JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties through video conferencing.

2. The appellant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 19.10.2004, passed by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi in Special Case No. 50/89, 51/89 and 52/89 arising out of R.C. 2(A)/89 (Pat.) whereby and where under the learned court below has held the appellant-convict guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 420/468/477A & 468 read with Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 5(1) (d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 corresponding to Section 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years in each count and also directed to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for each of the said offences. It was also ordered that the sentences shall run concurrently and in default of payment of fine, the appellant-convict shall undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two months for each of the fine awarded.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the appellant-convict while posted as Special Assistant in the Bank of India, Khunti Branch, Ranchi during the period November, 1986 to February, 1988 entered into criminal conspiracy with Ismile Soy and Palush Topno and others and abusing his official position, the appellant-convict falsified the bank records and misappropriated a sum of Rs.89,870.50/-. Upon enquiry made by the Central Bureau of Investigation as it was found that forgery has been committed in the documents besides cheating, hence F.I.R. of the case was registered and after due investigation, Central Bureau of Investigation submitted three charge sheets for different offences committed by the appellant-convict during the years 1986 to 1988 and accordingly, cognizance for the offences was taken and separate charge sheets for the offences punishable under Sections 420/468/477A & 468 read with Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 5(1) (d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 were separately framed in the said three separate Special Cases being Special Case No. 50/89, 51/89 & 52/89.

4. The appellant-convict pleaded not guilty to charges, hence three trials proceeded separately and witnesses were examined separately in three cases. During the course of trial, a prayer was made by the Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the Central Bureau of Investigation to amalgamate all the three cases and the trial court allowed the prayer for amalgamating the said three petitions vide order dated 18.12.2003 as all the three cases were similar in nature, committed within same span of time and were to be decided by the same evidence, hence the trial proceeded together. It is pertinent to mention here that by the time the three cases were amalgamated by the said judicial order, several common witnesses were examined separately in this three cases.

5. In support of its case, the prosecution altogether examined ten witnesses besides proving the documents but no witness was examined on behalf of the appellant-convict.

6. Out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W.6- Paritosh Kumar is the main witness examined on behalf of the prosecution. He was posted in Khunti Branch of Bank of India from 15th March, 1984 to 1992 as Clerk-cum- Cashier. P.W.6 deposed that the appellant-convict was working as a Special Assistant along with him in the said Branch of Bank of India. P.W.6 identified page no. 173 of the register containing the entries relating to 08.01.1987 out of which serial no.33 was in the writing of the appellant-convict – Budu Munda which was marked Ext.-4. He also proved page no.193 of the said register containing serial no. 34 dated 09.10.1987 which was marked Ext.-4/1. P.W.6 also proved the Cash Payment Book which was marked Ext.-3/1. The entry dated 17.11.1986 made by the appellant convict was regarding the appellant-convict wi