'CR'

1. This is an appeal against an order of acquittal. On 21.12.1993, one P.V.Mathew alleged to be aged 47 years, son of Varkey residing at Palliparambu, Muthalakodam, Thodupuzha filed Ext.P1 application before the Syndicate Bank, Thodupuzha Branch wherein the respondent was the Manager, seeking a loan of Rs.25,000/- as an artisan. Yet another application, Ext.P3 was filed for opening a Savings Bank Account. In pursuance to Ext.P1 application, loan of Rs.25,000/- was grated by the respondent. In pursuance to Ext.P3, a Savings Bank A/c was opened. The loan amount was transferred to the Savings Bank A/c and the amount was withdrawn on 23.12.1993 through Ext.P6 withdrawal slip. The appellant got source information that the applicant shown in Ext.P1 is a fictitious person and that the respondent abusing the office, fraudulently forged the loan application as well as application for opening Savings Bank A/c in the name of the fictitious person and using those forged documents, the loan amount, which was in trust with the respondent, was misappropriated and thereby committed breach of trust and that the respondent, who was a public servant as defined under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (herein after referred to as 'PC Act'), had undue pecuniary advantage. PW16, the Inspector, CBI registered a case as crime No.RC 8(A)/95/CBI/SPE) for offences under Sections 409, 468, 471 IPC and under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. PW16 took over the investigation. He questioned the witnesses, recorded their statements and seized the documents. On completing the investigation, PW16 arrived at a conclusion that the respondent had committed offences under Sections 409, 465, 467, 471 IPC and under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. Thereupon, he filed a final report, alleging the above said offences, before the Special Judge SPE/CBI-II, Kochi. The learned Special Judge took congnizance and issued process responding to which, the respondent entered appearance. He was furnished with copies of the final report and the connected documents. Thereafter, the prosecution and the respondent were heard. On finding that there are materials to send the respondent for trial, a charge for the said offences was framed. When read over and explained, the respondent pleaded not guilty. Hence he was sent for trial. On the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 16 were examined. Exts.P1 to to P22(a) were marked. During the course of cross examination, Exts.D1 to D6 were marked on the side of the defence. After closing the evidence for the prosecution, the respondent was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The respondent admitted his official status, but denied the incriminating evidence. Further stated that he was falsely implicated at the instance of his successor, who was examined as PW1. No defence evidence was let in. The learned Special Judge on appraisal of the evidence on record arrived at a conclusion that the respondent had committed forgery, misappropriation and criminal misconduct by using the forged documents as genuine. But it was found that the prosecution had not succeeded to prove that PW13, who accorded sanction to prosecute the appellant, was the competent authority at the time when Ext.P19 sanction order, copy of which was marked as Ext.P16, was issued. Consequently, the respondent was acquitted. Assailing the above order of acquittal, the prosecution has come up in appeal.

2. I heard Advocate Sri.P.Chandrasekharan Pillai, the learned standing counsel for the CBI as well as Advocate Sri.P.Vijayabhanu, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the documents and evidence.

3. PW13 would depose that in November, 1995 he was the Deputy General Manager (officiating) posted at the Zonal office of the Syndicate Bank, Trivandrum and as such he was the Zonal Head of the Bank and that in that capacity he was the aut