Common Judgment:

1. These criminal appeals have been filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the sole accused in C.C. Nos.1/2000, 8/2003 and 9/2003 on the files of the Court of the Special Judge (SPE/CBI)-II, Ernakulam, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Judge against him as per the common judgment dated 18.12.2009. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) represented by the Special Public Prosecutor is arrayed as the sole respondent herein.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Perused the common verdict under challenge and the records of the Special Court.

3. Parties in these appeals shall be referred as ‘accused’ and ‘prosecution’, hereafter.

4. The prosecution case in C.C. No.1 of 2000 is that, the accused who worked as Officer at the Union Bank of India, Alappuzha branch during the year 1995, while functioning as public servant in the capacity as Officer of the said bank, on 1.2.1995 by corrupt or illegal means and by abusing his official position as such public servant obtained for Sri. D. Joy, resident of Anil Bhavan, Araissery Valappu, Kommadi, Ward-2, Thumboli P.O., Alappuzha, pecuniary advantage to the tune of Rs.500/- by dishonestly making a false credit entry for Rs.500/- in his loan ledger folio No.52, after showing a corresponding false debit entry of Rs.500/- in the loan ledger folio 108/IX of M. Usmankutty, resident of Al- Amin, Civil Station Ward, Alappuzha wherein there was a genuine credit entry of Rs.500/- on 1.2.1995. Again on 29.5.1995 by corrupt or illegal means and by abusing his official position as a public servant, the accused obtained for the said D. Joy, pecuniary advantage to the tune of Rs.500/- by dishonestly making a false credit entry for Rs.500/- in his loan ledger folio No.52 after showing a false debit entry of Rs.500/- in the said loan ledger folio No.108/IX of the said Sri. Usmankutty, wherein there was a genuine credit entry of Rs.500/- on 29.5.1995. Again on 10.11.1995 by corrupt or illegal means and by abusing his official position as a public servant, the accused obtained for Sri A.Joseph, resident of Latheenpalliparambu, Vazhicherry Ward, Alappuzha, pecuniary advantage to the tune of Rs.500/- by dishonestly making a false credit entry for Rs.500/- in his loan ledger folio No.44/XVIII after showing a false debit entry of Rs.500/- in the loan ledger folio No. 108/IX of the said Sri. Usmankutty, wherein there was a genuine credit entry of Rs. 500/- on 10.11.1995.

5. Secondly, the accused while functioning as stated above, on 1.2.1995, 29.5.1995 and 10.11.1995 cheated the said M. Usmankutty by dishonestly debiting an amount of Rs.500/- from his loan ledger folio No.108/IX for the purpose of transferring the same to the credit of the said Sri. D. Joy and the said Sri. A. Joseph after falsely representing to the said Sri Usmankutty that the amount of Rs.500/- deposited by him on 1.2.1995 and 29.5.1995 were credited to his loan account and that his liability under the loan was reduced to that extent and after falsely representing to the said Sri. Usmankutty that the amount of Rs.500/- deposited by him on 10.11.1995 was credited to his loan account and that his liability under the loan was reduced to that extent.

6. Thirdly, the accused while functioning as such on 1.2.1995, 29.5.1995 and 10.11.1995 willfully and with intent to defraud falsified the books of account of the bank by respectively making aforesaid false credit entries in the loan ledger folio of the said Sri. D. Joy and Sri A. Joseph. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred as ‘P.C. Act’ for short] as well as under Section 420 and 477(A) of the Indian Penal Code [hereinafter referred as ‘IPC’ for short].

7. The prosecution case in C.C. No.8 of 2003 is that, the accused while functioning as public servant in the capacity as Officer at the Union Bank of India, Alappuzha branch during March, 1995, by corrupt or illegal means and by abusing his official position as such public servant obtained for Smt.Elcy Michael, wife of Sri. G. Michael, Velankanni House, Araissery Valappu, Thumboly, Alappuzha, undue pecuniary advantage to the tune of Rs.2,200/- by dishonestly making a false credit entry for that amount in her loan ledger folio No. 197 by falsifying the accounts of the bank. By preparing on 8.3.1995 a credit voucher for Rs.42,002.45 for remitting various amounts into various loan accounts under DICGC scheme by which an amount of Rs.2,781/- and Rs.1,854.20 had to be credited to the loan account of Sri A.H. Raja, Thaiparambil House, Market Ward, Alappuzha and instead of crediting the said sum of Rs.2,781/- into the account of the said Sri A.H. Raja credited only Rs.1,781/- and instead of crediting Rs.1,854.20 into the said account, the accused credited only Rs.854.20 and again when under the entries of the said voucher an amount of Rs.1,899/- and Rs.1,266/- had to be credited to the loan account of A.K. Chellappan, Alumparambil House, Punnappra P.O., Alappuzha, on the credit of which the credit balance in the account should have been Rs.200/-, the accused dishonestly showed the balance in his account as 'nil' and thereby dishonestly generated an amount of Rs.2,200/- and this amount was falsely credited by accused into the account of said Smt. Elcy Micheal on 2.3.1995.

