S.K. Jain, J. - (1.) Heard. On the accusation that Shri D.D. Parashar and D.C. Khurana while posted as Special Assistant and Cash Trade Ledger Keeper respectively in the Punjab National Bank, Saharanpur entered into a criminal conspiracy with Rameshwar Singh, the sole proprietor of the firm M/s. Munshi Ram Abhay Ram, with the object of causing pecuniary advantage to Rameshwar Singh and that in pursuance of this conspiracy cheques No.28175 dated 11.6.73 for Rs.3000/-, No. 466555 dated 9.7.73 for Rs.5000/-, No. 466556 dated 30.7.73 for Rs.6000/-, No. 466558 dated 28.8.73 for Rs. 7000/-, No. 466559 dated 22.8.73 for Rs.7000/-, and No. 466563 dated 17.9.73 for Rs. 5000/- were passed by D.D. Parashar on 11.6.73, 9.7.73, 30.7.73, 18.8.73, 22.8.73 and 17.9.73 respectively on the basis of fictitious drawing power and in some cases even beyond his financial competence and further that D.C. Khurana recorded fictitious drawing power on these cheques while no stocks of the said firm was even pledged/hypothecated with the bank; accused D.C. Khurana was charged firstly, under Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code and secondly under Section 420 Indian Penal Code. On their having pleaded not guilty, they were tried by Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Dehradun. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined Satnam Rai Bangs, P.W.1, K.C. Gupta, P.W.2, Devi Dayal, P.W.3, Anil Kumar, P.W.4, Pranpati Mishra, P.W.5, J.K. Jain,P.W.6, J.N. Gupta, P.W.7, V.P. Jain, P.W.8, Mahendra Kumar, P.W.9, Ram Sidhpal, P.W.10 and Amir Hasan, P.W.11. C.M. Sharma was examined as court witness No. 1. After close of the prosecution case, the accused were examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code. The case of the accused is that of denial simplicitor. The learned trial court vide its judgement dated 26.7.78 acquitted both the accused under Section 420 Indian Penal Code. However, accused D.C. Khurana was convicted under Section 477-A Indian Penal Code vide order of the same date, the trial court sentenced D.C. Khurana to undergo simple imprisonment for two years under Section 477-A Indian Penal Code. This appeal is directed against the judgement of acquittal of the two accused under Section 120-B Indian Penal Code and 420 Indian Penal Code. I have heard the learned counsel for the State-appellant and learned counsel for the respondents and have perused the record. I can possibly have no quarrel with the proposition of law propounded at the bar by the learned counsel for the appellant that direct proof of conspiracy is not required and the conviction can be based on the attending circumstances. On careful appreciation of the evidence on record and the statements of the accused recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code. I find that Rameshwar Singh accused has admitted that against hypothecation of the goods he used to obtain loan by issuing of cheques. He admitted his signatures on the cheques Ext. Ka.1 to Ka.8 where-under he had drawn Rs. 43,000/- which amount he had deposited in the bank with interest. According to the prosecution case Rameshwar Singh had taken back his goods on 18.12.72 from the bank vide delivery order Ext. Ka.19 and delivery report Ext. Ka.20 on which he has admitted his signatures. On 23.8.73 he again pledged with the bank property worth Rs.30,000/- against which he was permitted to draw Rs. 17,000/-. He has admitted his signatures on pledge form Ext. Ka.10 and stock report Ext. Ka.11. He took back these goods from the bank on 3.9.73 vide delivery order Ext. Ka.14 and stock report Ext. Ka.21. He has admitted his signature on Ext. Ka.14-A at Ext. Ka.14. The case of Rameshwar Singh accused before the Trial Court was that he always took loan against pledge of the goods. Accused D.C. Khurana has admitted and is otherwise proved on record by the prosecution that he was posted in Sahid Ganj Branch of Punjab National Bank Saharanpur as Cash Credit Ledger Keeper with effect from 18.12.72 to 17.11.73. He also admitted to have recorded drawing power Ext. Ka.1-B to Ka.2-B and Ka.1-C to Ka.8-C. He has also admitted to have affixed his seal on these cheques. The case of D.C. Khurana accused is that he recorded the drawing power on these cheques on the basis of any enquiry from Mr. Anil Kumar Bansal, P.W.4 who was posted as Godown Keeper at the relevant time. On the basis of the evidence of Satnam Rai Banga, P.W.1, Kailash Chand Gupta, P.W.2, Devi Dayal, Officiating loan incharge, P.W.3, Anil