Judgment

S.P. Kurdukar, J.-This Criminal Appeal by Special Leave is filed by the accused/appellant challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and order dated 11.10.1993 passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court remanding the matter back to the Special Judge for disposal in accordance with law in the light of the observations  made in the said judgment.

2. The accused/appellant was put up for trial before the Special Judge for CBI cases to answer the charges framed under Sections 420, 477A IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Special Judge on conclusion of the trial and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record by his judg­ment and order dated March 18, 1991 acquitted the accused of all the charges. This order of acquittal was challenged by the State of Andhra Pradesh in Criminal Appeal and the said Criminal Appeal was allowed by the High Court vide its impugned judgment and remanded the matter back to the trial Court. This judgment and order passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.

3. The prosecution case in short is as under :

The appellant was working as a Branch Manager of Union Bank of India, Koratla during the period from 20.10.84 to 12.5.86 and while working in the said capacity he cheated the bank by falsifying the account of the bank showing that the amount of Rs. 5,09,000/- was advanced as loan to 13 persons against their Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) or Deposit Re-investment Certificates (DRCs) without the knowledge of those depositors and obtained Demand Drafts either in favour of M/s. Hall Mark Tobacco Co., or M/s. I.T.C. Ltd., in respect of those loan accounts and delivered those demand drafts to one U. Koteswara Rao, Balaji Enterprises, Kareemnagar and thereby derived monetary advan­tages by cheating the bank and falsifying the accounts of the banks.

4. It is further alleged by the prosecution that in respect of two instances the appellant sent loan proceeds to the accounts of U. Koteswara Rao by sending telegraphic transfer to Nizamabad branch of Union Bank of India to clear certain loans taken by him. While sanc­tioning the loan, the appellant prepared debit vouchers in respect of loan accounts opened and secured loan ledger corresponding credit vouchers for issuing Demand Drafts without receiving any application for loan from the parties and without taking the Original FRDs or DRICs as securities for the loans which were essential for sanction of such loans. Thus the appellant has abused his position as a public servant and obtained the advantages to himself to the tune of Rs. 5,09,000/- and caused loss to the bank. It is not necessary to set out the details of these 13 loan transactions sanctioned by the accused/appellant against FDRs/DRICs.

5. It may also be stated that although the inspection of the bank was carried out by its Auditors in 1984 and 1985 but no such lapses were noticed in their reports. However, in 1986 when the bank was again inspected, the Auditor submitted his report Ex. P-74 referring to the several irregularities noticed by him during inspection. On the basis of this report a complaint was lodged which was investigated and a charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused/appellant for the offences mentioned hereinabove.

6. The appellant admitted that he was working as a Branch Manager during the relevant period but denied that he had committed any of­fence. He also pleaded that the Statutory Audit Report submitted in the year 1984 and 1985 did not disclose any lapse or irregulary on his part and, therefore, he could not be prosecuted on the basis of 1986 Report. He, therefore, pleaded that he is innocent and he be acquit­ted.

7. The prosecution examined as many as 25 witnesses and produced various documents in support of its case. The appellant, however, did not lead any evidence in support of his defence.

8. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentar