The main legal point established in the judgment is that fraudulent activities, misuse of official position, and criminal conspiracy leading to financial loss to the bank constitute offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the Indian Penal Code.

1. These appeals are directed against the impugned judgment dated 18th March 2008 passed by the learned Special Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Corruption Case No. 62 of 2004 convicting the accused H.C. Bangia (now deceased) of the offence under Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘PC Act’) and for the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120 B IPC read with Section 420 IPC. By the said judgment the other four accusedwere convicted of the offence under 420 IPC and Section 120B IPC read with Section 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) of PC Act.

2. These appeals are also directed against the order on sentence dated 19th March 2008 whereby H.C. Bangia was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (‘RI’) for two years with a fine of Rs. 20,000 and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment (‘SI’) for three months under Section 13 (2) of PC Act and sentenced to RI for one year and a fine of Rs. 10,000, and in default, to undergo SI for a period of two months for the offence under Section 120B IPC read with Section 420 IPC. By the same order, the other Appellants, P.K. Sharma, Yogender Nath Vaid and Ravi Shankar were sentenced to undergo RI for two years and a fine of Rs. 20,000, and in default, to undergo SI for a period for three months for the offence under Section 420 IPC and one year RI with fine of Rs. 10,000 and in default of payment of fine, to undergo two months SI for the offence under Section 120 B IPC read with Section 13 (2) PC Act. As far as the Appellant, Soyuz Electronics Private Limited was concerned, it was sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 40,000 for the offence under Section 420 IPC along with a fine of Rs. 20,000 for the offence under Section 120 B IPC read with Section 13 (2) PC Act. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The case of the prosecution was that on 17th May 1991 Ravi Shankar, Accused No. 3 (A-3) and P.K. Sharma, Accused No. 2 (A-2) subscribed 10 equity shares and signed the memorandum and articles of association of Soyuz Electronics Pvt. Ltd (A-5) and filed them with the Registrar of Companies (‘ROC’). A-5 was not incorporated on that date. The certificate of incorporation of A-5 under the Companies Act 1956 was issued by the ROC, Delhi and Haryana on 29th May 1991.

4. Even prior to the incorporation of A-5, both A-2 and A-3 on 18th May 1991 itself opened a current account in the name of A-5 with the Punjab National Bank (‘PNB’), Nizamuddin West Branch, of which H.C. Bangia (A-1) was the Senior Manager. The introducer for the opening of the account was A-2 in his capacity as proprietor of M/s. Synchem Corporation, which had an accountin the same branch.

5. The further case of the prosecution was that as soon as the current account No. 1652 was opened in the name of A5, on 18th May 1991 itself A-5 drew a bogus bill of exchange (B/E) for Rs. 98,200 on M/s. Kamla Traders, a proprietary concern of which M.S. Rao, brother of A-3 was the sole proprietor. A-1, without sanction any bill discounting limit to A-5, allowed the said B/E to be discounted on that very date. The current account of A-5 was credited for the amount of Rs. 97,453 after deducting the bank’s commission.

6. On that very date, i.e., 18th May 1991 A-2 issued a cheque for Rs. 96,025 in favour of the bank for issuance of pay order favouring ‘Captain R.H. Malkhani’(PW-11). This was approved by A-1 and cash order for Rs. 96,000was issued. This was countersigned by A-1. A-2 and A-3 used this cash order towards part payment for the purchase from PW-11of Flat No. 156, Somdatt Chamber, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. The total sale consideration of which was Rs. 2,05,000. The discounted bill was presented to the United Bank of India, Darya Ganj, New Delhi was received unpaid by a letter dated 29th August 1991 with the advise ‘payment not forthcoming’.

7. The second transaction involving criminal conspiracy of the accused was that on 23rd May 1