. In his opinion, on comparison of the aforesaid specimen writings with the questioned documents, it was found that the person, who wrote the blue enclosed signatures, stamped and marked as S-17 to S-124 also wrote the red enclosed signatures, similarly stamped and marked as Q.456 to Q.460, Q.464 to Q.468, Q.489, Q.490, Q.492, Q.494, Q.496, Q.498, Q.500, Q.502, Q.504, Q.526 to Q.550 and Q.580. He explained the reasons for the opinion dated 31.12.2001, marked as X/3 and supplementary opinion, dated 17.07.2002 is marked as X/4. According to him, his opinion is based upon the individual and general writing characteristics like movement, writing skill, coordination of strokes, alignment of letters, relative size, proportion of letters, quality of rhythm, force etc., which are found similar both in the questioned writings/signatures and specimen writings/signatures. In cross-examination, he stated that except the questioned documents Q143 to Q151, no other questioned documents have been shown to him in the court. PW-13 Inspector Partha Sarothi Bose of C.B.I., the Investigating Officer, stated that in course of the investigation, he recorded the statements of the witnesses. He obtained the specimen signatures of one Rumi Shah, wife of Imran Shah, vide Ext.47, in presence of Ashit Ranjan Sarkar and Binod Ch. Talukdar. He also obtained the specimen signatures of Imran Shah vide Ext.48, in presence of witnesses namely, Nikhil Ch. Roy and Monoj Gupta. According to him, during the course of investigation, he also obtained the specimen signatures of Chitta Ranjan Roy vide Ext.49. He also sent the specimen signatures/writings of Rumi Shah, Imran Shah and Chitta Ranjan Roy to the expert for opinion. He further stated that Ext.38 and Ext.39 are the FIRs of Paltan Bazar P.S. Case Nos. 199/98 and 202/98 and the said two FIRs of Paltan Bazar P.S. were reproduced in verbatim in both the FIRs, registered by the CBI. He stated that X/5 and X/6 are the photocopy of the said two original FIRs. In cross-examination, he stated that as per Exts. 25 & 26, the FIRs, the allegations pertained to the period 1995-96. 199/98 and 202/98 and the said two FIRs of Paltan Bazar P.S. were reproduced in verbatim in both the FIRs, registered by the CBI. He stated that X/5 and X/6 are the photocopy of the said two original FIRs. In cross-examination, he stated that as per Exts. 25 & 26, the FIRs, the allegations pertained to the period 1995-96. He stated that the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Directors, held on 12.05.1996 is not available in the exhibited documents as well as in the Case Diary. According to him, the specimen signatures of Chitta Ranjan Roy was obtained at the premises of ASCARD Bank. He further stated that though in Ext.49, there is no reference as to where the specimen signatures and writings of Chitta Ranjan Roy was taken, the same was noted by him in the case diary, immediately after obtaining the specimen signatures. In cross-examination, he further stated that Ext.2 to Ext.11 were seized by him by seizure memo during investigation into the case. Pw-14 Inspector Sunirmal Roy of C.B.I., the Investigating Officer, stated that the investigation of the case was entrusted to him on 30.06.2003 and he continued to investigate till 31.03.2004. According to him, when further investigation of the case was entrusted to him, by that time, the major part of the investigation had already been over and after completion of investigation, having found sufficient materials, he filed Ext.52, the charge sheet in the case against Khireswar Saikia, Pahar Khan, Imran Shah and Chittaranjan Roy. He further stated that X/5 is the proved in original copy of the First Information Report(FIR), being R.C. No. 5/E/2001-Cal and X/6 is the proved in original copy of the First Information Report(FIR), being R.C. No. 6/E/2001-Cal. He stated that during investigation, it was found that the accused persons hatched up a conspiracy and in pursuance of the said conspiracy Pahar Khan and Khireswar Saikia recommended for payment of Rs. 11.43 lacs for consultancy fees to accused Chitta Ranjan Roy irregularly as his appointment was found fictitious. He stated that during investigation, it was found that the accused persons hatched up a conspiracy and in pursuance of the said conspiracy Pahar Khan and Khireswar Saikia recommended for payment of Rs. 11.43 lacs for consultancy fees to accused Chitta Ranjan Roy irregularly as his