JUDGMENT : Accused Kamaljeet Singh, Sardool Singh, Ram Lal, and, accused Devika Sood, all became charged for commission of offences constituted under Section 406, and under Section 420 of the IPC, read with Section 120-B, IPC. The learned trial Court, through a verdict made, upon, Criminal Complaint No. 100-1 of 2003/40-III of 2004, on 1.12.2006, made an order of acquittal, vis-a-vis, co-accused Sardool Singh and Ram Lal, given theirs being the guarantors of the loan amount. However, through the afore verdict, the learned trial Court recorded findings of conviction against co-accused Kamaljeet, for charges drawn under Section 406, and, under Section 420 of the IPC, besides through the afore verdict, the learned trial Court also recorded findings of conviction against co-accused Devika Sood, for charges drawn under Section 420 of the IPC. Consequently, through a separate order made on 1.12.2006, the learned trial Court sentenced co-accused Kamaljeet Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months, and, to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, and, in default of payment of fine amount he stood sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month, for, commission of an offence punishable under Section 406 of the IPC. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, and, in default of payment of fine amount, he stood sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month, for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC. Convict Devika Sood, stood sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, and, to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, and, in default of payment of fine amount, she stood sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month, for commission of an offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC. 2. The verdict made by the learned trial Court became assailed by the convicts before the learned Appellate Court. The learned Appellate Court through a common verdict made on 31.03.2010 upon, Cr. Appeal No. 37 of 2006, and, upon, Cr. Appeal No. 1 of 2007, affirmed both the verdict of conviction, and, the consequent therewith sentences (supra) imposed upon the convicts hence by the learned trial Court. Consequently, the accused/convicts rear a grievance, and, for redressing their grievances, they rear, the extant criminal revision petitions before this Court. 3. Appeal No. 37 of 2006, and, upon, Cr. Appeal No. 1 of 2007, affirmed both the verdict of conviction, and, the consequent therewith sentences (supra) imposed upon the convicts hence by the learned trial Court. Consequently, the accused/convicts rear a grievance, and, for redressing their grievances, they rear, the extant criminal revision petitions before this Court. 3. Brief facts, necessary for the disposal of the present criminal revision petitions are that complainant-State Bank of India, through its Branch Manager, Manali Barnch, filed a complaint under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 120 of the IPC, against the petitioners and one Surdool Singh, and, Ram Lal. The perusal of the complaint unfolds that the complainant alleged that accused Kamaljeet Singh, who at the relevant time, was proprietor of Shiva Fun World, Dhungri, Manali, approached the bank for a term loan facility of Rs. 4,19,200/-, for purchasing Softy making Machine and Sardool Singh and Ram Lal stood as guarantors to him. After completing the formalities, term loan was granted in favour of accused Kamaljeet Singh on 24.06.2002 by the Bank. It is further case of the complainant that as per the invoice submitted by accused Kamaljeet Singh, a demand draft No.286512 dated 24.06.2002 for Rs.5,59,350/- favouring U.D. Departmental Stores, Katra Dula, Amritsar, payable at SBI Branch at Amritsar was handed over to accused Kamaljeet Singh against acknowledgement. The bank officials thereafter visited the premises of accused Kamaljeet Singh and found that the machine has not been installed, whereas, it was stipulated in the term loan that machine would be installed within a period of one month from the date of disbursement of the loan. The matter was reported to the police but the police refused to lodge the report against the accused. It is further case of the complainant that one current account was opened in Union Bank of India, Kullu, District Kullu by accused Devika Sood in the name of M/s U.D. Departmental Stores, as Proprietor and on 27.2.2002, the amount of the draft was credited to the account. Lateron, Devika Sood accused on 4.7.2003 has withdrawn Rs.1,25,000/- and also transferred Rs.4,20,000/- to the State Bank account of Rakesh Sood. On the afore averments, the complaint was filed before the learned trial Court. 