ORDER : This revision petition is directed against the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below holding the petitioner herein guilty of the offences punishable under sections 120B, 411, 468, 471 and 420 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The petitioner herein was accused No.1 before the lower court. The petitioner along with accused No.2 were tried on the accusation that during November and December 1994, accused Nos.1 and 2 entered into criminal conspiracy among themselves and with one I.K. Ravindranath (since expired) to cheat Syndicate Bank by forging certain demand drafts. In furtherance of the said conspiracy, accused No.2 Vijayasena knowing fully well that he was not employed in the Syndicate Bank and that he was not empowered to prepare any such valuable security, dishonestly and fraudulently forged a demand draft bearing No.326672 for a sum of Rs.9,36,000/- in the name of accused No.1 P. Anjaneyulu Gupta. The leaf used for preparing the demand draft was stealthily removed from Thithimathi Branch of Syndicate Bank. Accused No.1 presented the forged demand draft to V.V. Puram Branch, Syndicate Bank at Bengaluru and withdrew the entire proceeds of the demand draft amounting to Rs.9,36,000/- on 16.12.1994 and 17.12.1994 and thus caused wrongful loss of Rs.9,36,000/- to Syndicate Bank and corresponding wrongful gain to himself and to Sri. I.K. Ravindranath. 3. In order to prove the accusations, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses and got admitted into evidence 26 documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P26. On considering the said material, learned XVII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru by order dated 2.12.2006 in C.C.No.2040/1998 held accused Nos.1 and 2 guilty of the aforesaid offences and accordingly, sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.2,000/- each for all the above offences. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, accused Nos.1 and 2 preferred two separate appeals Crl.A.No.1984/2006 and Crl.A.No.4/2007 and by the impugned order dated 13.1.2009, learned XXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge for CBI Cases at Bengaluru City (CCH4) dismissed the appeals confirming the order of conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Magistrate. 5. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge for CBI Cases at Bengaluru City (CCH4) dismissed the appeals confirming the order of conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Magistrate. 5. Accused No.2 since then having expired, only accused No.1 has preferred the above appeal inter alia contending that the impugned judgments in so far as convicting accused No.1 is legally unsustainable for the reason that the prosecution has not proved the core aspect of the case as to how the alleged misplaced demand draft leaf came into the possession of the accused. It is contended that the Bank having not lodged any complaint alleging theft or misplacement of the said demand draft, the courts below should not have accepted the case of the prosecution that the stolen demand draft leaf was forged by the accused. It is further contended that PW.1 in his examination has admitted that the signature found on Ex.P1 appears to be that of Smt. K.P. Devamma the then Assistant Manager of Syndicate Bank; that being the case, the prosecution ought to have examined the specimen signature of said Devamma to rule out the possibility of the instrument containing the genuine signature of the authorized signatory. It is further contended that the prosecution has not examined Smt. Bhavani who was a material witness and whose name has been figured in the evidence of PW.2 and in the face of these lapses, the courts below have committed grave error in recording the finding of conviction against the revision petitioner. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent. 7. In the course of his argument, the learned counsel has raised threefold contentions. Firstly, it is contended that the prosecution has not proved the alleged conspiracy between accused Nos.1 and 2. It is the submission of the learned counsel that none of the witnesses examined by the prosecution have spoken about any agreement inter se between accused Nos.1 and 2 and the circumstances brought out in the evidence also do not establish the ingredients of conspiracy. In the said circumstances, the very foundation of the case having not been proved by the prosecution, the impugned judgments cannot be sustained. In the said circumstances, the very foundation of the case having not been proved by the prosecution, the impugned judgments cannot be sustained. Secondly, it is contended that even though it is the case of the prosecution that a loss of Rs.9,36,000/- has been caused to Syndicate Bank, the Bank has not taken any steps to recover the said money either by lodging any independent complaint or by conducting any departmental enquiry against any of its officials, which is indicative of the fact that there was no monetary loss whatsoever to the Bank as contended by the prosecution and consequently, the allegations of cheating under section 420 of Indian Penal Code fall to the ground. Thirdly, it is the contention of the learned counsel that the defence of the petitioner is that he has not entered into any criminal conspiracy with the other accused, he was just a bonafide purchaser of demand draft for discounting facility. It is the submission of the learned counsel that the defence set up by the petitioner is probabalised by the contents of Ex.P13 namely the search list which refers to a letter said to have been written by I.K. Ravindranath to P. Anjaneyulu Gupta namely the petitioner herein regarding the receipt of Rs.9,36,000/-. It is the submission of the learned counsel that this letter which is referred in Ex.P13, clearly demonstrates that the demand draft was given to Ravindranath and the entire proceeds was taken by Ravindranath. If this evidence is believed, the entire culpability rests on the deceased Ravindranath, but the Trial Court has rendered the impugned judgment without considering the aforesaid document which has resulted in total miscarriage of justice which deserves to be set at right by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 8. Learned counsel for respondent however has supported the impugned judgments and has reiterated that the reasons assigned by the courts below do not suffer from any error of law or facts and the Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence and therefore, there is no necessity whatsoever to interfere with the impugned judgments. 9. I have given my careful thought to the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully scrutinized the impugned judgments and the records of the case. 10. 