JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel for the petitioner along with Mr. Navneet Sahay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Saket Kumar, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State.

3. The present revision application is directed against the judgement dated 28.01.2005 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 82 of 2000 by the learned 1st Class Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa by which the learned appellate court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. The petitioner and the co-accused Dumbi Ichaguttu were convicted under Sections 409, 467, 468 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code vide judgement and order of sentence dated 01.09.2000 and the petitioner was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years under Section 409 I.P.C.; Rigorous Imprisonment for two years under Section 467 of Indian Penal Code; Rigorous Imprisonment for two years for offence under Section 468 of Indian Penal Code and Rigorous Imprisonment for two years for offence under Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- was also imposed upon the petitioner. The judgement of conviction was passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chaibasa, Singhbhum West in Chaibasa Muffasil P.S. Case No. 91 of 1994 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 419 of 1994. The petitioner had filed Criminal Appeal No. 82 of 2000 against judgement of his conviction and the co-accused had filed Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 2000 and both the appeals were taken up together and decided by the impugned appellate court’s judgement dated 28.01.2005.

4. It has been mentioned by the petitioner in para 9 of the present petition that the co-accused namely Dumbi Ichaguttu had preferred Criminal Revision No. 318 of 2005 which, at the time of filing of the present case, was pending. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the said criminal revision no. 318 of 2005 has been dismissed on account of non-prosecution.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioner

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned judgement convicting the petitioner is perverse in view of the manner of consideration of the evidences on record mentioned by the learned appellate court at para 21 of the impugned judgement. He submits that the so-called beneficiaries of loan and so-called account holders were examined as P.Ws. and the judgement has been passed on the basis of their oral evidence only and signatures which were found in the document of the bank in connection with which they had denied having put their signature, were never marked as exhibit. He submits that those signatures having not been marked as exhibit, never formed a part of the record and accordingly, denial of signature by the aforesaid beneficiaries, was not sufficient to convict the petitioner. He submits that it was for the prosecution to lead further evidence to demonstrate that the signatures that were put by aforesaid beneficiaries, were not their signatures and appropriate steps regarding verification of signature etc. should have been undertaken by the prosecution.

6. The learned counsel submits that under aforesaid circumstances, the prosecution has not been able to prove the case against the petitioner beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the appellate court has also relied upon certain audit report and it has come in the cross-examination of the so-called auditor, who was examined as P.W. 12, that he was not a chartered accountant. The learned counsel submits that on account of this position, a person not having the degree of a chartered accountant, was incompetent to be an auditor of the bank involved in the present case, which is governed by Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 and Chapter V particularly Section 19 thereof refers to Account and Audit. He submits that Section 19 refers to auditor to be qualified under Section 226 of the Companies Act, 1956 and 226 of t