appointment was found fictitious. During investigation, it was also found that accused Pahar Khan put up a proposal for appointment of Chitta Ranjan Roy as Consultant for obtaining loan from Peerless as per decision, dated 05.11.1994 of the Executive Committee and the said proposal was recommended by Khireswar Saikia and finally approved by Imran Shah on the same day i.e. on 28.11.1995, despite having full knowledge that the loan from Peerless General Finance & Investment Company Ltd. has already been taken by ASCARD Bank and accused Chitta Ranjan Roy was illegally and wrongfully benefited to the tune of Rs. 11,42,440/-, which was paid to him. In cross-examination, he stated that as he did not conduct the field investigation, so he cannot say what discussions had taken place in the meeting of Board of Directors, held on 12.05.1996. He could not find in the Case Diary as to what procedure had been followed by P.S. Bose in seizing the exhibited money receipts. He cannot say from which account of ASCARD Bank the alleged payment was made to Chitta Ranjan Roy. PW-15 Liakat Hussain was the General Manager of ASCARD Bank in the year 2001. He identified the specimen writings and signatures of Chitta Ranjan Roy, vide Ext.49 which were taken by the C.B.I. official in his presence. He also identified his own signatures vide Ext. 49(15) to Ext. 49(26) therein as witness. In cross-examination, he stated that he did not identify Chittaranjan Das to the I.O. Chittaranjan Das had availed three loans from their bank. He could not say from which account of ASCARD Bank, the alleged payment in the name of Chittaranjan Das was debited. He denied the suggestion that Chitta Ranjan Roy did not give any specimen signatures and writings in his presence. PW-16 Binod Chandra Talukdar was the Accounts Officer of ASCARD Bank in the year 2001. He stated that in his presence vide Ext. 49, the specimen writings/signatures of Chittaranjan Roy were taken by the CBI official. He identified his own signatures Ext.49(27) to Ext.49(38) as witness. PW-16 Binod Chandra Talukdar was the Accounts Officer of ASCARD Bank in the year 2001. He stated that in his presence vide Ext. 49, the specimen writings/signatures of Chittaranjan Roy were taken by the CBI official. He identified his own signatures Ext.49(27) to Ext.49(38) as witness. In cross-examination, he stated that in Ext.49, nowhere it is mentioned that the specimen writings and signatures were taken at the office of the ASCARD Bank. He further stated that he did not identify Chittaranjan Das to the I.O. Chittaranjan Das had availed three loans from their Bank. He could not say from which account of ASCARD Bank, the alleged payment in the name of Chittaranjan Das was debited. Argument: 5. Mr. B. K. Mahajan, the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant Chitta Ranjan Roy submitted that Section 120-A Indian Penal Code, which defines 'criminal conspiracy' essentially postulates an agreement of two or more persons to commit an offence. However, Mr. Mahajan submitted, there is no such evidence on record sufficient to infer that there was prior meeting of mind between the said appellant and others to commit the alleged offence of cheating ASCARD Bank which amounted to criminal misconduct on the part of the appellant Khireswar Saikia, who was the CED i/c, ASCARD Bank, during the relevant period. According to the learned counsel, mere suspicion and surmise cannot substitute legal evidence to rope in the appellant to the offence. In this regard, Mr. Mahajan, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the Apex Court judgment rendered in State(Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Nitin Gunwant Shah & ors., reported in (2016) 1 SCC 472 . 6. Mr. A. Chamuah, the learned counsel for the appellant Khireswar Saikia, drawing attention to paragraphs No. 12 and 13 of the charge-sheet, submitted that the investigation revealed that the appellant had never done any consultancy service for obtaining loan from Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. and that the B.O.D. of ASCARD Bank in its meeting, held on 12.05.1996, approved the appointment of the appellant and payments already made to him. The aforesaid resolution, Mr. Ltd. and that the B.O.D. of ASCARD Bank in its meeting, held on 12.05.1996, approved the appointment of the appellant and payments already made to him. The aforesaid resolution, Mr. Chamuah submitted, was adopted after the resolution No. 4, dated 05.11.1994, whereby it was resolved to appoint Syed Ahmed Ali for consultancy service as it has clearly come in the evidence of PW-1 Ajit Gogoi, the Supervisor, ASCARD Bank and therefore, the question of double payment, on account of consultancy service, does no arise so as to hold the appellant, who never worked as a consultant, harbouring any dishonest intention to cheat the Bank, and as such, guilty of cheating and criminal conspiracy. 