JUDGMENT : Heard the parties through video conferencing. 2. The appellant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 19.10.2004, passed by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi in Special Case No. 50/89, 51/89 and 52/89 arising out of R.C. 2(A)/89 (Pat.) whereby and where under the learned court below has held the appellant-convict guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 420/468/477A & 468 read with Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 5(1) (d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 corresponding to Section 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years in each count and also directed to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for each of the said offences. It was also ordered that the sentences shall run concurrently and in default of payment of fine, the appellant-convict shall undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two months for each of the fine awarded. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the appellant-convict while posted as Special Assistant in the Bank of India, Khunti Branch, Ranchi during the period November, 1986 to February, 1988 entered into criminal conspiracy with Ismile Soy and Palush Topno and others and abusing his official position, the appellant-convict falsified the bank records and misappropriated a sum of Rs.89,870.50/-. Upon enquiry made by the Central Bureau of Investigation as it was found that forgery has been committed in the documents besides cheating, hence F.I.R. of the case was registered and after due investigation, Central Bureau of Investigation submitted three charge sheets for different offences committed by the appellant-convict during the years 1986 to 1988 and accordingly, cognizance for the offences was taken and separate charge sheets for the offences punishable under Sections 420/468/477A & 468 read with Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 5(1) (d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 were separately framed in the said three separate Special Cases being Special Case No. 50/89, 51/89 & 52/89. 4. The appellant-convict pleaded not guilty to charges, hence three trials proceeded separately and witnesses were examined separately in three cases. 4. The appellant-convict pleaded not guilty to charges, hence three trials proceeded separately and witnesses were examined separately in three cases. During the course of trial, a prayer was made by the Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the Central Bureau of Investigation to amalgamate all the three cases and the trial court allowed the prayer for amalgamating the said three petitions vide order dated 18.12.2003 as all the three cases were similar in nature, committed within same span of time and were to be decided by the same evidence, hence the trial proceeded together. It is pertinent to mention here that by the time the three cases were amalgamated by the said judicial order, several common witnesses were examined separately in this three cases. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution altogether examined ten witnesses besides proving the documents but no witness was examined on behalf of the appellant-convict. 6. Out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W.6- Paritosh Kumar is the main witness examined on behalf of the prosecution. He was posted in Khunti Branch of Bank of India from 15th March, 1984 to 1992 as Clerk-cum- Cashier. P.W.6 deposed that the appellant-convict was working as a Special Assistant along with him in the said Branch of Bank of India. P.W.6 identified page no. 173 of the register containing the entries relating to 08.01.1987 out of which serial no.33 was in the writing of the appellant-convict – Budu Munda which was marked Ext.-4. He also proved page no.193 of the said register containing serial no. 34 dated 09.10.1987 which was marked Ext.-4/1. P.W.6 also proved the Cash Payment Book which was marked Ext.-3/1. The entry dated 17.11.1986 made by the appellant convict was regarding the appellant-convict withdrawing Rs.20,000/- from the Current Account No. 125 of the said bank and on the same day, before the said withdrawal, Rs.37,090/- was also withdrawn. 34 dated 09.10.1987 which was marked Ext.-4/1. P.W.6 also proved the Cash Payment Book which was marked Ext.-3/1. The entry dated 17.11.1986 made by the appellant convict was regarding the appellant-convict withdrawing Rs.20,000/- from the Current Account No. 125 of the said bank and on the same day, before the said withdrawal, Rs.37,090/- was also withdrawn. The Cheque for Rs.20,000/- of Ranchi Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Jaltanda Branch was presented in the Bank of India, Khunti Branch for payment but the appellant-convict did not pay any cash and issued a cheque though Rs.91,820.06/- was in the balance of Ranchi Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Jaltanda Branch and later on Shri A. Pahan withdrew the amount in cash and the appellant-convict debited the account of Ranchi Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Jaltanda Branch for the same but instead of crediting the same to the account of Bank of India, he credited the said amount in the S.B. account of Shri Kailash Turi Munda of which account the petitioner was a joint account holder. The pay-in slip by which the appellant-convict credited the said account was marked Ext.