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 fullfledged 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 nd 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 1st name of the said firm and the accused is stated to have forged the signatures of the owner of M/s Deepam Silks, Mr. Chandrashekar and authorized 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 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 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