7. Mr. A. Chamuah, the learned counsel for the appellant, further submitted that PW-2 Sudip Sarkar, the then Administrative Officer, Peerless General Finance & Investment Co., Kolkata, in his examination in-chief stated that the State Government directly approached the Company for availing a loan of 10 crores and that he did not even hear the name of the appellant as the consultant for the ASCARD Bank for obtaining the said loan, but in cross-examination diluted stating that during the period of processing of the loan by the Company, he was not there and as such, could not say, if any person was nominated for this purpose by the government or ASCARD Bank. On the other hand, Mr. Chamuah, further submitted no Director or the B.O.D. of the Bank has been prosecuted in the case despite financial irregularity was committed. However, Mr. Chamuah, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the defence never admitted the prosecution case warranting taking the burden of proving that the appellant made any correspondence and liasioned with the Peerless Company to avail the loan for the Bank as noted in the impugned judgment & order, which is against the settled principle of burden of proof. 8. Mr. A. Chamuah, the learned counsel for the appellant Khireswar Saikia, further submitted that in view of the note of satisfaction of the B.O.D. of ASCARD Bank in regard to the consultancy service, appointment and payments made to him in this regard, in its meeting held on 12.05.1996 as it has come in the cross-examination of PW-14 Sunirmal Roy, the Investigating Officer, with reference to the contentions in the charge-sheet, the learned trial Court ought not to have held the appellant guilty of the charges. Mr. Mr. Chamuah, the learned counsel for the appellant, further submitted that in view of the ratification of the appointment of the appellant and payments made to him by B.O.D., on 12.05.1996, copy of which is, of course, not available on record is the crux of the whole case for which reason alone, the appellant is entitled to be acquitted of the charges. Mr. A. Chamuah, the learned counsel, has placed reliance on the Apex Court decisions rendered in S.V.L. Murthy v. C.B.I., Hyderabad, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 77 and in International Advanced Research Centre for Power Metallurgy and New Materials(ARCI) & ors. v. Nirma Cerglass Technics(P) Ltd. & ors. reported in (2016) 1 SCC 348 . 9. Controverting the above argument of the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. P. N. Choudhury, the learned Senior Retainer Counsel for the respondent-CBI, submitted that accused Khireswar Saikia, the then C.E.D. i/c, in the absence of any resolution of the B.O.D. of ASCARD Bank, by an office order, dated 20.11.1995, appointed the appellant Chitta Ranjan Roy as consultant for the Bank, with effect from 01.12.1994 until further order, in collusion with him for the purpose of obtaining loan from Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd., Calcutta, and other Financial Institutions including the Government, when Syed Ahmed Ali, who had already been duly appointed for the purpose, was working and loan was also already availed before his appointment and further, drew bills amounting to Rs. 12 lacs, that is, 2% of the procured fund as consultancy service rendered to the Bank. Mr. Choudhury, the learned Senior Retainer Counsel for CBI, further submitted that the entire transaction was bogus and was manifestly the consequence of a criminal conspiracy of the appellants with a calculated design to cheat the Bank for wrongful gain to themselves and wrongful loss to the Bank and therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly held the appellants guilty of the charges and convicted by the impugned well reasoned judgment. Analysis of Evidence: 10. In the instant case, there is no dispute from the defence side that during the year 1994-95 onward, the appellant Khireswar Saikia was acting as the C.E.D. i/c of ASCARD Bank Ltd., Assam and the co-appellant Chitta Ranjan Roy rendered service to the said Bank as the consultant for obtaining a loan of Rs. 10 Crores from the Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. 