-8 and this was the money of the Bank of India which the appellant-convict dishonestly credited in his bank account and cheated the bank. P.W.6 further deposed that the appellant-convict falsified the bank records and prepared forged documents in this regard. P.W.6 further proved the Daily Cash Balance Book in which the Cashier makes the entries regarding the daily receipt and payment of money which was being carry forwarded from the preceding date and which was maintained in the official course of business which was marked Ext.-3/3. Page no.186 contained Ext.-3/3 which is the entry dated 15.11.1986 on which date, Rs.91,820.06/- was in balance, on which there was signature of the appellant-convict and the Branch Manager -Tara Mani Sahu. The entries made in that page were in the writing of the appellant-convict which was marked Ext.-4/4. P.W.6 further deposed that on 17.11.1986, the balance amount lying in the account of the appellant-convict was Rs.91,820.06/-. P.W.6 also proved the Account Opening-cum-Specimen Signature Card of Saving Account No. 6306 which stood in the name of Ismile Soy which was also in the handwriting of the appellant-convict and the appellant-convict was the introducer of the customer- Ismile Soy. Another Account Opening-cum-Specimen Signature Card Account No. 6369 of Mr. P.W.6 also proved the Account Opening-cum-Specimen Signature Card of Saving Account No. 6306 which stood in the name of Ismile Soy which was also in the handwriting of the appellant-convict and the appellant-convict was the introducer of the customer- Ismile Soy. Another Account Opening-cum-Specimen Signature Card Account No. 6369 of Mr. Palush Topno was also in the handwriting of the appellant-convict and he has signed the same as an introducer. P.W.6 also proved cheque no. 483630 dated 01.02.1988 written by the appellant convict and signed by Ismile Soy. The four withdrawal slips were marked Ext.-7 to 7/3 and 8. Pay in Slips were marked Ext.-8 to 8/7 and the Debit Vouchers were marked Ext.-9 to 9/8. P.W.6 also proved 13 Credit Vouchers which were in the handwriting of the appellant-convict which were marked Ext.- 10 to 10/12. He also proved the Special Collection Schedule of the appellant-convict prepared in the Bank of India, Khunti Branch in official course of business which was marked Ext.-11. P.W.6 proved the Debit Voucher filed by the appellant-convict –Budu Munda which was marked Ext.-9/9 and the Debit Notes are marked Ext.-12 to 12/2. The two Cash Withdrawal Slips of Ismile Soy were marked Ext.-7/4 to 7/5. Though the P.W.6 was cross-examined at length, yet nothing substantial could be elicited in his cross-examination to discredit his testimony. The defence did not put any question to him in respect of any of the documents which has been proved by him and were marked exhibits. So the testimony of the PW 6 as far as the same relates to the documents proved by him has remained unchallenged hence such portion of his testimony so far as the same relates to proving the documents as well as the contents of the documents proved by him are to be treated as true. 7. P.W.7- Mohan Lal was working as the officer in the Bank of India, Khunti Branch from 15.10.1986 to 11.06.1988. He proved the Debit Voucher for Rs.8,175/- which was marked Ext.-9/1 relating to C.D. Miscellaneous Head and the credit amount was deposited in the account but it was by interpolation made as Rs.18,175/- thus, the appellant-convict enhanced the amount by Rs.10,000/-. P.W.7- Mohan Lal was working as the officer in the Bank of India, Khunti Branch from 15.10.1986 to 11.06.1988. He proved the Debit Voucher for Rs.8,175/- which was marked Ext.-9/1 relating to C.D. Miscellaneous Head and the credit amount was deposited in the account but it was by interpolation made as Rs.18,175/- thus, the appellant-convict enhanced the amount by Rs.10,000/-. P.W.7 further stated that the appellant-convict opened a fake account in which he transferred Rs.10,000/- and then he withdrew Rs.10,000/- by issuing a cheque in fake name but in the evening, while the checking was made in the books of account, then this matter came to light. The P.W.7 intimated the matter to the Branch Manager and an enquiry was conducted and it was found that the appellant-convict has committed the interpolation of adding the figure ‘1’ before the figure ‘8’. P.W.7 also stated about Ext.-8/5 being issued by the appellant-convict as debit voucher of Rs.10,000/- and deposited in Saving Account No. 6306 and he also confirmed that Ext.-6 is the cheque by which the appellant-convict withdrew Rs.10,000/-. P.W.7 also corroborated the testimonies of other witnesses of the prosecution. Though, call was made by the court for the accused person of the case that is the appellant-convict here in for cross-examination of the P.W.7 repeatedly but no one turned up for cross-examination of P.W.7 on behalf of the appellant-convict. Hence, the P.W.7 was discharged. Later on also no effort was made by the defence for cross-examination of the P.W.7 by way of recalling him for his cross-examination. Thus in the absence of any cross-examination, the testimony of P.W.7 has remained unchallenged and uncontroverted. 8. P.W.8- Korandpani Rajendram was posted in the office of Bank of India, Khunti Branch from August, 1988 to July, 1991 and he deposed about the procedure of the bank for drawing money from the bank by cheque. 