Judgment

RAMASWAMI,, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is brought by special leave from the judg-ment of the Andhra Pradesh High court, dated 23/03/1967 in Criminalappeal Nos. 297, 298, 299 and 300 of 1965 preferred by Respondents 1 to4 whereby the High court allowed the said appeals, set aside the judgmentof the Sessions court and convicted the respondents.

( 2 ) IN the Co-operative central Bank, Srikakulam, accused No. 1satya Rao, and accused No. 2 Prasada Rao were working as clerks whileaccused No. 4 Mohan Rao was a peon. The Co-operative central Bankhas four branches one of which is at Sompeta. The branch office has amanager, a clerk, a shroff and one peon and a night-watcher. Till Septem-ber 30, 1964 Sri V. S. Venkateswarlu was the Branch Manager of the Bankat Sompeta. He went on leave with effect from 1/10/1964. In his placeaccused No. 1 was posted to act as Branch Manager, Sompeta. Accusedno. 1 took charge as Branch Manager with effect from 1/10/1964 fromvenkateswarlu. The case of the prosecution is that while accused No. 1was at the headquarters he came to know that the accused No. 4 was in thehabit of practising signatures of the secretary of the Bank. A conspiracy forcheating the bank was entered into between all the accused. In pursuanceof the conspiracy accused No. 2 had typewritten credit advice card and alsoa letter of authority both staling to the effect that they should be treatedas Demand Draft advice and Demand Draft respectively. To both thesedocuments accused No. 4 forged the signature of the secretary. On Octo-ber 8, 1964 accused No. 4 took the credit advice card to the despatch clerkand said that the Manager wanted that the advice card should be despatchedimmediately and got it despatched the same day to the branch office. Thecredit advice card was received on 10/10/1964 by accused No. 1 himselfwho handed the credit advice to the clerk and asked him to keep the samewith him in spite af the fact that the clerk protested that such advice cardsshould be kept with the Manager himself. On 13/10/1964 accusedno. 1 pretended that he was having motions and was unable to sit up in theoffice 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 himguidance. On 14/10/1964 accused No. 1 was still pretending that hewas unwell and asked the clerk to carry on the transactions on his behalf. At 12. 30 p. m. on 14/10/1964 accused No. 2 went to the Sompetabranch office. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 went out for about 15 minutes andcame back at about 1. 45 p. m. Accused No. 3 went to the Bank andpresented to accused No. 1 the letter of authority typewritten on the letter-head with a copy to the central Bank purporting to authorise payment ofra. 15,000. 00 to V. Chandradasu of Mandaaa treating the letter as Demanddraft. The letter purported to bear the signature of the secretary and alsospecimen signatures of the payee Chandradasu. Accused No. 1 gave theletter to the clerk for necessary action. When the clerk protested that noamount will be paid on the letter of authority in the absence of Demanddraft accused No. 1 said that the amount should be paid in any case as thebanks prestige was at stake. The clerk in obedience to the advice of accusedno. I took out the credit advice card and tallied the signature of the Secre-tary and after satisfying himself that the signatures were correct, preparedthe debit slip and after taking endorsement of accused No. 3 made the pay-ment order. The clerk passed on the documents to the shroff who againprotes. ted that the payment could not be made unless the payee was identifiedby a person known to the Bank. Again accused No. 1 interfered and toldthe shroff that to demand identifying witnesses would amount to harassmentof customers and the prestige of the Bank would be lowered. When the shrofffound accused No. 3 was talking familiarly with accused No. 1 he took it thataccused No. 1 must be known to accused No. 3. But as there was