10 Crores from the Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd., Kolkata and other financial institutions including the Government. However, the prosecution allegation, in short, is that both the appellants in collusion with Pahar Khan, General Manger i/c (for short, GM, i/c), Imran Shah, Adviser, hatched up a criminal conspiracy and illegally appointed the appellant Chitta Ranjan Roy, on 28.11.1995, as the consultant for the said Bank, with effect from 01.12.1994, when Syed Ahmad Ali, who was duly appointed, was working as Consultant for the Bank and further, disbursed Rs. 11,42,440/- to him ostensibly for rendering consultancy service in obtaining the aforesaid amount of loan from the Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd., Kolkata, which had already been obtained in the month of June/July, 1995 directly by the Bank. Therefore, the prosecution contended that both the appellants cheated the ASCARD Bank, pursuant to a criminal conspiracy and thereby, the appellant Khireswar Saikia, being a public servant, committed criminal misconduct by indulging in corrupt means abusing his official position. 11. It is pertinent to be mentioned that 'criminal conspiracy' under Section 120-B IPC postulates an agreement between two or more persons to do, or cause to be done, an illegal act or legal act by illegal means. Section 120-A IPC defines what is 'criminal conspiracy'. The offence of 'criminal conspiracy' is of technical nature and the gist of it is the agreement between two or more persons to do or cause to be done, an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means, subject to the proviso that the agreement does not amount to conspiracy unless it is followed by an overt act done by one or more persons in pursuance of such agreement. To prove conspiracy there must either be direct or circumstantial evidence to show meeting of minds to commit an offence. The offence of 'cheating', on the other hand, is defined in section 415 IPC. The Section contains two parts. The first part relates to property, while the second part need not necessarily relate to property. The essence of the offence is the fraudulent or dishonest intention to deceive a person. The offence of cheating punishable under section 420 IPC is committed when on the basis of fraud or misrepresentation, the complainant is induced to part with property or valuable security. The essence of the offence is the fraudulent or dishonest intention to deceive a person. The offence of cheating punishable under section 420 IPC is committed when on the basis of fraud or misrepresentation, the complainant is induced to part with property or valuable security. In State (Government of NCT of Delhi) v. Nitin Gunwant Shah case (supra), the Apex Court held that before the accused is held guilty of criminal conspiracy, the prosecution must establish beyond doubt that there was prior meeting of mind to commit an offence beyond reasonable doubt. 12. In the instant case, from the evidence of PW. 1, Ajit Gogoi, the then Supervisor, ASCARD Bank Ltd., it appears that pursuant to the resolution No. 4 of the Executive Committee adopted in its meeting held on 05.11.1994 vide Ext. 1 (1) in the file vide Ext. 1, Syed Ahmed Ali was resolved to be appointed as Consultant by his name to negotiate with the Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd., Kolkata and other financial institutions including the Government for a loan of Rs. 10 crores and accordingly, N.C. Kalita, the then C.E.D. i/c of the Bank, by appointment letter, dated 07.11.1994, vide Ext. 1(2) appointed him until further order. Syed Ahmed Ali assumed the charge of consultant vide Ext. 1(10) his letter, dated 22.12.1994, addressed to the CED i/c requesting for certain infrastructural support so as to enable him to discharge his duty without any inconvenience. Further, his(P.W.1) evidence shows that by Ext.1(37), the noting in file, recommended for appointment of Syed Ahmed Ali as consultant for the Bank, as per the aforesaid resolution No. 4 of the B.O.D. of Bank, was made, passed and approved by the appellant Khireswar Saikia, Pahar Khan, G.M. and Imran Shah, Advisor. The evidence reveals that Syed Ahmed Ali was neither removed from the post