IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment emphasizes the need for independent evidence for each offense, the distinct and independent nature of certain offenses, and the application of section 26 of the General Clauses Act in determining the sentencing for the accused.

JUDGMENT :

The judgment dated 16.12 .2015 of the XXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru, has given rise to these two appeals by accused No.1 and 2. Apart from accused No.1 and 2, one S.G.Ram Naik also faced trial as accused No.3, but he was acquitted. The prosecution case is as follows :

2. Between the period August 2009 and 30.10.2012 , accused No.1 worked as Assistant Manager at Syndicate Bank, Yeshwantpur Branch, Bengaluru. Accused No.3, Rama Naik was the Chief Manager of the branch at that time. Accused No. 2 is the brother of accused No.1 .

3. As per the banking procedure, the policy guidelines covering the Drawee Bill Scheme (DBS) was given into effect in the year 2006 . The branches of the bank were required to obtain documents as per Manual of Instruction on documentation in respect of DBS and also another scheme called BCAS (Bills Co-Acceptance Scheme). When the banks migrated to Core Banking Solutions (CBS), each bill discounted under the scheme would come under sanctioned limit of the party i.e., the borrower. Whenever the drawee bills were tendered by the eligible borrower, the concerned Clerk/Maker would make the entries in the system in FCC Module (Flexi Cube Corporate) and the same would be authorized by the officer/ checker after verifying the genuineness of the bill, due date of the bill, interest rate, charges validity of the limits and the sanction limit. If every thing was found correct, the bills would be debited and the net amount including the interest would be credited to the Over Draft account of the party. For processing the transaction, the Clerk/maker and the officer/checker had their log in IDs and passwords. There were several General Ledger Folios (GL Accounts) such as Remittance Parking GL, Online Suspense GL, Term Deposit (TD) renewal GL etc., with a provision to transfer the funds from various Parking GL heads to any party’s accounts as per the wishes of the borrower. The Parking GL was the temporary media to route the transaction of the bank.

4. Referring to the above procedure, the prosecution came up with a case that accused No.1 entered into conspiracy with his brother i.e., accused No. 2 and accused No.3 to cheat and cause loss to Syndicate Bank, and in furtherance of the same, misappropriated funds to the tune of Rs.12,22,94,260/- by falsification of records and unauthorized diversion of funds in order to derive pecuniary advantage to themselves. In the charge sheet details of numerous transactions made by accused No.1 are given, it is not necessary to give their details. The offences invoked in the charge sheet are punishable under section 120 B read with sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 and 477 A of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and section 13(2) read with 13( 1)(c) and (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act (P.C Act).

5. The prosecution examined 46 witnesses, and relied on 222 documents (Exs.P1 to P222) in order to establish its case. Exs.D1 to D18 are the documents produced by the accused.

6. The trial court convicted and sentenced accused No.1 for the offences punishable under sections 120B, 420, 468, 471 and 477A IPC and sections 13 (1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act; and accused No.2 for the offence punishable under sections 120B and 420 IPC.

7. I have heard the arguments of Sri S.Nagamuthu, learned senior counsel who appeared on behalf of Sri Basavaraja, learned counsel for accused No.1 , Sri Shankara M, learned counsel for accused No.2 and Sri P.Prasanna Kumar, learned standing counsel for respondent CBI in both the appeals.

8. I prefer to deal with the case put forward by Sri Shankara M first, for if conviction of accused No.2 for the offences punishable under sections 120 B and 420 IPC is liable to be set aside on the basis of grounds taken on his behalf, the conviction of accused No.1 under section 120B automatically goes out of picture as involvement of a minimum of two persons is a must to co