9. P.W.9- Ismile Soy is a co-villager and distantly related to the appellant-convict and as one of the person whose account has been used by the appellant-convict for cheating and defrauding the bank. He deposed that at the request of the appellant-convict, the P.W.9 opened an account with the said bank and signed various papers. 10. 9. P.W.9- Ismile Soy is a co-villager and distantly related to the appellant-convict and as one of the person whose account has been used by the appellant-convict for cheating and defrauding the bank. He deposed that at the request of the appellant-convict, the P.W.9 opened an account with the said bank and signed various papers. 10. P.W.5- Sarvanarayan Jha did not turn up for his cross-examination in one of the three special cases but he has been examined and cross-examined and discharged after cross examination as P.W.3 in Special Case No. 50/89. The said Sarvanarayan Jha deposed that he was posted as Manager in Bank of India, Khunti Branch from May, 1987 to July, 1988. He has deposed that the duty of the appellant-convict was to pass the cheque and supervise the work. The appellant-convict has confessed his guilt by giving his confession in writing. On being proved by him, the Debit Voucher dated 16.09.1987 was marked Ext.-1 which was passed by the appellant-convict. He also proved the Debit Voucher dated 09.01.1987 which was marked as Ext.-2 and also proved the Credit Voucher dated 08.01.1987, prepared by the appellant-convict which was marked Ext.-2/A. Nothing to demolish or discredit the testimony of Sarvanarayan Jha could be elicited in his crossexamination nor any question was put by the defence to him regarding the confession made by the appellant-convict of his committing the offences, for which he has been held guilty in this case. 11. P.W.2- Shiv Kumar Dutta was a businessman dealing with cement. He identified the appellant-convict in court and submitted that the appellant-convict purchased 10 bags of cement for a consideration amount of Rs.640/- but the appellant-convict did not pay the price of the cement and assured the P.W.2 that he would deposit the money in the bank account of the P.W.2. The P.W.2 proved the entry serial no.740 of his register of daily transactions. 12. P.W.1- Debashish Mishra was the officer of the Bank of India, Regional Office, Ranchi from March, 1988 to 12 October, 1988. P.W.1 made an enquiry about the fraud committed in the Khunti Branch of Bank of India. P.W.1 went through the record and examined the appellant-convict who confessed his guilt before the P.W.1 and thereafter deposited Rs.89,815/-. P.W.1 further stated that there had been Departmental Proceeding against the appellant-convict and he was dismissed from service. P.W.1 made an enquiry about the fraud committed in the Khunti Branch of Bank of India. P.W.1 went through the record and examined the appellant-convict who confessed his guilt before the P.W.1 and thereafter deposited Rs.89,815/-. P.W.1 further stated that there had been Departmental Proceeding against the appellant-convict and he was dismissed from service. P.W.1 recorded the statement of the appellant-convict –Budu Munda and submitted the report to the Joint Manager of Bank of India. In his cross-examination, P.W.1 has stated that at the time of occurrence, the appellant-convict was posted as an officer with the Bank. There is absolutely no cross-examination of the P.W.1 about the material part of his deposition regarding the confession of his guilt by the appellant-convict and deposit of the cheated amount by the appellant-convict. Thus this part of the testimony of the P.W.1 has remained unchallenged. 13. P.W.10- Manjeet Singh is the I.O. of the case. He has stated about the investigation done by him in this case. P.W.10 proved the seizure list which was marked Ext.-14 and other seizure lists which were marked Ext. 14/1 to 14/2. 14. P.W.4- Phulmani Bhengra has stated that the appellant-convict opening an account of P.W.4 in the said branch of Bank of India. P.W.4 gave Rs.1,200/- to deposit the same in his account but the appellant-convict withdrew Rs.400/- from the account of the P.W.4. 15. P.W.3- Paulush Topno is the other person whose account was used by the appellant-convict for cheating the bank. He has stated that the appellant-convict has obtained his signature on different papers for opening an account in the bank but he never deposited or withdrawn any money in the said account and he never deposited Rs.2,640/- in the said account. His testimony has also remained unchallenged in his cross examination. 16. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the appellant-convict was recorded wherein he admitted that he was functioning as a Special Assistant in Bank of India, Khunti Branch during the period 1986 to 1988 but he denied cheating the Bank of India to the tune of Rs.5051.52/- by preparing fake advice in favour of S.B. Account in the name of Palush Topno and similarly denied all other materials appearing in the evidence against him and pleaded innocence. 17. 17. Learned court below after taking into consideration the evidence in the record observed that the documents in record establishes that the appellant-convict has committed forgery and cheating regarding the money of Bank of India and further went on to observe that the allegation regarding misappropriation of Rs.20,000/-, Rs.14,119.25/- and Rs.20,340/- are proved by Ext.