The judgment establishes the principle that different offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code can coexist and be separately convicted and punished based on the specific elements and requirements of each offense.

1. The appellant is the accused in C.C.No.136 of 1997 on the file of the learned Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act (CBI cases, X Additional Sessions Judge), Chennai. The trial Court, by judgment dated 22.10.1998, convicted the appellant and sentenced him as detailed below:- Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:-

P.W.3 was residing at No.1, Vembuli Amman Nagar, Palavanthangal, Chennai. P.Ws.4 and 5 are his sisters. All the three were residing together at the above address. The appellant was working in Indian Oversea Bank, Nazarathpet Branch as Casheer during the year 1991 and 1992. The appellant studied Pre University Course with P.W.3. Thus, the appellant had acquaintance with P.W.3. Using the said friendship, the appellant used to meet P.W.3 and requested him to deposit some amount in his Bank. Accordingly, P.W.3 deposited a sum of Rs.20,000/- in his name and Rs.10,000/-each in the name of his sisters namely P.Ws.5 and 6. Thereafter, on 29.08.1991, he opened a Savings Bank account in A/c No.6966 in Indian Overseas Bank, Nazarapet Branch, where the appellant was working as a Casheer. The appellant only introduced P.W.3 to the Bank by signing Exhibit P.28. As soon as the account was opened, Rs.20,000/-was deposited by P.W.3 into the said account. On the same day, two other accounts vide A/c Nos.6964 and 6967 were opened in the names of P.Ws.4 and 5 respectively. P.Ws.4 and 5 however did not come to the Bank; only necessary documents were taken to their house; filled up and their signatures were obtained by P.W.3. However, P.Ws.4 and 5 were also introduced to the Bank only by the appellant by signing the necessary documents.

3. According to the prosecution, the appellant who was Incharge of the records and cash of the Bank, on 18.12.1991, made debit entry of Rs.7,000/-and on 26.06.1992, he made debit entry of Rs.10,000/- in the account of P.W.4. On the same day, on 19.02.1992, he withdrew a sum of Rs.2,500/-from the account of P.W.4 by means of withdrawal slip by forging her signature. Again on 05.06.1992, by using the forged withdrawal slip, he withdrew Rs.10,000/-from the account of P.W.4. Thus, by making false entries and by forging signature on the withdrawal slips, the appellant had withdrawn Rs.12,500/- from the account of P.W.4. Similarly, in the account of P.W.3-Mr.Kumar, the appellant made debit entries of Rs.5,000/- on 03.10.1991; Rs.10,000/-on 12.01.1991 and Rs.10,000/- on 11.08.1992. Then by using forged withdrawal slips, he withdrew Rs.20,000/- on 20.07.1992 from the account of P.W.3. In the account of P.W.5, (In A/c No.6967) on 11.02.1992, he made debit entry to the tune of Rs.4,900/-and on 08.09.1992 he withdrew Rs.5,000/-by using a forged withdrawal slip. Thus, according to the prosecution, the appellant had misappropriated a total sum of Rs.94,400/- from the accounts of these three persons namely, P.Ws.3 to 5.

4. P.W.18 was the Inspector of Police, CBI/ACB, Chennai. During the year 1992, he received credible information about the alleged offences committed by the appellant. He registered a case in Crime No.R.C No.44(A)/92 on 16.10.1992 at 8.00 p.m., under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988. Exhibit P.89 is the F.I.R. Taking up the case for investigation, he proceeded to the Bank and recovered the relevant documents. Further, he examined P.Ws.3 to 10 and recorded their statements on 13.11.1992. On 27.11.1992, he obtained the sample signatures of P.Ws.3 to 5 for the purpose of comparison by an Expert. On 18.12.1992, he sent the disputed documents along with the admitted signatures for comparison. He obtained the initials and signatures of the said witnesses in 34 sheets (Exhibit P.6) in the presence of P.W.11 and another witness. P.W.22-the Hand Writing Expert, examined the disputed documents with the admitted signatures and opi