8. The accused while functioning as stated above during May/June, 1995 by corrupt or illegal means and by abusing his official position as public servant obtained for Sri. M.D. Santhakumar, resident of Sankaramangalam, Pazhaveedu P.O., Alappuzha undue pecuniary advantage to the tune of Rs.3,000/- by dishonestly making a false credit entry to that extent in his ledger by falsifying accounts of the bank on 3.6.1995 after preparing a debit voucher of Rs.613/- to the loan account of Sri K. Sathyapalan, resident of Prathibha, Thirumpadi, Alappuzha dishonestly made a false debit of Rs.3,613/- in the ledger of the said Sri. Sathyapalan on 3.6.1995 and the accused did not prepare any voucher for Rs.3,613/- for the said entry and on 7.5.1995 he made false credit entry for Rs.3,000/- in the loan ledger of M.D. Santhakumar and with the fraudulent intention he did not prepare any voucher for the said entry passed by him and gave false credit of Rs.3,000/- to Sri Santhakumar.

9. The accused on 7.12.1995 made false credit entry of Rs.5,000/- in the ledger of SB Account No.9648 of Smt. B. Komalam and dishonestly prepared vouchers as if the amount was transferred to the SB account of Smt. Komalam from the demand loan account in the name of the said Komalam, but in fact there was no demand loan availed by Komalam from the bank and the said amount of Rs.5,000/- was credited by accused in the SB Account of Smt. Komalam by falsely preparing a debit voucher for Rs. 1,10,131/- as interest on loan accounts for the quarter of December, 1995 instead of the actual amount of Rs.1,15,131/- which amount should have gone to the income account of the bank. But the accused utilised this amount for giving false credit to the account of the said Smt. Komalam.

10. Secondly, the accused while functioning as stated above on 8.3.1995 cheated the bank by making a false credit to the tune of Rs.2,200/- in the loan account of Smt. Elcy Micheal and thereby dishonestly brought down her loan liability to that extent and caused corresponding wrongful loss to the bank and cheated the bank and the said Sri A.K. Chellappan and Sri A.H. Raja were dishonestly showing less credit into the account of the said Sri A.H. Raja and A.K. Chellappan after crediting the amount to the account of the said Smt. Elcy Micheal.

11. The accused on 3.6.1995 and 7.5.1995 cheated Union Bank of India by making false credit to the tune of Rs.3,000/- in the loan account of the said Sri. Santhakumar and thereby dishonestly brought down his loan liability to that extent and caused wrongful loss to that extent to the bank and corresponding wrongful gain to the said Sathyapalan.

12. The accused while functioning as stated above on 7.12.1995 cheated the bank by making false credit entries into the SB Account No.9648 of Smt. B. Komalam to the tune of Rs.5,000/- and thereby dishonestly brought down her loan liability to that extent and caused wrongful loss to that extent to the bank and also fraudulently prepared debit vouchers for Rs.1,10,131/- instead of actual amount of Rs.1,15,131/- to cheat the bank.

13. Thirdly, the accused while functioning as stated above during March, 1995 willfully and with intent to defraud the bank falsified the vouchers and ledgers of the bank as stated above in the accounts of the said Smt. Elcy Michael, Sri A.H. Raja and Sri A.K. Chellappan, which belonged to the bank. The accused while so functioning during May/June, 1995 willfully and with intent to defraud the bank falsified the books of accounts of the bank, ledgers and vouchers in the accounts of Sri Sathyapalan and Sri.Santhakumar, which belong to the bank. On this premise, the prosecution alleges offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act as well as under Sections 420 and 477(A) of IPC.

14. The prosecution case in C.C. No.9 of 2003 is that, the accused while functioning as public servant in the capacity as Officer, Union Bank of India, Alappuzha branch during January, 1996 to March, 1996 dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriated or otherwise converted to his own use Rs.2,000/- entrusted to him or under his control as Officer of the said bank that Sri. D. Joy, resident of St. Joseph Street, Vazhicheery Ward, Alappuzha (now residing at Anil Bhavan, Araissery Valappu, Kommadi, Ward-2, Thumboli P.O., Alappuzha) who availed a loan of Rs.7,499.90 from that bank on 13.5.1993 for doing cloth business and entrusted the installments of the loan to the accused as Officer in the loan section for crediting the same to his loan account, that the accused who collected amounts of Rs.900/- on 24.1.1996, Rs.400/- on 20.3.1996, Rs.300/- on 22.3.1996, Rs.300/- on 25.3.1996 and Rs.100/- on 28.3.1996 dishonestly and fraudulently issued receipts to the said D.Joy for the amounts entrusted as if the amounts were credited to his loan account, but receipts did not contain "cash received" seal of bank and accused did not remit the cash but dishonestly made false entries in the ledger account in the name of the said Joy without any support of any credit voucher.

15. The accused while functioning as stated above during January, 1996 to March, 1996 was entrusted by the said Sri.Joy with a sum of Rs.2,000/- as stated above and the accused as loan officer after issuing false receipts for the said amounts to Sri. D. Joy dishonestly misappropriated the amount without crediting it in the said loan account.