-8 (pay in slip dated 17.01.1986), Ext.-10/11 which is Credit Voucher dated 09.01.1987, Ext.-8/6 which is the Pay in Slip dated 15.09.1987, Ext.-9/8 which is the Debit Voucher dated 28.09.1987 and Ext.-10/12 which is the Debit Voucher dated 28.09.1987 respectively. It was further observed by the learned trial court that the charges relating to Special Case No. 51/89 framed under Sections 420/468 and under Section 468 read with Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(1) (d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 have been proved by the oral evidence as well as documents marked as Ext.-9/3 which is the Debit Voucher dated 18.11.1987, Ext.-10/7 which is the Credit Voucher dated 09.10.1987, Ext.-9/5 which is the Debit Voucher dated 26.11.1987, Ext.-10/9 which is the Credit Voucher dated 01.02.1988, Ext.-9/4 which is the Debit Voucher dated 18.11.1987 and Ext.10/8 which is the Credit Voucher dated 18.11.1987 respectively regarding the amount of Rs.750/-, Rs.1,200 & Rs.8,750/- respectively of the bank. It was further observed by the learned court below that the prosecution proved the charge framed against the appellant-convict under Sections 420/468/477A & 468 read with Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5 (1) (d) read with 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 by means of oral evidence as well as documentary evidence i.e. Ext.-8/2 which is the pay in slip dated 15.12.1987. Ext.-9/6 & 9/7 which are the Debit Vouchers dated 06.01.1988 and Ext.7/4 which is the withdrawal slip dated 28.09.1987 regarding Rs.5,051.52 and Rs.10,000/- respectively and held the appellant-convict guilty and convicted and sentenced him as already indicated above. 18. Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the appellant-convict submits that the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence is perverse and based upon hypothesis and conjectures. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant-convict that the learned court below erred by not holding that the prosecution has failed to prove any of the charges for which the appellant-convict was facing the trial. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant-convict that the learned court below erred by not holding that the prosecution has failed to prove any of the charges for which the appellant-convict was facing the trial. It is then submitted that since the appellant-convict has already deposited the cheated amount and he has been dismissed from service so, he ought not to have been convicted for the charges for commission of the same acts, by the learned trial court. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant-convict that P.W.5- Sarvanarayan Jha having not turned up for cross-examination, his testimony ought not have been considered by the learned court below and as the seizure lists of seizure of records of the bank by the investigating agency, have not been signed by any witness apart from the person from whom the documents were seized and the person by whom the documents were seized, the same ought not to have been relied upon by the learned trial court as the same does not inspire confidence. Though it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant-convict that the cheque being Ext.6 does not bear the signature on the back side but this submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-convict is a fallacious one; because perusal of Ext.6 reveals that the signature is appearing on the front of the cheque and the back side of the cheque as well. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant-convict that the appellant-convict is an old person of about 69 years. Hence, the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of Sentence be set aside and the appellant-convict be acquitted by at least giving him the benefit of doubt. 19. Mrs. Nitu Sinha, the learned counsel for the C.B.I. on the other hand defended the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submitted that Ext.-14 is of 07.04.1989 and Ext.-14/1 is dated 08.04.1989 and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 received the assent of the President of India on 09.09.1988 and published in the Gazette dated 12.09.1988 hence, on the date of seizure, Section 18 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which reads as under :- 18. Power to inspect bankers’ books.-If from information received or otherwise, a police officer has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered to investigate under section 17 and considers that for the purpose of investigation or inquiry into such offence, it is necessary to inspect any bankers’ books, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, he may inspect any bankers’ books in so far as they relate to the accounts of the persons suspected to have committed that offence or of any other person suspected to be holding money on behalf of such person, and take or cause to be taken certified copies of the relevant entries therefrom, and the bank concerned shall be bound to assist the police officer in the exercise of his powers under this section: Provided that no power under this section in relation to the accounts of any person shall be exercised by a police officer below the rank of a Superintendent of Police, unless he is specially authorised in this behalf by a police officer of or above the rank of a Superintendent of Police. Explanation.