A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA, J. - (1.)THE 1st accused in a criminal case in Spl. C.C. 131/00 which was pending on the file of the Court of Additional City Civil Judge (CCH.4), Bengaluru, has filed this appeal under Section 374(2), Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against him on 30.9.2006.
(2.)THE respondent -CBI had filed a charge -sheet against this appellant and another accused for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 467, 471, 477 read with Section 120B, I.P.C. and Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,(hereinafter referred to as the Act, for brevity). After holding a full -fledged trial, the 2nd accused is acquitted and this appellant is convicted for the offences noted above. He is sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/ - for the offence punishable under Section 409, I.P.C. and to undergo SI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/ - for the offence punishable under Section 120B, I.P.C. He is further sentenced to undergo SI for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(c) of the Act read with Section 13(2) of the Act, and to undergo RI for one year for the offences punishable under Sections 477, 461, 477A, I.P.C. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -. It is this judgment of conviction and sentence that is called in question in this appeal on various grounds as set out in the appeal memo.
(3.)THE brief facts leading to the conviction of this appellant are as follows:
(a) The appellant herein was working as branch manager during the period from 25.5.1989 to 29.9.1982 in Syndicate Bank, BWSSB Branch, Bengaluru, and the 2nd accused was working as loan officer in the same branch. Mr. D.B. Desai, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI, had received information about the criminal misappropriation said to have been made by these two employees and a case was registered in R.C. 11/93.

(b) During the course of investigation, it was revealed that accused Nos. 1 and 2 had conspired amongst themselves to misappropriate the amount belonging to bank customers and in furtherance of such criminal conspiracy, they had availed a loan of Rs. 4,00,000/ - fraudulently on 20.4.1991 in the name of a customer, Sri. Chandrashekar of M/s. Deepam Silks International. The loan application was prepared in the name of the said firm and the 1st accused is stated to have forged the signatures of the owner of M/s. Deepam Silks, Mr. Chandrashekar and authorised the payment of Rs.4,00,000/ - as against the said forged documents. It is alleged that the fixed deposit receipts standing in the name of Chandrashekar were taken as security and was received by accused Nos. 1 and 2 jointly.

(c) The further allegation is that the 2nd accused opened a loan account in the books of the bank subsequent to the availment of the loan and falsely certified that the release of the loan to the effect that the firm was a proprietary concern. During the course of inspection at the bank, 1st accused came to know that he would be caught and therefore, he approached Chandrashekar of M/s. Deepam Silks International and obtained a letter with antedate mentioning that the receipt had been given as security for the loan of his friend and that the 1st accused fraudulently caused issuance of a pay order for Rs.5,73,848/ - on 22.10.1991 favouring M/s. Deepam Silks, even though the loan was still outstanding against the said deposit. Further allegation is that the loan amount ought to have been given set off towards the maturity value of the deposit, and to correct this, the 1st accused overlooked these facts.

(d) After concluding investigation in R.C. 11/93, charge -sheet came to be filed and registered as Spl. C. C. 131/00 resulting in framing of charges. The trial court had opined that the charge pertaining to this case in respect of the accused fell during the period beyond 12 months of the first charge -sheet and hence a direction was given to file a separate charge -sheet. Hence a separate charge -sheet is filed in regard to the above allegations.
(e) During the course of investigation, the alleged forged documents were sent to the handwriting expert examination and the statements of material witnesses were recorded. After obtaining the report of the handwriting expert, a comprehensive charge -sheet was filed.
(f) Accused had pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against him and had claimed to be tried. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined in all 19 witnesses and got marked 39 exhibits. During the course of cross -examination, one exhibit has been marked on behalf of the accused.

(g) After hearing arguments, the learned special Judge has acquitted the 2nd accused and has convicted this appellant -1st accused by framing the following points for consideration as found in paragraph 11 of the judgment: In furtherance of the charges framed in the case and the arguments advanced on behalf of the accused, the points which arise for determination in this case are; 1. Whether sanction was to be obtained separately in respect of the separate charge -sheet filed in the case, after the direction was given by the Court in Spl. C.No. 150/95?

2. Whether sanction obtained by the Investigating Officer in this case is bad in law and thereby cognizance taken is improper?

3. Whether investigation done in this case is bad in law in view of the provisions of Sec 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?

4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had criminally conspired to commit the offence of forgery, criminal breach of trust, using forged documents as genuine, falsification of accounts and the offence of criminal misconduct?
5. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused have committed offence of criminal breach of trust within the meaning of Section 409, in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy?
6. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused have committed offence of forgery of valuable security in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy ?

7. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused have used the documents containing forged signature of customer and other forged documents as genuine, in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy?

8. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused have committed offence of falsification of books of accounts of bank to defraud the Syndicate Bank in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy?

9. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused have committed the offence of criminal misconduct within the meaning the Prevention of Corruption Act?

10. What Order?

Heard learned senior counsel, Mr. P.S. Rajagopal appearing for the appellant, as also Mr. C.H. Jadhav, learned senior counsel representing the CBI at length.