16. The accused while so functioning as stated above with intent to defraud, falsified books of accounts of the bank by making false entries in the loan ledger account of the said Sri D. Joy and without preparing vouchers and without remitting any of the said amounts. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act as well as under Sections 409 and 477 (A) of IPC.

17. The Special Court framed separate charges for the above said offences. Thereafter, the Special Court conducted joint trial of these cases, recorded evidence and tried the matter. During trial, PWs 1 to 19 were examined and Exts.P1 to 77 were marked on the side of the prosecution. Even though, the accused was given opportunity to adduce defence evidence after questioning him under Section 313(1) (b) of Cr.P.C, he did not opt to adduce any defence evidence.

18. On appreciation of evidence, the Special Court found that the accused was guilty for the offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act and under Sections 477(A) and 420 of the IPC in C.C. No.1 of 2000. Further, it was found by the learned Special Judge that the accused was guilty for the offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act and under Sections 420 and 477(A) of IPC in C.C. No.8 of 2003. It was also found by the Special Judge that the accused was guilty for the offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act and under Sections 409 and 477(A) of IPC in C.C. No.9 of 2003. Accordingly, he was convicted for the said offences and sentenced as under:

               C.C. No.1 of 2000:

               In the result, the accused accused who is is convicted of the offences under Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 477(A) and 420 IPC is hereby sentenced to undergo for the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, SI for three years and to pay fine of Rs.1 lakh (Rupees one lakh only) with default sentence of SI for one year; for the offence under Section 420 IPC, SI for three years and for the offence under Section 477(A) IPC, SI for three years. It shall be sufficient if all the substantive sentences of imprisonment run concurrently.

               CC 8/2003

               In the result, the accused who is convicted of the offences under Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 420 and 477(A) IPC is hereby sentenced to undergo for the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Sl for three years and to pay fine of Rs.1 lakh (Rupees one lakh only) with default sentence of SI for one year, for the offence under Section 420 IPC, SI for three years and for the offence under Section 477(A) IPC, SI for three years. It shall be sufficient if all the substantive sentences of imprisonment run concurrently. sentence in this case would take effect only after the sentence imposed in CC 1/2000 is fully undergone.

               CC 9/2003

               In the result, the accused who is convicted of the offences under Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 409 and 477(A) IPC is hereby sentenced to undergo for the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, SI for three years and to pay fine of Rs.1 lakh (Rupees one lakh only) with default sentence of SI for one year; for the offence under Section 409 IPC, SI for four years and to pay fine of Rs.1 lakh (Rupees one lakh only) with default sentence of SI for one year and for the offence under Section 477(A) IPC, SI for three years. It shall be sufficient if all the substantive sentences of imprisonment run concurrently. The sentence in this case would take effect only after the sentence imposed in C.C. 8/2003 is fully undergone.

19. While assailing the common verdict, the point argued by the learned counsel for the accused to unsustain the conviction and sentence imposed in C.C. No.9/2003 is that, in this case, the prosecution allegation is that the accused misappropriated Rs.2,000/- remitted by Sri.D. Joy, who was examined as PW11. According to the learned counsel for the accused, as per Ext.P8, the remittance made by Sri.D.Joy was rightly entered by the accused and as per the evidence of PW14 read with Ext.P30 the cash register, the remittance was rightly recorded by the accused. Though, it was not recorded in Ext.P57 supplementary register. Thus, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the accused is that in C.C. No.9/2003, the allegation of misappropriation raised against the accused stating that he had not remitted the amount deposited by PW11 to the bank is incorrect. Therefore, the entire finding of conviction and sentence of the Special Court in the said case are liable to be set aside.

20. In response to this contention, it is submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the CBI that, in C.C. No.9/2003, the allegation of the prosecution is that the remittance made by PW11 viz. Rs.900/- on 24.01.1996, Rs.400/- on 20.03.1996, Rs.300/- on 22.03.1996, Rs.300/- on 25.03.1996 and Rs.100/- on 28.03.1996 though shown in Ext.P8, the same was not remitted by the accused in Ext.P62 cash book (wrongly mentioned as Ext.P30 by the learned Special Judge). It is also pointed out that, on reading Ext.P62(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) the deposits made by PW11 on the above dates could not be found a place in Ext.P62. According to the learned Special Public Prosecutor, the prosecution case is specific on the point that the accused collected the said amounts from PW11 as deposed by him and shown the same in Ext.P8. But, instead showing the same in Ext.P62 by remitting the same in the account of the bank, he had misappropriated the same. It is also pointed out that, the prosecution has specific case that subsequently, he made entries in the other registers including Ext.P25 (A) regarding the remittance, though actually the bank did not receive the said amount. Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Special Judge do not require any interference.

21. In C.C. No.01/2003, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the accused that, Exts.P1, P3 and P4 are the vouchers whereby one Usmankutty remitted an amount of Rs.500/- to the bank and the same was shown in Ext.P2(a), (b) and (c) ledger thereof by the accused. According to the learned counsel for the accused, as per Exts.P5(a), P6(a) and P7(a), the accused though alleged to have prepared remittance receipts to the tune of Rs.1,000/- in the name of Sri.Joy, who was examined as PW11 and Rs.500/- in the name of one Joseph, the same by itself could not be held as one with dishonest intention and the same occurred as a mistake.