9. I have given my careful thought to the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully scrutinized the impugned judgments and the records of the case. 10. It is relevant to note that in proof of the charges framed against the petitioner and the accused No.2, the prosecution has examined Sri. S. Keshavanayak the Manager of Syndicate Bank, Thithimathi Branch as PW.1, Smt. K.P. Devamma the then Assistant Manager in Syndicate Bank, Thithimathi Branch as PW.2, Sri. N.G. Kuduva the then Assistant General Manager (Accounts) working in the Head Office Manipal as PW.3, Sri. Krishnamurthy – a Clerk working in Syndicate Bank, Thithimathi Branch at the relevant point of time as PW.4, Sri. S. Prabhakar the Assistant Manager in the Central Accounts Office, Bengaluru as PW.5, another Clerk working in the Central Accounts Office Smt. Latha as PW.6, Sri. Vadiraj R. a Clerk working in V.V. Puram Branch, Syndicate Bank as PW.7, Sri. Anbarasu another Clerk working in Syndicate Bank, V.V. Puram Branch as PW.8, Sri. A. Manjunath Vigilance Officer in Syndicate Bank, Vigilance Unit situated at Chamarajapet, Bengaluru as PW.12, Sri. S.C. Lohia the Deputy GEQD, Hyderabad as PW.13 and the Investigating Officer and other police officials involved in the investigation. On considering the oral evidence adduced by these witnesses and the documents produced through these witnesses and especially the opinion of the handwriting expert PW.13, both the courts below have recorded following findings of facts namely - (i) A blank demand draft leaf bearing No.326672 pertaining to Syndicate Bank, Thithimathi Branch was found missing from Syndicate Bank, Thitimati Branch on or about 8.11.1994. (ii) A demand draft for Rs.9,36,000/-, marked as Ex.P1 dated 13.12.1994 was fabricated by making use of the missing draft leaf bearing No.326672. (iii) Accused No.1 Anjaneyulu Gupta opened savings bank account bearing S.B. Account No.14338 at Syndicate Bank, V.V. Puram Branch on 28.12.1993 and he presented the said demand draft Ex.P1 at V.V. Puram Branch, Syndicate Bank on 16.12.1994. (iv) Proceeds of the aforesaid drafts were credited to the S.B.A/c.No.14338 at V.V. Puram Branch, Syndicate Bank and accused No.1 withdrew the said amount through two cheques namely Ex.P8 bearing No.661351 dated 16.12.1994 for Rs.60,000/- and Ex.P9 bearing No.661352 dated 17.12.1994 for Rs.8,80,000/-. 11. (iv) Proceeds of the aforesaid drafts were credited to the S.B.A/c.No.14338 at V.V. Puram Branch, Syndicate Bank and accused No.1 withdrew the said amount through two cheques namely Ex.P8 bearing No.661351 dated 16.12.1994 for Rs.60,000/- and Ex.P9 bearing No.661352 dated 17.12.1994 for Rs.8,80,000/-. 11. It is pertinent to note that these findings are not challenged in the revision petition nor could they be challenged for the simple reason that the above findings are based on the acceptable and legal evidence. The only contention urged in the present revision petition is that one Smt. Bhavani whose name figured in the evidence of PW.2 was not examined and the signature of Smt. K.P. Devamma was not sent for analysis. Both these contentions do not have any bearing on the issues involved in the proceedings. Smt. K.P. Devamma the then Assistant Manager is examined before the court and she has specifically stated in her evidence as under:- “The writings in Ex.P1 are neither of me nor of any officials of our branch. The seal having mentioned of K.P. Devamma appears to be the seal being used by me, but the signature on the said seal is not of mine. The another signature as authorized signatory is not pertaining to the officer of our branch.” No doubt in her evidence, she has stated that the endorsement Ex.P3 was issued by Smt. Bhavani. She has stated that on 7.11.1994, M. Parashivamurthy, K. Bhavani, M. Laxminarayana, Manoharchandra and Krishnamurthy were the Clerks and one Thimmaiah was an Officer in their Bank and further she has stated that Ex.P3 endorsement was issued by Smt. Bhavani. The non-examination of said Bhavani does not any way affect either the credibility of the testimony of PW.2 or the allegations of forgery and conspiracy leveled against accused No.1. Ex.P3 is the extract of the demand draft issue register, the genuineness of which is not disputed in the course of cross-examination. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that non-examination of the aforesaid Bhavani has created dent in the case of prosecution cannot be accepted. 12. Ex.P3 is the extract of the demand draft issue register, the genuineness of which is not disputed in the course of cross-examination. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that non-examination of the aforesaid Bhavani has created dent in the case of prosecution cannot be accepted. 12. The other contention urged by the petitioner that the search list makes a mention of the letter written by I.K. Ravindranath to accused No.1 regarding receipt of Rs.9,36,000/- does not any way whittle down the case pf the prosecution; on the other hand, it reinforces the alleged conspiracy between the deceased Ravindranath and accused No.1. The very fact the deceased has acknowledged having received the proceeds of aforesaid demand draft from accused No.1 lends full assurance to the case of the prosecution that the demand draft in question was presented by accused No.1 to his newly opened bank account and the proceeds thereof were credited to his account and later accused No.1 withdrew the said proceeds. The document referred to in Ex.P4 therefore lend further corroboration to the case of the prosecution. Apart from the above, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any error or infirmity whatsoever either in the findings recorded by the lower court or in the reasoning assigned in the impugned judgment. Even though it is contended that the prosecution has not established conspiracy with cogent evidence, yet the ingredients of conspiracy are writ large in the transaction proved by the prosecution. The very fact that Ex.P1 demand draft was filled up by accused No.2 in the name of accused No.1 knowing fully well that he was not authorized to draw or prepare any such demand draft and further the fact that accused No.1 opened a new account in V.V. Puram Branch and presented the said demand draft for encashment and later passed on the proceeds to the deceased as indicated in Ex.P13 are sufficient to establish the ingredients of section 120B, 411, 468, 471 and 420 of Indian Penal Code. There is absolutely no merit in the revision petition. Therefore, the revision petition deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the following order :- Criminal revision petition is dismissed.