JUDGMENT :

1. Since the two criminal appeals are arising out of the same judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 12.11.1999 passed by the Special Judge & Additional Sessions Judge, CBI Jabalpur, in Sessions Trial No. 38 of 1985, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. By the impugned judgment, the accused/appellants B.R. Armo and O.P. Singhal have been convicted under Sections 120-B IPC, and Section 5(1) (C) r/w section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The sentence awarded to them is as under:-

3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that appellant O.P. Singhal was posted as Branch Manager in Bilaspur Raipur Regional Gramin Bank, Rahoud, District Bilaspur and appellant B.R. Armno was posted as clerk-cum-cashier in the same bank. It is alleged that appellant O.P. Sighal on 24.05.1982 has prepared debit voucher of Rs. 45,596/- for withdrawal of amount from subsidy account whereas the credit voucher equal amount of debit voucher is being prepared, out of which only 34,583/- has been credited to various account and Rs. 11,053/- has not been deposited in these accounts. Thus, Appellant B.R. Armo by committing criminal conspiracy has deposited only Rs. 3,992/- in the receipt and payment register whereas he has received Rs. 15,045/- and he has misappropriate Rs. 11,053/-. On the complaint being made, FIR (Ex.P-25) was registered against the appellants on 01.01.1985 under Crime No. RC 02/85 for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B IPC read with Section 5(1)(C), 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

4. During investigation, the prosecution has seized documents. After completion of the investigation and all the formalities for filing charge sheet, the charge sheet was filed against the appellants for the offence under Section 120-B IPC read with section 5(1)(C), 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The appellants denied the charges and prayed for trial.

5. To bring home the guilt of the Appellants the prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses namely N.K. Jain (PW-1), Assistant General Manager H.S.L. Badvaike (PW-2), Branch Manager Nand Kumar Sharma (PW-3), DSP CBI Dineshchandra Dwivedi (PW-4), Dilip Kumar Soni (PW- 5), Government Examiner Harvansh Singh Tuteja (PW-6). The appellants in their support has examined Hiralal (DW-1).

6. The prosecution in order to prove its case, during trial has exhibited documents namely seizure memo dated 12.0485(Ex.P-1) appointment order of B.R. Armo (Ex.P-2), appointment order of OP Singhal (Ex.P-3), leave applications of OP Singhal (Ex.P-4 to Ex.P-13), leave application of B.R.Armo (Ex.P-14 to Ex. Ex.P-15), transfer application of B.R. Armo (Ex.P-16 to Ex.P-21), Sanction order under Section 6(1) C of PC Act 1947 (ExP-22 to Ex.P-23). Subsidy account sheet (Ex.P-24), credit voucher (Ex.P-25), FIR (Ex.P-26), Specimen signature/ hand writing of appellant O.P. Singhal (Ex.P-27 to Ex.P-51), Specimen signature/ hand writing of B.R. Armo (Ex.P-52 to Ex.P-66), seizure memo (Ex.P-67), opinion of handwriting expert (Ex.P-68), Register Article-A, transfer credit voucher (Ex.P- 69-1, 69-43, credit voucher (Ex.P-70-1 to Ex.P-70-31).

7. Learned trial Court after considering the evidence and material on record has convicted the appellants under Sections 120-B IPC and Section 5(1) (C) and 5(2) of the PC Act, 1947 which is being challenged in this appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove on record that appellant OP Singhal played any active role in the alleged crime and the entire case is based on specula