22. Repelling this contention, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, Exts.P2(a)(i), P2(b)(i) and P2(c)(i) along with the evidence of PW11 would show that the above amounts deposited by Usmankutty was diverted to the account of PW11, D.Joy (Rs.1,000/-) and A.Joseph (Rs.500/-), so as to make unlawful enrichment to D.Joy and A.Joseph and corresponding loss to the bank.

23. In C.C. No.08/2003, as per Exts.P10 and P10(a), remittance made by one Sri.A.H. Raja and one A.K.Chellappan to the tune of tune of Rs2,200/- was transferred in the name of one Elcy Micheal, who was examined as PW3 and the said remittance was alleged to be made by the accused. According to the learned counsel for the accused, this also happened as a mistake and therefore, the required elements to find dishonest intention to constitute offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the P.C. Act could not be found.

24. Countering this argument, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that, in C.C. No.8/2003, Exts.P25(A), 26(A), 27(A), 28(A) and 29(A) are the original receipts prepared by the accused, without the seal of the bank with endorsement “cash received”. According to the learned Special Public Prosecutor, the accused issued the above receipts to the remitter, without the seal “cash received”, with intention to misappropriate the same and accordingly he willfully did not show the said remittance in Ext.P62 cash scroll book. Therefore, the argument at the instance of the learned counsel for the accused contending otherwise would not succeed.

25. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that PW1, the Manager of Union Bank, Alappuzha Branch, during the relevant period given evidence supported by Exts.P2(a), (b) and (c) genuine credit entries to the amount made by the accused and corresponding false debit entries made by the accused, without the support of supporting vouchers in Ext.P2(a)(i), (b)(i) and (c)(i) along with false entries made in Exts.P8(a) and (b) to the account of PW11, without supporting entries (Rs.500/- each) and Ext.P9 false credit in the account of one Joseph (Rs.500/-), without supporting voucher indicate his involvement in this crime. It is also submitted that, in C.C. No.9/2003, Ext.P12 ledger folio in the name of A.H. Raja would show that Rs.2,781/- as the amount settled for DICGC and Rs.1854.20 was to be written off. As per Ext.P2(a), only Rs.1781/- instead of Rs.2781/- and only Rs.854.20 instead of Rs.1854.20 was credited (thus a total amount of Rs.2000/- was credited) in the account of the A.H. Raja. That apart, as per Ext.P13 ledger folio in the name of A.K. Chellappan and as per Ext.P13(a) the relevant page Rs.1899/- was the amount settled to DICGC and Rs.1266/- was to be written off, since the balance amount was 2965/-, there should have been an over credit of Rs.200/-. But, credit balance shown as nil. Thus, it is submitted by that the finding of the Special Court is only to be justified, since the prosecution case is proved beyond reasonable doubt.

26. In view of the rival submissions, the points arise for consideration are:

               1. Whether the Special Court is justified in finding that the accused/appellant committed the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988, in C.C. No.1 of 2000?

               2. Whether the Special Court is justified in finding that the accused/appellant committed the offence punishable under Section 477(A) of the IPC in C.C. No.1 of 2000?

               3. Whether the Special Court is justified in finding that the accused/appellant committed the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC in C.C. No.1 of 2000?

               4. Whether the Special Court is justified in finding that the accused/appellant committed the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988, in C.C. No.8 of 2003?

               5. Whether the Special Court is justified in finding that the accused/appellant committed the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC in C.C. No.8 of 2003?

               6. Whether the Special Court is justified in finding that the accused/appellant committed the offence punishable under Section 477(A) of the IPC in C.C. No.8 of 2003?

               7. Whether the Special Court is justified in finding that the accused/appellant committed the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988, in C.C. No.9 of 2003?

               8. Whether the Special Court is justified in finding that the accused/appellant committed the offence punishable under Section 409 of the IPC in C.C. No.9 of 2003?

               9. Whether the Special Court is justified in finding that the accused/appellant committed the offence punishable under Section 477(A) of the IPC in C.C. No.9 of 2003?

