1. Both these Appeals are being disposed of by this common Judgment. Appeal No.779/02 is filed by accused No.1, whereas, Appeal No.949/02 is filed by accused No.4. Accused No.4 had presented this Appeal through Advocate Shri K.M.Villkhoo. However, when this Appeal reached for hearing on August 24, 2006, it transpired that the said Advocate was unavailable. Accordingly, Court notice was issued to the accused No.4 to engage another Advocate on or before 7th September 2006, failing which, the Court would proceed to appoint Mr.Girish Kulkarni, Advocate, to espouse the cause of accused No.4 as amicus curiae. Notice so issued came to be duly served on accused No.4. Inspite of that, no other arrangement was made. As a result, Mr.Girish Kulkarni, Advocate was appointed as amicus curiae to espouse the cause of the accused No.4 and hearing of the Appeal was proceeded as the Appeals pertain to year 2002 and the accused was in jail.

2. The Appellants, along with two others, were tried by the Special Court at Solapur in Special Case No.18/94 for offence punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 477A r/w 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the I.P.C.’) and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

3. It is the prosecution case that all the accused at the relevant time were working in State Bank of India, Treasury Branch, Solapur between the period 1989 to 1992. Accused No.1 was working as Accountant; accused No.2 as Passing Officer; accused No.3 as Deputy Head Cashier and accused No.4 as Clerk-cum-typist. It is alleged that on 11th September 1992 one of the Bank customer Mr.Ramesh Shetty Bandpatte (PW 1) complained about withdrawal of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) 0from his account without his knowledge or instructions. On that basis, enquiry was initiated by the Manager of the Bank Mr.Sharad Laxman Kulkarni (PW 30). Soon thereafter, complaints from other customers were received about difference of balance amount between their passbooks and ledger folios, although they had never withdrawn the amount referred to in the said books. The complaint received from various customers was forwarded to the Divisional Manager by the Branch Officers. Having regard to the seriousness of the matter, Manager Mr.Kulkarni (PW 30) and the Manager, Personnel Banking Division of Treasury Branch, Solapur Mr.Subhash Gopalrao Bhalwankar (PW 24) were assigned with the enquiry into the allegations made by various customers. At the end of their enquiry, fraud to the extent of Rs.17,00,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs) committed by the bank officials was unravelled. Amounts were withdrawn from several accounts under 123 withdrawal slips which aggregated to Rs.17,00,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs). Most of the withdrawal slips were in the handwriting of accused No.4 and the slips were verified and passed by accused No.1 and accused No.2. In these Appeals, we are concerned only with accused no.1 and accused No.4. The Bank Officials PW 30 and PW 24 submitted detailed enquiry report to the Divisional Officer on 14th September 1992.

4. As it was a case of offence committed by the accused, First Information Report (F.I.R.) was registered by Jyotikumar (PW 31) bearing No.RC 66/A/92-Bom., on 15th October 1992. PW 31 then carried on the investigation. He visited Solapur and examined about 21 witnesses. He also arrested accused No.4, who admitted his signatures and thumb impressions. The questioned documents on the basis of which withdrawals were made from different accounts along with the admitted signatures and thumb impressions of accused No.4 were forwarded to the Government Examiner. The Government Examiner in turn submitted his report Exhibit 262.

5. In substance, the prosecution case against accused No.1 and accused No.4 is that accused No.4, while working as clerk in the concerned branch, falsely signed various pay-in slips (withdrawal slips) pertaini