4. Lateron, Devika Sood accused on 4.7.2003 has withdrawn Rs.1,25,000/- and also transferred Rs.4,20,000/- to the State Bank account of Rakesh Sood. On the afore averments, the complaint was filed before the learned trial Court. 4. The learned trial Court after framing charge(s) against the accused, and, upon perusal of the evidence on record, had drawn the hereinafter inferences, as, become echoed in paragraph No.14 of its verdict:- “14. Close scrutiny of the entire evidence led by the complainant and defence i.e. oral as well as documentary in order to prove their respective claims coupled with the contention of the learned counsel for the parties are discussed as under:- (i) At the very outset, it may be observed that there is no iota of evidence on record against accused No.2 and 3 qua the involvement of accused No.2 and 3 in the offence for which they have been charged except that they were guarantors to accused No.1 in the loan case and as CW-1 Amar Singh has also admitted in his cross-examination by accused No.2 and 3 that accused have not committed any offence, it is safe to hold that the complainant has failed to prove its case against accused No.2 and 3. (ii) So far as the offence of criminal breach of trust by accused No.1 and 4 are concerned as it is the case of complainant that the draft was handed over to accused No.1 by hand and even the loan was also sanctioned in his favour and not to accused No.4, in my opinion accused No.4 cannot be said to have committed criminal breach of trust, though there is sufficient evidence on record against accused No.1 that he committed criminal breach of trust by misappropriating the draft amount by not presenting the same as per the terms and conditions settled by him with the complainant bank. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., accused No.1 has categorically admitted the sanctioning of term loan of Rs.4,19,000/- for purchase of softy machine after the submission of loan application, interview form, invoice copies of which are Ex.CW1/A to Ex.CW1/C by him before the complainant bank. Not only this, he further admitted that draft No.286512 dated 24.6.2002 for sum of Rs. Not only this, he further admitted that draft No.286512 dated 24.6.2002 for sum of Rs. 5, 59, 350/- favouring M/s U.D. Departmental Store, Katra Dulo, Amritsar was handed over to him and he acknowledged the same on Ex.CW1/D which fact has otherwise been proved on record from Ex.CW1/D where accused No.1 had put his signatures after receiving the draft. Thus, when it is proved on record that the complainant bank sanctioned the term loan on the submission of proforma invoice by accused No.1 which was issued by U.D. Departmental Store Katra Dulo, Amritsar and the draft was also handedover to accused No.1 by the complainant bank to prsent the same as per proforma invoice i.e. U.D. Departmental Store Katra, Dulo, Amritsar, but the same was not presented in the said bank nor accused No.1 has installed the softy Machine uptill today nor there is any explanation by accused No.1 how the draft No.286512 which was issued in the name of U.D. Departmental Store Katra Dulo Amritsar as per the agreement by the accused with the complainant bank was presented in the Union Bank of India Branch, Kullu, it is clear that accused No.1 in connivance with accused No.4 presented the said draft in the Union Bank of India Branch, Kullu, in violation of law and the accused No.1 Kamaljeet has committed criminal breach of trust with the complainant bank. (iii) So far as the commission of offence of cheating is concerned, it is further proved on record from the oral as well as documentary evidence as discussed above that accused No.1 and 4 cheated the complainant bank by opening account in the Union Bank of India in the name of U.D. Departmental Store Bhutti and after presenting the draft in question before the Union Bank of India, Kullu, go the same collected from SBI Amritsar and thereafter mis-appropriated the draft amount by withdrawing and transferring the same which fact has been proved by CW-2 Rakesh Kumar, who has proved the copies of documents Ex.CW2/A to Ex.CW2/D. The learned defence counsel representing accused No.4 contended with vehemence that as it is proved on record that accused No.4 was already having joint account with Smt. Usha Sood as is clear from the statement of DW-1 Subhash Thakur, who proved copy of account opening form Ex.DW1/A, there is no question of opening of another account by U.D. Departmental store through its partner Devika Sood at Union Bank of India, Kullu. But there is no force in the contention of learned defence counsel as there is no bar of opening number of account in different banks and it cannot be said that as Devika Sood was