               10. Whether the verdict of the Special Court would require interference?

               11. Order to be passed?

27. Point Nos.1 to 9:- In order to address these questions, it is necessary to evaluate the evidence. PW1 is the main witness in this case. He had worked as Manager of Alappuzha branch from March, 1993 to May, 1997, during which period the accused was also working as Officer in that branch. Accused who was transferred from that branch in May, 1996 was till then worked in that branch in the Advance Section dealing with the work in providing bank loans to weaker sections of the society. The precise work of the accused in his capacity as Officer was receiving loan applications, conducting enquiries regarding the applicants, processing the applications, making recommendations for the grant of loan, collecting documents for the purpose of loan, making entries in the loan ledger and checking the entries. It was also his duty to meet the loanees at times and to persuade them in the matter of repayment of the loan. Accused was also given a clerical staff to assist him in the work of the loan. According to PW1 even inspite of the service of such clerical staff accused voluntarily used to do the clerical work also as and when needed. PW1 had worked along with the accused for three years and had the occasion to deal with the records and documents prepared, written and signed by accused. The occurrence in these cases happened during the tenure of PW1 as Branch Manager. The incidents were accidentally detected during the year end of 1996 when a loanee who had come to the bank when asked whether he had repaid the loan, replied that in December, 1995 he had repaid Rs.5,000/-, which on inspection of the ledger was found to be true, but it was also found that, that amount was also debited and that amount was again credited in the succeeding page relating to another loanee. When that loanee was met and enquired, he disowned any such repayment of Rs.5,000/-. Consequently a doubt arose regarding the transactions. One Sudarsan and Asok Kumar who were working in the branch were authorised to verify the relevant accounts. The matter was also informed to the Regional Office, Trivandrum over telephone. The said two persons detected several irregularities. Consequently the vigilance cell of the bank came to the bank and conducted detailed investigation. The accused, who was by that time already transferred to Vazhakkala branch as Manager was informed of the said irregularity of Rs.5,000/- and also of the fact that there was a difference of Rs.60,000/-. The accused, though took the stand that amounts received in accounts which were written-off were credited in accounts in which there was difficulty to get repayment, came to the bank and remitted the sum of Rs.60,000/-. It is PW1 himself who supplied the necessary details and documents to the Officers who conducted vigilance enquiry. He had also accompanied the vigilance wing in meeting borrowers including D.Joy who had shown five slips evidencing remittances of amounts, but without "cash received" seal of the bank but still signed by the accused. In the vigilance enquiry it was revealed that irregularities committed involved about Rs.2 lakh. The entire amount involved in the irregularities was remitted by the accused in the bank. Ultimately accused was dismissed from the service of the bank.

28. The allegation of misappropriation involved in this case is based on the false debit entries alleged to have been made by the accused in Ext.P2 ledger in the name of Usmankutty and then giving corresponding false credit entries to the account of other loanees by name D. Joy and A. Joseph. PW1 stated that in the suit filed against Usmankutty for the loan due from him, the entire principal amount was remitted and what left to be remitted was the interest. PW1 testified that in fact Exts.P2(a), (b) and (c) remittances ought to have been credited towards the interest due to bank. According to PW1, corresponding to genuine credit entries there were false debit entries made in the account of Usmankutty. PW1 stressed that Ext.P2(a)(i) as an entry dated 29.2.1995 made in the handwriting of the accused and under his initial and the same as a false debit entry without corresponding debit slip/debit voucher. It is also pointed out by PW1 that the month February of 1995 had no date as '29' and this debit entry dated 29.2.1995 was prima facie a false entry. The date written as '29' could also be read as "24". But that did not improve matters. There were also other similar false debit entries marked Exts.P(2)(b)(i) dated 29.5.1995 without any debit slip corresponding to Ext.P2(b) genuine credit entry and Ext.P2(c)(i) debit entry dated 10.11.1995 also without any debit voucher corresponding to Ext.P2(c) genuine credit entry. PW1 testified that the loan account of Usmankutty was in the category of small trader loan and as per Ext.P5(a) entry, as on 1.2.1995, there was no other remittance in the category as small trader loan and that Ext. P8 certified copy of ledger folio in the name of loanee by name D. Joy contains Ext.P8(a) credit entry dated …../2/95 which was prima facie false for want of any corresponding credit voucher and the same was also made by none other than the accused himself. As regards Ext.P2(b)(i) false debit entry dated 29.5.1995 for Rs.500/- there was a false credit entry marked as Ext.P8(b) of the same date for the same amount which was also without any supporting credit voucher and seen posted by the accused in his own handwriting. Similarly corresponding to Ext.P2(c)(i) false debit entry dated 10.11.1995 there was Ext.P9(a) false credit entry of the same date for the same amount made by accused in his own handwriting in Ext.P9 true certified copy of ledger folio in the name of A. Joseph who is another loanee of the bank. It was further explained by PW1 that, had these credit entries been genuine there would necessarily have been supporting credit vouchers and further there ought to have also been necessary entries in corresponding credit supplementary books.

29. PW15, examined in this case had worked as Clerkcum- Cashier of Alappuzha branch of the Union Bank of India during the period from 1981 to 2004 when the accused was also working there. He had occasion to deal with the documents containing the handwritings and signatures of the accused had sufficiently identified several documents prepared in the handwritings of the accused and containing his signatures. Regarding the aforesaid transactions comprised in C.C. Nos.1/2000 and 8/2003, PW15 had zealously corroborated the version of PW1 by identifying the handwritings and signatures of the accused.

30. PW9, who had worked as Clerk-cum-Cashier in the Alappuzha branch of the bank during the period 1984 to 2001 when the accused was also working there. According to him, he had first-hand knowledge of the handwritings and signatures of the accused and he also identified several registers and entries stated above. Some of which were in his own handwriting. PW9 given evidence narrating the different process followed in the bank while effecting transactions and maintaining their accounts in registers and other records. He also supported the evidence of PW1 by identifying the handwritings and signatures of the accused as deposed by PW1.

31. PW10 who had worked as Officer at Alappuzha branch of the bank in two terms from 1992 to 1993 and from 1995 to October, 1998, testified that he had worked in that branch along with the accused. It is PW10 himself who had passed Ext.P4 voucher.