of Consultant or he resigned from his post. 13. However, in clear contravention of the terms of the resolution No. 4, dated 05.11.1994 vide Ext. 1(1), the appellant Khireswar Saikia, the CED i/c, appointed the other appellant Chitta Ranjan Roy as the Consultant for the Bank with reference to the said resolution for the same purpose, with effect from 01.12.1994, vide Ext. 1(64) when Syed Ahmed Ali was working in the same post and accordingly, by Ext. 1(1), the appellant Khireswar Saikia, the CED i/c, appointed the other appellant Chitta Ranjan Roy as the Consultant for the Bank with reference to the said resolution for the same purpose, with effect from 01.12.1994, vide Ext. 1(64) when Syed Ahmed Ali was working in the same post and accordingly, by Ext. 1(66), an undated letter, the appellant Chitta Ranjan Roy wrote to the CED i/c, ASCARD Bank for payment of total 12 lacs as his consultancy fees, on account of liasioning works with the financial institutions for arranging financial assistance to the Bank. His(PW.1) evidence in-chief further reveals that the said appellant Chitta Ranjan Roy received payments towards advance against expenditures to be incurred to realize financial assistance from the Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. as well as other institutions, which he received on various dates vide Exts. 2 to 11 the relevant money receipts. In cross-examination, the appellant Khireswar Saikia has not disputed the Exts. 2 to 11, the money receipt vouchers and Exts. 2(1) to 11(1) the initials of the appellant Chitta Ranjan Roy appearing thereon, but elicited that 'No records are available before this Court today regarding payment of consultancy fees and others to Syed Ahmed Ali', while the other appellant namely, Chitta Ranjan Roy declined to cross-examine the witness. Non-payment of any Consultancy fees to Syed Ahmed Ali certainly does not legalize the illegal appointment and payment to the appellant Chitta Ranjan Roy as Consultant who did not work in that capacity. Therefore, the evidence of PW.1 so far it relates to Exts. 2 to 11, the payment receipt vouchers with signatures of Chitta Ranjan Roy vide Exts. 2(1) to 11(1), as a whole, and also working of Syed Ahmed Ali as consultant during the same relevant period remained unshaken and undisputed by the defence. Because, it is the rule of essential justice that where a party desires to avail himself of the opportunity to put his case in cross-examination, it follows that he believes that the testimony given in the case cannot be disputed. Therefore, in the instant case, when the defence has not cross-examined P.W.-1, who has given his evidence, based on exhibited documents, a presumption is invariably to be drawn against the appellants to the effect that whatever he has stated is true. 14. It is noticed from the evidence of PW. Therefore, in the instant case, when the defence has not cross-examined P.W.-1, who has given his evidence, based on exhibited documents, a presumption is invariably to be drawn against the appellants to the effect that whatever he has stated is true. 14. It is noticed from the evidence of PW. 2 Sudip Sarkar, the then Administrative Officer of the Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd., Kolkata, has testified to the fact that he handed over certain documents relating to disbursement of loan of Rs. 10 Crores to the ASCARD Bank, by Ext. 12, the documents handing over letter, to PW.14 Inspector Sunirmal Roy of C.B.I., who was the investigating officer. His evidence shows that by Ext.18, the letter of A.K. Mukhuty, G.M.(Investment) of the Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd., Kolkata, dated 23.06.1995, forwarded Demand Draft of Rs. 5(five) crores to Imran Shah of the Bank, to be drawn on Canara Bank, towards the first instalment of the loan of Rs. 10 Crores clearly indicating that the said loan was sanctioned and disbursed before the appellant Chitta Ranjan Roy was appointed as Consultant vide Ext. 1 (64), dated 28.11.1995 for the ASCARD Bank to avail the loan for which he allegedly negotiated and submitted bill by an undated letter, vide Ext. 1(66) for payment and received payments vide the undisputed receipt vouchers Exts. 2 to 11. The evidence of P.W. 2 surprisingly shows that the Government had directly approached the Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd., for availing the said loan amount and he did not even heard the name of the appellant Chitta Ranjan Roy, discarding any role of consultancy service played by the said appellant and it certainly follows an inference that he submitted those bills to the ASCARD Bank falsely stating that he liasioned for the loan vide Ext.1(66), the letter, followed by receipt of payments vide Exts. 2 to 11 the money receipts. PW-3 Nityananda Barkakaty, the informant, recognized the two FIRs lodged with Paltan Bazar P.S. vide Ext.