-In this section, the expressions “bank” and “bankers’ books” shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891 (18 of 1891). was in force so in the absence of any witness appending his signature to a seizure list in respect of seizure of documents of the bank by the investigating officer will not cause any prejudice to the defence. It is further submitted by Mrs. was in force so in the absence of any witness appending his signature to a seizure list in respect of seizure of documents of the bank by the investigating officer will not cause any prejudice to the defence. It is further submitted by Mrs. Nitu Sinha, learned counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation that otherwise also, the witnesses examined by the prosecution have proved all the documents seized by the Central Bureau of Investigation one by one and as nothing has been asked in their respective cross-examination to them to challenge their testimonies regarding the documents proved by them to the effect that the evidence put forth by them to be untrue or false or for that matter to question the genuineness of seizure of the documents which ultimately proved by the witnesses so, in the absence of any cross-examination of any of the prosecution witnesses who have proved the documents i.e. the credit vouchers, debit vouchers, cheques and withdrawal slips, the same remains unchallenged and uncontroverted hence, the same is to be accepted as truth and thus witness is not appending that the signature to such seizure lists is of no consequence and certainly cannot be treated as a ground adverse to the prosecution, in the facts of this case. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation that none of the witnesses of the prosecution has been cross-examined in any manner on any material part of their testimonies and thus, the same has also remained unchallenged. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation that since the prosecution has proved its case basing upon documents which has remained unchallenged and uncontroverted, hence the learned court below has rightly convicted the appellant-convict for each of the offences of which he has been convicted and for which charges have been framed in the three separate proceedings which were ultimately amalgamated. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation that keeping in view huge amount of defalcation made by the appellant-convict being the officer of nationalized bank, the sentence is also proper. It is lastly submitted that the learned court below having rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant-convict, this appeal being without any merit be dismissed. 20. It is lastly submitted that the learned court below having rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant-convict, this appeal being without any merit be dismissed. 20. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that if a party wishes to raise any doubt as regards the correctness of the statement of a witness, the said witness must be given an opportunity to explain his statement by drawing his attention to that part of it, which has been objected to by the other party, as being untrue and without this, it is not possible to impeach his credibility. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Laxmibai (Dead) Thr. Lrs. & Anr. v. Bhagwantbuva (Dead) Thr. Lrs. & Ors. reported in AIR 2013 SC 1204 , paragraph no. 31 of which reads as under:- 31. Furthermore, there cannot be any dispute with respect to the settled legal proposition, that if a party wishes to raise any doubt as regards the correctness of the statement of a witness, the said witness must be given an opportunity to explain his statement by drawing his attention to that part of it, which has been objected to by the other party, as being untrue. Without this, it is not possible to impeach his credibility. Such a law has been advanced in view of the statutory provisions enshrined in Section 138 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which enable the opposite party to cross-examine a witness as regards information tendered in evidence by him during his initial examination-in-chief, and the scope of this provision stands enlarged by Section 146 of the Evidence Act, which permits a witness to be questioned, inter alia, in order to test his veracity. Thereafter, the unchallenged part of his evidence is to be relied upon, for the reason that it is impossible for the witness to explain or elaborate upon any doubts as regards the same, in the absence of questions put to him with respect to the circumstances which indicate that the version of events provided by him is not fit to be believed, and the witness himself, is unworthy of credit. Thus, if a party intends to impeach a witness, he must provide adequate opportunity to the witness in the witness box, to give a full and proper explanation. The same is essential to ensure fair play and fairness in dealing with witnesses. (See Khem Chand v. State of H.P. [1994 Supp (1) SCC 7 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 212 : AIR 1994 SC 226 ], State of U.P. v. Nahar Singh [ (1998) 3 SCC 561 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 850 : AIR 1998 SC 1328 ] , Rajinder Pershad v. Darshana Devi [ (2001) 7 SCC 69 : AIR 2001 SC 3207 ] and Sunil Kumar v. State of Rajasthan [ (2005) 9 SCC 283 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1230 : AIR 2005 SC 1096 ].) (Emphasis supplied) It is pertinent to mention here that there are instances galore when the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that in the absence of cross-examination of a witness, the evidence of such witness has remained unchallenged and are to be believed as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of U.P. v. Nahar Singh (Dead) & Ors., reported in AIR 1998 SC 1328 , paragraph nos. 13 & 14 of which reads as under:- 13. It may be noted here that that part of the statement of PW 1 was not cross-examined by the accused. In the absence of cross-examination on the explanation of delay, the evidence of PW 1 remained unchallenged and ought to have been believed by the High Court. Section 138 of the Evidence Act confers a valuable right of cross-examining the witness tendered in evidence by the opposite party. The scope of that provision is enlarged by Section 146 of the Evidence Act by allowing a witness to be questioned: (1) to test his veracity, (2) to discover who he is and what is his position in life, or (3) to shake his credit by injuring his character, although the answer to such questions might tend directly or indirectly to incriminate him or might expose or tend directly or indirectly to expose him to a penalty or forfeiture. 14. The oft-quoted observation of Lord Herschell, L.C. in Browne v. Dunn [(1893) 6 R 67] clearly elucidates the principle underlying those provisions. 14. The oft-quoted observation of Lord Herschell, L.C. in Browne v. Dunn [(1893) 6 R 67] clearly elucidates the principle underlying those provisions. It reads thus: “I cannot help saying, that it seems to me to be absolutely essential to the proper conduct of a cause, where it is intended to suggest that a witness is not speaking the truth on a particular point, to direct his attention to the fact by some questions put in cross-examination showing that that imputation is intended to be made, and not to take his evidence and pass it by as a matter altogether unchallenged, and then, when it is impossible for him to explain, as perhaps he might have been able to do if such questions had been put to him, the circumstances which, it is suggested, indicate that the story he tells ought not to be believed, to argue that he is a witness unworthy of credit. My Lords, I have always understood that if you intend to impeach a witness, you are bound, whilst he is in the box, to give an opportunity of making any explanation which is open to him; and, as it seems to me, that is not only a rule of professional practice in the conduct of a case, but it is essential to fair play and fair dealing with witnesses.” This aspect was unfortunately missed by the High Court when it came to the conclusion that explanation for the delay is not at all convincing. This reason is, therefore, far from convincing. (Emphasis supplied) As already indicated above, there is absolutely no cross-examination of any of the material witnesses examined by the prosecution in this case in respect of the material parts of their deposition particularly regarding the contents of each of the documents proved by the respective witnesses of the prosecution consequent upon which the said documents have been marked as exhibits and nothing has been elicited in any of the cross-examination of the witnesses to impeach their credibility. The P.W.7 has not been cross-examined at all. The prosecution has established the ingredients of the offences for which three separate charges were initially framed in three separate cases but later on the three cases have been amalgamated by the judicial order passed by the learned court below. The P.W.7 has not been cross-examined at all. The prosecution has established the ingredients of the offences for which three separate charges were initially framed in three separate cases but later on the three cases have been amalgamated by the judicial order passed by the learned court below. The evidences as already indicated above mainly through documentary evidence as referred to in the judgment in detail by the learned trial court and as quoted in this judgment also goes to show that the appellant-convict has cheated Bank of India, a nationalized bank of Rs.5051.52 by preparing a fake advice in the name of Palush Topno and Palush Topno who has been examined as P.W.3 has categorically stated that he has not done the said transactions in his alleged account. Further the appellant-convict cheated the said bank of Rs.10,000/- by crediting the said amount in account no.6306 by withdrawing the said amount from the Sundry Account and also cheated another sum of Rs.10,000/- by interpolating the advice by putting the figure ‘1’ before the amount Rs.8,175/- to make to Rs.18,175/- and P.W.7 who has been examined in this respect has not cross-examined at all by the appellant-prosecution and his testimony in this respect has remained unchallenged and uncontroverted hence the same is to be accepted as the truth. Moreover the appellant-convict has also cheated Bank of India to the tune of Rs.750/- by preparing a fictitious voucher and Rs.1,200/- by debiting the Sundry Deposit. It also established that the appellant-convict cheated Bank of India, Khunti Branch to the tune of Rs.8,750/- by debiting a Sundry Deposit. The witnesses as already indicated above have already stated about the confession of guilt by the