already having account in K.C.C. Kullu she could not open another account at Union Bank of India, Kullu, in case she wants to commit cheating with any person. Even the contention of learned defence counsel representing accused No.4, that Devika Sood never opened any account in Union Bank of India, Kullu nor she opened any account in the said bank nor she presented the draft to the said bank is falsified from the documentary evidence on record, proved by CW-2, Rakesh Kumar who has categorically stated in his statement that the draft was presented by U.D. Departmental Store and as per his record Smt. Devika Sood is the Proprietor of U.D. Departmental Store Bhutti Colony, Shamshi which fact is also clear from account opening form Ex.CW2/A which bears the signatures of accused No.4 and the copy of declaration from Ex. CW2/B, copy of specimen signatures, Ex.CW2/C appears to be same as on the admitted account opening form Ex.DW1/A proved by accused NO.4 in her defence. Further it is also clear from Ex. CW2/B, copy of specimen signatures, Ex.CW2/C appears to be same as on the admitted account opening form Ex.DW1/A proved by accused NO.4 in her defence. Further it is also clear from Ex. C-A, copy of ledger that draft in question was presented in the Union Bank of India, Kullu by U.D. Departmental Store to be collected from SBI, Amritsar and further the copy ledger Ex.CW2/D does not leave any scope for the innocence of accused No.4, as it is clear from this record that Smt. Devika Sood partner/Director of U.D. Departmental Store has first get the draft amount of Rs.5,59,350/-, transferred in her account and thereafter withdrawn the amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- herself, and transferred Rs.4,20,000/- in the name of other person and the said account was singly operated by her. Thus in this manner it is clear on record that accused No.1 and 4 in connivance with each other cheated the compliant bank as discussed above.” 5. Neither the State of Himachal Pradesh nor the complainant, has instituted any appeal challenging the verdict of acquittal pronounced, vis-a-vis, accused Sardool Singh and Ram Lal, by the learned trial Court, given theirs being guarantors of the borrowings made by co-accused Kamaljeet Singh from the financial institution concerned, i.e. State Bank of India, Branch Office at Manali. Consequently, the afore verdict of acquittal pronounced, vis-a-vis, accused Sardool Singh and Ram Lal, by the learned trial Court on 1.12.2006, has acquired conclusivity and finality. 6. The relevant discussion as made by the learned trial Court, after its appraising the entire documentary, and, oral evidence, adduced before it, does reveal, that the prosecution case is completely dependant upon documentary evidence. 7. In proof of the prosecution case, CW-1 Amar Singh, Manager, State Bank of India, Manali has stepped into the witness box. During the course of his making his deposition, he in his examination-in-chief, hence proved loan application comprised in Ex.CW-1/A, as preferred by accused Kamaljeet Singh before the bank concerned. He has also proved Ex.CW1/C, exhibit whereof, comprises the proforma invoice of softy machine issued by U.D. Departmental Store Katra Dulo, Amritsar. He has also deposed that term loan of Rs.4,19,000/- was sanctioned in favour of principal accused Kamaljeet Singh for purchase of Softy Machine, and, thereafter draft of Rs.5,59,350/- of 24.06.2002, was issued in favour of accused No.1, through letter Ex.CW1/D, letter whereof bears the signatures of accused No.1. He has also deposed that term loan of Rs.4,19,000/- was sanctioned in favour of principal accused Kamaljeet Singh for purchase of Softy Machine, and, thereafter draft of Rs.5,59,350/- of 24.06.2002, was issued in favour of accused No.1, through letter Ex.CW1/D, letter whereof bears the signatures of accused No.1. He continued to testify that despite the borrowing made by principal co-accused Kamal Jeet Singh, for the afore specified purpose, yet the Softy Machine has remained uninstalled by him, in the premises concerned. Moreover, he has also proved the complaint as made to the police and, as becomes comprised in Ex.CW1/E. He has, in his examination-in-chief, deposed that accused Kamaljeet Singh in connivance with co-accused Devika Sood, both opened an account in the Union Bank of India, Branch Kullu, rather in the name of M/s U.D. Departmental Store, and, the draft amount was transferred in the said account, whereafter, accused Devika Sood, withdrew or transferred the afore amount. He has echoed in his examination-in-chief, that accused Kamaljeet Singh and accused Devika Sood, entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit the offences constituted under section 406 and under Section 420 of the IPC, read with Section 120-B of the IPC. In cross-examination, he has deposed with completest firmness, that on inquiry from the bank at Amritsar, he became apprised that the draft amount has been collected through, the, apposite bank at Kullu. He has deposed that the draft amount was rather validly payable only to the U.D. Departmental Store, Katra Amirtsar. 