-36 dated 06.04.1998 and Ext.37 dated 06.04.1998, in regard to the financial anomalies that surfaced subsequently in the ASCARD Bank as its Chief Executive Director. 15. PW-4 Ashit Ranjan Sarkar, the Deputy Manager, ASCARD Bank, who corroborated the evidence of PW-1, recognized the money receipts vide Exts. 15. PW-4 Ashit Ranjan Sarkar, the Deputy Manager, ASCARD Bank, who corroborated the evidence of PW-1, recognized the money receipts vide Exts. 2 to 11 signed by the appellant Chitta Ranjan Roy and stated that he did not play any role in getting the loan as the loan had already been availed by the Bank. In cross-examination, the defence only reinforced the aforesaid fact that the appellant Chitta Ranjan Roy received Rs. 11,42,440/-, as remuneration on account of consultancy fees by Exts. 2 to 11, the money receipts. The illegality behind appointment of the appellant Chitta Ranjan Roy as consultant for the ASCARD Bank, it appears was intentionally committed as no approval in the form of resolution of the Board of Directors(BOD) was obtained as it has come in the evidence of PW. 5 Hassan Ali, the other Secretary of the Bank. It is apparent from the evidence of P.W. 6 Abdul Ali Ahmed, the then Accounts Assistant of the Bank that the order of appointment of the appellant Chitta Ranjan Roy as consultant was made on 20.11.1995 giving retrospective effect from 01.12.1994 and his consultancy fee bills were approved for payment, on 16.05.1996 by the other appellant Khireswar Saikia, the then CED i/c. It is also surprising to note that payment to the appellant Chitta Ranjan Roy was made by cash vide Exts. 2 to 9 and 11, in violating the financial practice of payment by cheque in the said Bank as it appears on conjoint reading of evidence of PWs. 6 & 7. 16. P.W. 8 Bachalal Ram, the then Sheristadar of Paltan Basar P.S., recognized Ext.38 the certified copy of FIR and Ext. 39, the FIR in the prescribed format under section 154 Cr.P.C., 1973 dated 12.04.1998. On the other hand, PW.9 DSP Joy Ram Das, whom the defence declined to cross-examine, testified to the fact of handing over the said two amalgamated cases to the C.I.D, Assam for investigation, on his prayer vide Ext.42. The evidence of PW. 10, Khagendra Nath Bora, the then legal Assistant of ASCARD Bank, it is found carries no significance as his evidence relates to formal requirement of sanction for prosecution of Bank Staff, which is not disputed by the defence. The prosecution sanction order vide Ext.43 in respect of the appellant Khireswar Saikia has come in the evidence of PW.11, Ananda Bhuban Das, the CED of ASCARD Bank. 17. The prosecution sanction order vide Ext.43 in respect of the appellant Khireswar Saikia has come in the evidence of PW.11, Ananda Bhuban Das, the CED of ASCARD Bank. 17. The evidence of PW.12 Narendra Kumar, the Handwriting expert, GEQD, Kolkata, who examined the specimen signatures of the appellant Chitta Ranjan Roy obtained by PW.13 Inspector Partha Sarathi Bose of CBI, the I.O. in presence of PW.15 Liakat Hussain, the then G.M., ASCARD Bank and PW.16 Binod Chandra Talukdar, the then Accounts Officer of the said Bank, found his signatures to be genuine and his opinion is based on rationality so far relates to characteristics of the hand writings. It should be borne in mind that handwriting may, in addition to the usual methods, provided in Section 47, be proved by circumstantial evidence, under Section 67 of the Evidence Act, which prescribes no particular kind of proof. Here his(PW.12) evidence need not be segregated and over-emphasized in view of the said appellants' signatures being not disputed or denied as discussed above and therefore, the attempt of the defence in the evidence of PW.13 Sarati Bose, the I.O. regarding non-availability of seizure memo of Exts. 2 to 11, on record, does not in any way weaken the authenticity of those undisputed documents. It also does not appear to be relevant as it has come in the evidence of PW.14 Inspector Sunirmal Roy C.B.I, the I.O., who stated to have not made any field investigation in the case, but submitted only the charge-sheet vide Ext.52, regarding the deliberations made in the meeting of the BOD of ASCARD Bank held on 12.05.1996. P.W.