appellant-convict and depositing of the said cheated amount of Rs.89,815/-by the appellant-convict with the bank. It also established that the appellant-convict cheated Bank of India, Khunti Branch to the tune of Rs.8,750/- by debiting a Sundry Deposit. The witnesses as already indicated above have already stated about the confession of guilt by the appellant-convict and depositing of the said cheated amount of Rs.89,815/-by the appellant-convict with the bank. The said fact is also admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant-convict in this appeal but his plea is that in view of the said deposit of the cheated amount by the appellant-convict and as the Departmental Proceeding resulted in dismissal of the appellant-convict from his service, the appellant-convict ought not have been convicted by the learned court below has no legs to stand as the offences punishable under the penal provision of the Indian Penal Code as well as Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 in respect of which charges have been framed in this case; were committed, the moment the appellant-convict cheated the bank of the said amount after committing forgery, falsifying accounts of the bank and using forged documents as genuine in capacity of a public servant being an officer of a public sector bank having committed misconduct. The Departmental Proceeding is a separate and independent proceeding in the administrative side of the bank relating to service of the appellant-convict with bank and the offences committed which is punishable under a penal provision of law is entirely a different proceeding and hence, the appellant-convict having been held guilty in Departmental Proceeding leading to his dismissal from service or for that matter the defaulted amount having been deposited by the appellant-convict with the bank subsequent to the commission of the offence being detected by the officers of the bank, cannot be a ground for not proceeding against him for having committed the offences punishable under the penal provisions of law or his conviction upon evidence being brought on record in respect of the charges which he faced in the trial. The deposit of the cheated amount by the appellant-convict has only absolved him of his civil liabilities to the bank and not the criminal liability. 21. So far as the contention of the appellant-convict regarding Ext.-14 and 14/1 being not signed by any independent witnesses is concerned, it is certainly not a ground to discard the said two exhibits entirely. The deposit of the cheated amount by the appellant-convict has only absolved him of his civil liabilities to the bank and not the criminal liability. 21. So far as the contention of the appellant-convict regarding Ext.-14 and 14/1 being not signed by any independent witnesses is concerned, it is certainly not a ground to discard the said two exhibits entirely. The omission of getting the seizure list signed by the independent witnesses though undisputedly, the same has been signed by the person who is a public servant and who is not involved in any offence handed over the document voluntarily to another public servant officer of Central Bureau of Investigation certainly cannot cause any prejudice to the defence more so, when the seizure of the said document itself has not been challenged by the defence in the cross-examination of the relevant witnesses of the prosecution, who have proved the said seizure lists which have been marked Ext.-14 & 14/1 and also the contents of each of the documents which have been seized by the central bureau of investigation as mentioned in the said two exhibits. So far as the contention of the appellant regarding non-examination of P.W.5- Sarvanarayan Jha is concerned, undisputedly the said P.W.5- Sarvanarayan Jha has been examined, cross-examined and discharged as P.W.3 in special case number of 50/89 hence in view of the amalgamation of the three cases the substantive evidence put forth by the P.W.5- Sarvanarayan Jha in one of the cases as P.W.3 in another case cannot be said to have caused any prejudice to the appellant-convict either. So this contention of the appellant-convict is not sustainable in law. 22. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the evidence in the record is sufficient to establish each of the charges against the appellant-convict beyond reasonable doubt and keeping in view the series of cheatings leading to institution of three separate cases, of course, later on being amalgamated to one case, the sentence of two years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/- with the default clause for undergoing sentence of two months in case of default for each of the offences is proper. Accordingly, this appeal being without any merit is dismissed and the conviction as well as sentence of the appellant-convict as has been made by the learned trial court is upheld. 23. Accordingly, this appeal being without any merit is dismissed and the conviction as well as sentence of the appellant-convict as has been made by the learned trial court is upheld. 23. Perusal of the record reveals that the appellant-convict –Budu Munda is in custody. 24. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the learned court below along with a copy of this Judgment forthwith. 25. In view of the dismissal of this appeal, the interlocutory application no. 102 of 2021 is dismissed being infructuous.