8. From a reading of the testification made by CW-1, it is apparent that the borrowings, as made by the principal co-accused Kamaljeet Singh, were for a specific purpose, and, the afore purpose remained never accomplished by co-accused Kamaljeet Singh. Contrarily it is crystal clear from a wholesome reading of the testification of CW-1, that even through the draft amount was transferred to the account U.D. Departmental Store, Bhutti. However, after the draft amount as had entered into the account(s) of the afore, it became withdrawn by the principal accused Kamaljeet Singh from the bank at Amritsar, whereafter the amount carried therein became collected through the bank at Kullu, and, it is also categorically clear, from a reading of his deposition, that the draft amount was subsequently transferred or remitted into the accounts of one Devika Sood. Therefore, it is crystal clear that both co-accused Kamaljeet Singh and coaccused Devika Sood hence entered into a criminal conspiracy, through creating a fictitious firm, in asmuch, as, U.D. Departmental Store, Bhutti, hence bearing a monemclature almost similar to U.D. Departmental Store, Katra Dulo, Amritsar, into whose account the draft amount was rather to validly enter. Consequently, both the afore co-accused committed the offence(s) in respect whereto they became convicted, and, also hence valid consequent therewith sentences became imposed upon each, through an order drawn by the learned trial Court, on 1.12.2006. 9. The testimony as made by CW-1, has been meted completest corroboration, through the testimony rendered by CW-2, one Rakesh Kumar, Assistant Manager Union Bank of India, Kullu. In his testification, he has echoed, that on 27th June, 2002, one account was opened by Devika Sood, Proprietor, U.D. Departmental Store, and, thereafter draft bearing No. 286512, as, is the draft amount mentioned in Ex.CW1/D, came for collection in his bank, and, became encashed from SBI, Amritsar. He proved from the originals, the copies of Ex.CW2/A to Ex.CW2/D. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that the draft was payable at Amritsar, and, that the account opened by Devika Sood, as, Proprietor, U.D. Departmental Store, Bhutti, Kullu, rather became the invalid receipt of the draft amount. 10. A reading of the deposition of CW-2, unfolds, that he has made echoings in his testification, making rather completest corroboration with the testification made on oath by CW-1, and, does also made candid bespeakings, that the draft amount was never entered into the account of the entity in whose accounts it was to be validly remitted, inasmuch, as, it did not come to be remitted to the account of U.D. Departmental Store, Katra Dulo Amritsar, rather it invalidly entered into the account of co-accused Devika Sood, through, the latter opening an account in Union Bank of India, Kullu, in the name of U.D. Departmental Store, Bhutti, Kullu being its Proprietor. Therefore, both the accused ensured, that the purpose of the borrowings made by accused Kamaljeet Singh, comprised in the softy machine being installed in the premises concerned, becomes completely defeated. Consequently, both the accused did provenly commit the offence(s) for which they became concurrently convicted, and, sentenced by both the learned courts below. 11. Therefore, both the accused ensured, that the purpose of the borrowings made by accused Kamaljeet Singh, comprised in the softy machine being installed in the premises concerned, becomes completely defeated. Consequently, both the accused did provenly commit the offence(s) for which they became concurrently convicted, and, sentenced by both the learned courts below. 11. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that both the learned Courts below have appraised the entire evidence, on record, in a wholesome and harmonious manner, apart therefrom, the analysis of the material, on record, by both the learned Courts below, hence, also does not suffer from any gross perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation, and, non appreciation of germane thereto evidence, on record. 12. Consequently, there is no merit in the extant criminal revision petitions, and, both are dismissed accordingly. The judgment impugned before this Court is affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.