-14, it appears, has rightly stated that "As I have not conducted the field investigation, I cannot say what discussions took place in the meeting of Board of Directors held on 12.05.1996.". Admittedly, no document showing of such meeting of B.O.D. of the Bank, on 12.05.1996, is available in the relevant filed vide Ext.1, or otherwise is available on record to believe it. 18. It is needless to say that Section 101 of the Evidence Act requires that except in the case of presumption, the burden is throughout on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The onus is on the accused to raise doubt in the mind of the court or to satisfy that the defence version is the probable version of the story. 19. The onus is on the accused to raise doubt in the mind of the court or to satisfy that the defence version is the probable version of the story. 19. In the instant appeals, arising out of a common judgment & order, mentioned above, which is basically based on documentary evidence, the prosecution discharged its burden by leading clear circumstantial evidence, oral and documentary, giving rise to an inference of an agreement between the appellants or more other officials of ASCARD Bank amounting to 'criminal conspiracy' to 'cheat' the said Bank by blatant breach of procedure by illegally appointing the appellant Chitta Ranjan Roy by the other appellant Khireswar Saikia, the then CED i/c as the consultant for availing loan from the General Peerless Finance and Investment Co. Ltd., when Syed Ahmed Ali was already working as per resolution of BOD, in that capacity and when the said loan amount had already been availed before his appointment and pursuant to such illegal appointment, he received payments of Rs. 11,42,440/- on account of consultancy service, which he, in fact, did not do at all. Both the appellants in their statements recorded under section 313 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 denied the incriminating evidence that appeared against them, but at the same time, the appellant Khireswar Saikia, the then CED i/c of ASCARD Bank pleaded that "Everything was done as per Board resolution and I have only executed the decision of the Board as per official process" apparently appears to be nothing, but the travesty of truth. As stated above, no such subsequent resolution of B.O.D. of the Bank is proved to raise a presumption of doubt in favour of the appellants. The entire course of action from the very beginning is proved to be illegal with an ulterior motive for wrongful gain to the appellants and wrongful loss to the Bank. Therefore, the conduct of the appellant Khireswar Saikia, who was a public servant, by virtue of being the CED i/c of ASCARD Bank, undoubtedly amounted to 'criminal misconduct' defined in Section 13(1)(d) which is punishable under Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988, beyond reasonable doubt. Conclusion: 20. It is seen that the law laid down by the Apex Court in S.V.L. Murthy v. C.B.I., Hyderabad (supra) and International Advanced Research Centre for Power Metallurgy and New Materials (ARCI) & ors. Conclusion: 20. It is seen that the law laid down by the Apex Court in S.V.L. Murthy v. C.B.I., Hyderabad (supra) and International Advanced Research Centre for Power Metallurgy and New Materials (ARCI) & ors. v. Nimra Cerglass Technics (P) Ltd. & anr.(supra) can well be applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case, in view of the proved facts that the appellants dishonestly or fraudulently in a concerted manner and intentionally abusing established banking practice cheated ASCARD Bank for wrongful gain as stated above beyond all reasonable doubt. 21. For the reasons, set forth above, this Court is of the opinion that no interference is warranted in the impugned well-reasoned judgment & order passed by the learned Court below. 22. Accordingly, Criminal Appeals No. 126/2014 and 196/2014 stand dismissed. 23. Both the appellants are directed to surrender before the learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Assam at Guwahati, within a period of 1(one) months from today to serve out the sentence. 24. Send back the LCRs along with a copy of this judgment & order to the learned Court below. 25. Appeals disposed of.