The main legal point established in the judgment is that in the absence of legal evidence and vicarious liability, the court cannot sustain convictions based on criminal conspiracy and misappropriation of funds.

1. All these Criminal Revisions are arising out of a common Judgment, dated 17.02.2005 rendered by the Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore in Crl.A.No.64 of 2004 and preferred against the conviction and sentence imposed by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Vellore in C.C.No.3 of 2003.

2. The revision petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.385 of 2005, Assistant Secretary of Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank, Virinjipuram was made as A3 before the trial court, criminal revision petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.386 of 2005, Secretary of the Bank was A2 and the revision petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.603 of 2005, President of the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank at Virinjupuram was made A4 for the alleged offence committed by them and prosecuted within the jurisdiction of the Court below.

3. As per the prosecution case, when the first accused, A1 was the appraiser to the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank, Virinjipuram, , A2 was the Secretary, A3 was the Assistant Secretary and A4 was the President of the Bank. During the relevant period, they have alleged to have conspired together, falsified the records and gave jewel loans to various fictitious persons in Loan Nos.5050, 5062, 5067, 5069, 5089, 5094 and 5101 and thereby misappropriated a sum of Rs.1,96,132/- of the Bank and thereby committed offence punishable under Sections 409, 418 r/w 120 (B) and 477 (A) IPC.

4. In order to establish the prosecution case, on the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 13 were examined and exhibits A1 to A101 were marked and on the side of the accused, D.W.1 was examined. However, no exhibit was marked on the side of the accused, revision petitioners herein.

5. The trial court, considering the evidence both oral and documentary, and also the arguments advanced by both sides, held that A1 was not guilty under Sections 409 and 418 r/w 120 (B) IPC, however, A2 was found guilty under Sections 409 and 418 r/w 120 (B) IPC, 477 (A) IPC (42 counts), A3 was found guilty under Sections 409 and 418 r/w 120 (B) IPC and 477 (A) IPC (7 counts) and A4 was also found guilty under Sections 409 and 418 r/w 120 (B) IPC and convicted A2 under Section 409 and sentenced him to undergo 2 years R.I and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-with default sentence and under Section 418 r/w 120 (B) IPC, sentenced to undergo one year R.I and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- with default sentence and under Section 477 (A) (42 counts), sentenced to undergo one year R.I for each count and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- for each count with default sentence and the above sentence was ordered to run concurrently. A3 was convicted under Section 409 and sentenced to undergo one year R.I and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default sentence and under Section 418 r/w 120 (B) IPC, sentenced to undergo one year R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-with default sentence and under Section 477 (A) IPC (7 counts), sentenced to undergo one month R.I for each counts and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for each counts and the above sentence was ordered to run concurrently and A4 was convicted under Section 409 IPC and sentenced to undergo two years R.I and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-with default sentence and under Section 418 r/w 120 (B) IPC, sentenced to undergo one year R.I and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- with default sentence and the sentence was ordered to run concurrently. The same were confirmed by the appellate court. Aggrieved by which, the aforesaid revisions have been preferred by the accused A2 to A4.

6. Crl.R.C.No.386 of 2005 is filed by A2. Crl.R.C.Nos.385 and 603 of 2005 are respectively preferred by A3 and A4. According to the revision petitioners, A1 was the appraiser of the Co-operative Bank. The appraiser was the person, responsible for assessing the genuineness, weight and value of the jewels and only based on his certificate, the Co-operative Bank sanctioned the loans. Though the appraiser, A1 was acquitted by the Court below, the revision petitioners have been convicted against law, by fixing responsibili