32. PW12 had worked in the Alappuzha branch of the bank during the period from 1995 to 1999 as Special Assistant. He had dealt in the preparation of day book, transfer scroll and tallying work of the debit and credit entries in the transfer book. Entries in Ext. P53 transfer scroll register dated 3.6.1995 have been made by him and the same sufficiently affords negative evidence proving the false nature of vouchers prepared by accused.

33. PW13 who had retired from the service of the bank as Manager on 31.5.2007 had worked in the Alappuzha branch of the bank as Special Assistant during the period from 1985 to 1995 when the accused was also working there. He also given evidence supporting preparation of different vouchers by the accused in his own handwriting and corroborated the evidence of PW1. Apart from that Ext.P54 certified copy of ledger in respect of NRE Account of Sathyapalan also was tendered in evidence through him.

34. PW14 who had worked as Clerk-cum-Casher in the Alappuzha branch of the bank during the year 1995-96 has proved several entries made in his own handwriting such as Ext. P62(f). It was through him, the handwritings and signatures of the accused appearing in several vouchers and documents aforesaid.

35. PW18, who had worked as Manager of Alappuzha branch during the year 1998-1999 who produced several relevant records to the CBI for investigation and other witnesses supported the case of the prosecution. Apart from that, the Investigating Officer also supported the case of the prosecution corroborating the version of PW1 and other witnesses.

36. On evaluation of the documentary evidence supported by the ocular evidence, it is decipherable that, pursuant to default of one loanee by name Usmankutty civil suit OS 152/89 was filed in Munsiff's Court, Alappuzha and decree obtained by the bank against him. Ext.P51 is the certified copy of the 'suit filed account' of the said OS 152/89. PW7 Advocate Sri C. Parameswaran practicing at Alappuzha has stated that himself was handling that suit from 1990 onwards. According to him, in the Execution Petition filed in that case for execution of the decree, amounts were paid by Usmankutty in instalments to PW7 under memos and he had remitted the amounts in the bank by his cheques. PW7 pointed out that Exts.P1, P3 and P4 are vouchers in respect of such cheques and they contain details as to the cheque numbers, the cheque amounts, the date etc. PW1 categorically given evidence identifying Exts.P1, P3 and P4 as the vouchers prepared by the accused himself in his own handwriting and containing his signatures. He had testified that Ext.P1 compounding credit voucher dated 1.2.1995 is in respect of the cheque by which the Advocate remitted amount to the loan account of Usmankutty. Ext. P2 true certified copy of loan ledger folio No.108/09 in the name of the said Usmankutty for the period from 6.4.1992 to 19.12.1995 would show that the same contained a credit entry dated 1.2.1995 in respect of the said amount of Rs.500/- covered by Ext.P1 voucher and that that credit entry marked Ext.P2(a) was also made by the accused himself under his initial as proved by PW1. Similarly Ext. P3 credit voucher dated 29.5.1995 was also in respect of Rs.500/- covered by cheque by which remittance was made by PW7 to the loan account of Usmankutty. Ext.P3 is also prepared by none other than the accused and the same was in his handwriting and under his signature. Ext.P2(b) is the relevant credit entry in that regard dated 29.5.1995 posted by the accused under his initial as pointed out by PW1. Ext.P4 voucher dated 10.11.1995 is also in respect of Rs.500/-covered by cheque given by PW7 to the credit of loan account of Usmankutty and the same had been duly credited under Ext.P2(c) entry. Exts.P2(a), (b) and (c) are genuine credit entries made by accused respectively in relation to Exts.P1,P3 and P4 vouchers prepared by accused himself. Exts.P5(a), P6(a) and P7(a) are the corresponding entries effected in Exts.P5, P6 and P7 supplementary books.

37. It could be seen from the evidence of PW1 and other staff members of the Bank that, the practice in the bank is that entries corresponding to the credit entries stated above would also be made in the supplementary books and the sum-total of different kinds of loan accounts would be entered in the "main cash book” of the bank and thereafter all the vouchers would be sorted out, bundled and preserved. For that reason, Ext.P5 original supplementary book of the bank for the period from 23.9.1994 to 11.2.1995 is found to contain Ext.P5(a) entry dated 1.2.1995 in respect of Ext.P1. Similarly Ext.P6 supplementary book for the period from 13.2.1995 to 18.7.1995 contains Ext.P6(a) entry dated 29.5.1995 in respect of Ext.P3 voucher. Ext.P7(a) is the relevant entry regarding Ext.P4 voucher made in Ext.P7 supplementary book for the period from 19.7.1995 to 30.12.1995. All these are genuine entries.