Kumar, P.W.4, Pranpati Mishra,P.W.5, J.K. Jain Manager-Accountant, P.W.6, J.M. Gupta, P.W.7, V.P. Jain, P.W.8, Mahendra Kumar, P.W.9, Ram Sidhpal, P.W.10 and investigating officer, Amir Hasan, P.W.11, it is established on record that during the period with effect from 18.12.72 to 17.9.73. Rameshwar Singh accused issued cheques Ext. Ka.1 to Ka.8 under Cash Credit Accounts scheme thereby drawing total amounts of Rs.43,000/- from the bank, that this amount along with interest thereupon was deposited back in the bank by him, that at the time D.C. Khurana was cash credit Accounts Ledger keeper in that branch of the bank and in that capacity he recorded the drawing power of Rameshwar Singh on those cheques. Taking the same as correct D.D. Parashar in the capacity of officiating loan incharge passed cheques Ext. Ka.1, 3,5,7 and 8, V.P. Jain, P.W.8 passed cheque Ext. Ka.2. Loan incharge Shri B.K. Murti passed cheques Ext. Ka.8. Mahendra Kumar, P.W.9 was the Munim of M/s. Munshi Ram Abhay Kumar of which Shri Rameshwar Singh was the sole proprietor. Mahendra Kumar, P.W. received payment under all these cheques in the capacity of being the employee of the said firm. The question doing rounds right now is as to whether Rameshwar Singh and D.C. Khurana had agreed to do or caused to be done, (1) and illegal act, (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means. As is evident from para No.4 at page 5 of the impugned judgement, the prosecution had admitted that on direct evidence could be brought on the record to prove the alleged criminal conspiracy, however, it has been vehemently argued before me that sufficient circumstantial evidence had been brought on record which establishes beyond doubt that these two appellants had agreed to do the illegal act, i.e. cheating the bank by getting the payment on the basis of false entries regarding drawing power on the cheques. The circumstances on which the prosecution intends to rest the conviction of the accused under Section 420 and 120 Indian Penal Code have been brought on record in the testimony of P.W.10, Ram Sidhpal, Shri B.R. Kansal, was posted as Assistant Regional Manager in the bank with effect from 15.1.73 to March, 1974. He has testified that the disputed cheques were passed by Shri Murti and Shri D.d. Parashar and that Ext. Ka.2 was passed by Shri Jain. These persons were not regular incharge of loan section. Shri R.P. Rai, regular loan incharge, was on leave and these persons had officiated in his absence, therefore they were not well worse with the work of the loan section. There is nothing on the record to show that accused Rameshwar Singh had the knowledge of this fact. Further there is not even a shred of scintilla of evidence on record to show that there had been any personal meeting or even meeting of minds between the two accused namely, Rameshwar Singh and D.C. Khurana to commit the offence. As mentioned hereinbefore. Mahendra Kumar, P.W.9 in the capacity of the Munim of the sole proprietorship firm of Rameshwar Singh had received the payment of the disputed cheques on the relevant dates from the bank cashier on presentation of these cheques at the counter. The signature of Rameshwar Singh on these cheques have been proved. It is established on record that Rameshwar Singh had no drawing power during the period with effect from 18.12.72 to 23.8.73. HOwever, he had the drawing power during the period with effect from 23.8.73 to 3.9.73, whether again he had no drawing power. Thus it is established on record that he issued no cheques on the dates when he had no drawing power. It is not proved on record that he had issued any cheque knowing fully well that he had no drawing power. In view of the above discussion, I fully agree with the findings of the learned trial Court to the effect that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the two accused had agreed to do any illegal act and that therefore the charge of criminal conspiracy was not proved against them. I also agree with the second findings of the learned trial court to the effect that the prosecution had not brought on record even an iota of evidence to prove the charge of cheating under Section 420 Indian Penal Code against the accused. As a sequel to the above discussion I find no fault with the part of the judgement of the learned trial Court dated 26.7.78 vide which it had acquitted the two accused under Section 420 and 120-B Indian Penal Code. Resultantly this appeal dismissed. Appeal Dismissed.;