Judgment

RAMASWAMI, J. : This appeal is brought by special leave from the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 23-3-1967 in Criminal Appeals Nos. 297, 298, 299 and 300 of 1965 preferred by respondents 1 to 4 whereby the High Court allowed the said appeals, set aside the judgment of the Sessions Court and acquitted the respondents.

2. In the Co-operative Central Bank, Srikakulam, accused No. 1 Satya Rao and accused No. 2 Prasada Rao were working as clerks while accused No. 4 Mohan Rao was a peon. The Co-operative Central Bank has four branches one of which is at Sompet. The Branch Office has a manager, a clerk, a shroff and one peon and a night watcher. Till September 30, 1964 Sri V. S. Venkateswarlu was the Branch Manager of the Bank at Sompeta. He went on leave with effect from October 1, 1964. In his place accused No. 1 was posted to act as Branch manager, Sompeta. Accused No. 1 took charge as Branch Manager with effect from October 1, 1964 from Venkateswarlu. The case of the prosecution is that while accused No. 1 was at the headquarters he came to know that the accused No. 4 was in the habit of practising signatures of the Secretary of the Bank. A conspiracy for cheating the bank was entered into between all the accused. In pursuance of the conspiracy accused No. 2 had typewritten credit advice card and also a letter of authority both stating to the effect that they should be treated as Demand Draft advice and Demand Draft respectively. To both these documents accused No. 4 forged the signature of the Secretary. On October 8, 1964 accused No. 4 took the credit advice card to the despatch clerk and said that the Manager wanted that the advice card should be despatched immediately and got it despatched the same day to the branch office. The credit advice card was received on October 10, 1964 by accused No. 1 himself who handed the credit advice card to the clerk and asked him to keep the same with him in spite of the fact that the clerk protested that such advice cards should be kept with the Manager himself. On October 13, 1964 accused No. 1 pretended that he was having motions and was unable to sit up in the office and asked the clerk to carry on the business of the branch for him. But accused No. 1 was all the time sitting by the side of the clerk giving him guidance. On October 14, 1964 accused No. 1 was still pretending that he was unwell and asked the clerk to carry on the transactions on his behalf. At 12.30 P.M. on October 14, 1964 accused No. 2 went to the Sompeta Branch office. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 went out for about 15 minutes and came back at about 1.45 P.M. Accused No. 3 went to the Bank & presented to accused No. 1 the letter of authority typewritten on the letter-head with a copy to the Central Bank purporting to authorise payment of Rs. 15,000 to V. Chandradasu of Mandasa treating the letter as Demand Draft. The letter purported to bear the signature of the Secretary and also specimen signatures of the payee Chandradasu. Accused No. 1 gave the letter to the clerk for necessary action. When the clerk protested that no amount will be paid on the letter of authority in the absence of Demand Draft accused No. 1 said that the amount should be paid in any case as the bank s prestige was at stake. The clerk in obedience to the advice of accused No. 1 took out the credit advice card and tallied the signature of the Secretary and after satisfying himself that the signatures were correct, prepared the debit slip and after taking endorsement of accused No. 3 made the payment order. The clerk passed on the documents to the shroff who gain protested that the payment could not be made unless the payee was identified by a person known to the Bank. Again accused No. 1 interfered and told the shroff that to demand identifying witnesses would amount to harassment of customers and the prestige of the Bank would be lowered. When the shroff found accused No. 3 was talking familiarly with accused No. 1 he took it that acc