In order to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the circumstances presented against an accused must be complete and must exclude all other hypotheses except their guilt.

U. P. Singh, J.

1. Both these appeals arise out of a common judgment passed by the trial court. They have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. In Criminal Appeal No.34/85 the sole appellant is Narendra Kumar and in Criminal Appeal No.68/85 the sole appellant is Bhulendra Ram. The appellant|in Criminal Appeal No.34/85 has been convicted under Sec.420/34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sec.5 (2) and 5 (1) (d) of the prevention of Corruption Act. He has been sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment on both the counts, and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000, in default whereof to undergo further imprisonment of one year. No separate sentence was awarded under Sec.120-B of the Indian Penal Code and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

3. In respect of appellant Bhulendra Ram in Criminal Appeal No.68/85, he has been convicted under Sec.420/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and in addition also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000, in default whereof, to undergo further imprisonment for one year. He also stands convicted under Sec.467/471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal code and Sec.5 (2)/5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment on each of these counts respectively. No separate sentence was awarded under Sec.120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Briefly stated the facts are that appellant Narendra Kumar was working as a Special Assistant and appellant Bhulendra Ram was working as a temporary peon in Allahabad Bank of Buxar branch during the period 1980-81. The duties of appellant Narendra Kumar was to check the debit vouchers including cheques and withdrawal slips and to compare the signature, appearing thereon with the signature of the accounts holder and then to pass it for payment. He was authorised to pass only such vouchers upto Rs.5,000. The duty of the other appellant Bhulendra Ram was to carry books of accounts from one table to another as per the order of the official. The three accounts in question are savings Bank Accounts in the name of Badamia Devi and Mahesh Ram. Nand lal and Dinesh Kumar and that of Mahesh Ram. On the basis of three ledger account sheets (Ext.13/1 to 13/3) it was alleged that in between 16-8-80 and 13-12-80 a sum ot Rs.1,300 was withdrawn from the account standing in the name of Badamia Devi and Mahesh Ram on the basis of forged and fabricated withdrawal slips (Exts 9 to 9/10 ). It was alleged that withdrawal slips were forged and none of the signatures were genuine. It was specifically alleged that they were forged by appellant Bhulendra Ram. Likewise a sum of Rs.2,400 was withdrawal from the account of Nand Lal and Dinesh Kumar on the basis of five forged withdrawal slips. The said account had been opened in which appellant Bhulendra Ram had introduced both the amount-holders in both these cases. It was alleged that the ledger (Ext.13) shows that withdrawal forms were in the pen of appellant Bhulendra Ram and none of the signatures were genuine on those withdrawal forms. The account standing in the name of Mahesh Ram had also been opened on the introduction given by appellant Bhulendra Ram. The ledger (Ext.13/2) shows that Rs.2,500 had been withdrawn. Thus the prosecution alleged that a total sum of Rs.8,000 was withdrawn between t6-8-80 and 23-9-1981 against these three accounts. It was further alleged that the entry in the log book (Ext.19) in so far as withdrawal of Rs.2,500 was concerned, had been scored through and covered with the black ink in order to sonceal and cover up the detection of the crime in respect of the withdrawal of paid Rs.2,500. In all there were 18 withdrawal slips and all of them were alleged to have been forged by appellant Bhulendra Ram. Appellant Narendra kumar was said to have passed these withdrawal slips. It was detected in the last week of September, 1981. After investigation, the experts opinion was taken and on sanc