1. Crl.A.No.100/2010 is preferred by the accused H.S. Brunda and Crl.A.No.104/2010 is preferred by the accused M.S. Ravindra against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the XXXII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore in Spl.C.C.No.29/2004 dated 26.12.2009 by holding conviction against accused Nos. 1 and 2 and sentencing them to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year for the offence punishable under Section 120B of IPC, to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and shall pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months, to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year for the offence punishable under Section 468 of IPC and shall pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months, to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year for the offence punishable under Section 471 of IPC and shall pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months, to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year and 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 477A of IPC and shall pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months, accused No.1 was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and shall pay fine of Rs.15,000/- and in default of payment of fine, she shall undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months. It was further ordered that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.

2. The factual matrix of the appeals are as under:

It is the case of the prosecution that accused No.1 Brunda being a public servant was discharging her duties as a Special Assistant of Canara Bank, Nanjumalige Branch, Mysore during February 1990 to February 1994. She entered into a criminal conspiracy with accused No.2 M.S. Ravindra being her brother-in-law, has agreed to and done illegal activities of forging the documents, making use of forged documents as a genuine, falsifying the accounts, cheating the bank by causing monetary loss. Accused No.2 who was not holding sufficient balance in his Account Nos. 3229 and 6121, even though the same had to be returned after dishonour, accused No.1 had passed such cheques, entered the same in the subsidiary register but not debited the same in the ledger maintained for that purpose. As a criminal conspiracy with accused No.2, accused No.1 had forged the documents as specified in the charge sheet making use of the said documents dishonestly and fraudulently, caused monetary loss to the bank to the tune of Rs.8,77,590/- by abusing her position as public servant by discharging her duties as a Special Assistant of Canara Bank, Nanjumalige Branch, Mysore.

3. It is further stated that the A/c. Nos. 3229 and 6121 was maintained in the name of accused No.2 M.S. Ravindra in Canara Bank, Nanjumalige Branch, Mysore. Accused No.1 Brunda passed the instrument for cash payment knowing fully well that there was insufficient balance mentioning A/c. Nos. as 2784 and 5555 which cheques were signed by accused No.2 and caused loss to the bank. Further, accused No.1, by abusing her official position, dishonestly and fraudulently debited subsidiary account of the bank but did not debit the ledger account for A/c.Nos.3229 and 6121 which is maintained in the name of accused No.2 who is the brother-in-law of accused No.1 and thereby caused wrongful loss to the bank as mentioned in detail in the charge-sheet laid by the Investigating Officer, CBI against the accused persons. The charge that is framed against the accused is based upon the charge-sheet laid by the Investigating Officer of CBI against the accused for which th