38. In addition, to prove the fact that credit entries aforesaid made in the account of D. Joy are false, the aforesaid D. Joy was examined as PW11. Sri.D. Joy, the alleged beneficiary examined as PW11 given evidence that he was a permanent resident of the place called Mangalam in Alappuzha District and was residing at the place called Vazhicherry in 1993. According to him, he was a tailor by profession and in 1993 he had taken a loan of Rs.10,000/- from Union Bank of India for the purpose of his textile business. He also identified the photocopy of his loan application and his signed declaration dated 12.3.1993 available in Ext.P36 file. He further stated that he was familiar with the accused whom he had met in the bank as the Field Officer concerned and that all further dealings with regard to the loan were with the accused. PW11 had collected the entire sanctioned loan amount of Rs.10,000/- and he was expected to repay the same in monthly installments at the rate of Rs.300/-. His version further is that he had directly made ten or eleven remittances in the bank that is till 1994 and thereafter he could not remit any amount since his business turned to be poor. His further version is that accused who used to come to the house of his neighbour C.C. Babu also came to his own house and stated that if he had any difficulty in going to the bank for making remittances, it was sufficient if the amounts were entrusted to him when he came and accordingly he happened to entrust a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the accused in five or six instalments for which receipts marked Exts.P25(A), 26(A), 27(A), 28(A) and 29(A) were directly issued by the accused to himself, but without "cash received" seal of the bank, but under the signature of the accused. While collecting the receipts from the accused PW11 could not note the defect of absence of the bank seal. It is subsequently when he was served with a letter from the bank of which also copy is available in Ext. P36 file, he went to the bank and made enquiries. It is asserted by PW11 that after 1994 himself or his mother or sister had not gone to the bank and made any remittance there and even for remittances made through them the amount was paid by himself. Remittances covered by Exts.P25(A) to 29(A) purport to have been made on different dates in 1996 and they are also different sums varying from Rs.300/- to Rs.900/-. PW11 has further asserted that the different credit entries dated 1.2.1995, 20.4.1995 and 29.5.1995 each of Rs.500/- as appearing in Ext.P8 were not remitted by himself or his family members and that he did not know how those remittances have come. Sri.A. Joseph cited as CW11 in C.C.No. 1/2000 could not be examined by prosecution as he was reported to be ill and his examination was avoided. It is sufficiently satisfied that Ext.P8 series and Ext.P9(a) credit entries were falsely made by the accused, conferring illegal gain of Rs.1,500/- to Sri.D. Joy and Rs.500/- to Joseph.

39. The following facts are revealed from the evidence tendered:

               C.C. No.1/2000

               PW1 – Manager of Alappuzha branch during the relevant period. Ext.P2(a), (b) & (c) – genuine credit entries to the account of Usmankutty made by the accused. Ext.P2(a)(i), (b)(i) & (c)(i) – corresponding false debit entries made by the accused without supporting voucher. Ext.P8(a) & (b) – false credit entries to the account of D.Joy (PW11) without supporting voucher (Rs.500 each). Ext.P9(a) – false credit entry to the account of A.Joseph without supporting voucher (Rs.500).

               C.C. No.8/2003

               Ext.P25(A), P26(A), P27(A), P28(A) and P29(A) – original receipts prepared by the accused. No seal of the bank “cash received”. Ext.P62 – cash scroll book does not contain any entries regarding these receipts.

               C.C. No.9/2003

               Ext.P12 – Ledger folio in the name of A.H. Raja. Rs.2781/- was the amount settled for DICGC and Rs.1854020 was to be written off. Ext.P12(a) – shown only Rs.1781 instead of Rs.2781 and only Rs.854.20 instead of Rs.1854.20 was credited (Rs.2,000). Ext.P13 – Ledger folio in the name of A.K. Chellappan. Ext.P13(a) – shows Rs.1899 was the amount settled for DICGC and Rs.1266 was to be written off. Since the balance amount was Rs.2965/- there should have been an over credit of Rs.200. But, credit balance was shown as ‘nil’ (Rs.200). Ext.P10 – Ledger folio in the name of Elcy Michael (PW3). Ext.P10(a) – false credit entry of Rs.2,200/- without credit voucher.

40. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the accused in C.C. No.9/2003 is that, the accused collected amounts as deposed by PW11 and the same were entered in the cash register. Even though the cash remittance receipts Exts.P25(A), 26(A), 27(A), 28(A) and 29(A) did not bore “cash received” seal, no loss sustained to the bank. The learned counsel for the accused also submitted that the receipt of amounts was not recorded in Ext.P55 supplementary register. But, the learned Special Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that the remittance made by PW11 as shown in Ext.P8 was not shown in Ext.P62, cash book, though wrongly mentioned as Ext.P30 by the learned Special Judge. According to the learned Special Public Prosecutor, Ext.P62 cash book is the register which would show actual amount received by the bank and credited to the account of the bank. When PW11 would say that he had remitted the amounts as per Ext.P8 and when there is omission in Ext.P62, that means the amount was misappropriated by the accused, without accounting the same. The evidence of PW14 regarding the remittance of the said amount was entered, that by itself has no purpose, since the said amount was not accounted in the bank, as no corresponding entry to be found in Ext.P62. Therefore, the contention to unsustain the verdict impugned in C.C. No.9/2003 at the instance of the accused is found to be unsustainable. On the contrary, the prosecution allegation in this case found proved beyond reasonable doubt as held by the Special Court.

41. Coming to C.C. No.1/2003, Exts.P1, P3 and P4 vouchers would show that one Usmankutti remitted an amount of Rs.500/- to the bank and the same was not shown in Ext.P2(a), P2(b) and P2(c) ledger thereof by the accused. Pertaining to the deposits shown in Ext.P2(a), (b) and (c) ledger, Ext.P5(a), P6(a) and P7(a) are the remittance receipts showing payment of Rs.1,000/- in the name of Sri.Joy, who was examined as PW11. Deposit of Rs.500/- in the name of one Joseph by the accused is evident from the evidence discussed in detail. PW11, Sri.D. Joy, in favour of whom Rs.1,000/- was transferred by the accused, had categorically given evidence that he had availed a loan of Rs.10,000/- from the Union Bank for his textile business and Ext.P36 is the application for the loan he availed. According to him, he was familiar with the accused, who he met in the bank as a Field Officer and he directly remitted back 11 installments to the loan at the rate of Rs.300/-. Thereafter, the accused, who used to come to the house of his neighbor Sri.C.C. Babu also came to his own house and stated that, if he had any difficulty for going to the bank for making remittance, it was sufficient that the amount would be entrusted to the accused. Accordingly, PW11 happened to entrust Rs.2,000/- to the accused in 5 or 6 installments, for which Ext.P25(A), P26(A), P27(A), P28(A) and P29(A) were directly issued by the accused to himself, without “cash received” seal of the bank, but under the signature of the accused. Thus, it appears that in order to pacify the amount which was directly accepted by the accused from PW11, Rs.1,000/- from the account of Usmankutty was transferred in the account of D.Joy. But, ultimately the beneficiary of the misappropriation is the accused. It was also alleged that, the accused dishonestly credited an amount of Rs.500/- to the account of Sri.D. Joy and Sri.A. Joseph, which was deposited by Usmankutty. Even though Sri.A.Joseph was cited as a witness, he could not be examined by the prosecution because of his illness. It has come out in evidence that, as per Ext.P8 and P9, credit entries were falsely made by the accused resulting illegal gain of Rs.1,500/- to D.Joy and Rs.500/- to A.Joseph. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the accused that the accused did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution in C.C. No.1/2003 could not be countenanced.

42. Coming to the allegation in C.C. No.8/2003, the specific allegation of the prosecution is that as per Ext.P10 and P10(a) remittance made by one A.H. Raja and A.K. Chellappan to the tune of Rs.2,200/- was transferred to the account of Smt.Elcy Micheal, who was examined as PW3. The Evidence of PW3 is that, she did not remit the said amount. Thus, the allegation of the prosecution that the accused remitted Rs.2,200/- made by A.H. Raja and A.K. Chellappan in the account of Smt.Elsy Micheal and dishonestly brought down her loan liability to that extent and thereby caused corresponding loss to the bank and cheated the bank. In C.C. No.8/2003, the learned counsel for the accused argued that the transfer of money in this case could only be held as a mistake committed by the accused and therefore, no fraudulent intention or element of cheating could be found.

43. On re-appreciation of evidence, none of the contention raised by the accused to unsustain the verdict impugned would succeed and the prosecution successfully established that the accused committed offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act and under Sections 477(A) and 420 of the IPC in C.C. No.1 of 2000, under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act and under Sections 420 and 477(A) of IPC in C.C. No.8 of 2003 and under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act and under Sections 409 and 477(A) of IPC in C.C. No.9 of 2003.

44. Therefore, the prosecution case is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the conviction imposed by the Special Court does not require any interference. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that some leniency in the matter of sentence can be considered.

45. Point Nos.10 and 11:- In the result, these appeals stand allowed in part. The conviction imposed by the Special Judge is confirmed. In the interest of justice, I am inclined to modify the sentence. The sentence imposed against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act and under Sections 477(A) and 420 of the IPC in C.C. No.1 of 2000, under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act and under Sections 420 and 477(A) of IPC in C.C. No.8 of 2003 and under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act and under Sections 409 and 477(A) of IPC in C.C. No.9 of 2003, is modified as under:

               C.C. No.1 of 2000:

               i. The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month, for the offence under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988.

               ii. The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC.

               iii. The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 477(A) of IPC.

               iv. The substantive sentence shall run concurrently and the default sentence shall run separately, after the substantive sentence.

               v. The period of detention undergone by the accused in this case will be set off against the substantive sentence of imprisonment.

               C.C. No.8 of 2003:

               i. The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month, for the offence under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988.

               ii. The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC.

               iii. The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 477(A) of IPC.

               iv. The substantive sentence shall run concurrently and the default sentence shall run separately, after the substantive sentence.

               v. The period of detention undergone by the accused in this case will be set off against the substantive sentence of imprisonment.

               C.C. No.9 of 2003:

               i. The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month, for the offence under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988.

               ii. The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, for the offence punishable under Section 409 of IPC.

               iii. The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 477(A) of IPC.

               iv. The substantive sentence shall run concurrently and the default sentence shall run separately, after the substantive sentence.

               v. The period of detention undergone by the accused in this case will be set off against the substantive sentence of imprisonment.

46. The order suspending sentence and granting bail to the accused stands vacated, with direction to the accused to appear before the Special Court, forthwith, to undergo the modified sentence, failing which, the Special Court is directed to execute the sentence, without fail.

Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Special Court, forthwith, for information and compliance.