1. The present appeal is filed against the judgment of the Special Court for CBI Cases, Chennai convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 420 IPC (6 counts) and sentence to undergo RI for 2 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default, to undergo RI for 2 months; under Section 467 r/w 471 IPC (6 counts) and sentence to undergo RI for 1 year and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo RI for 2 months; and under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentence to undergo RI for 2 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default of to undergo RI for 2 months. The sentences of imprisonment imposed on the accused shall run concurrently.

2. The case of the prosecution is that Mr.S.Sathiyaseelan/appellant while was functioning as a Manager of Canara Bank, Sainapuram Branch, Arakonam Taluk, North Arcot District, Tamil Nadu during the year 1991, he entered into a criminal conspiracy with unknown persons and in pursuance to the said criminal conspiracy, he dishonestly and fraudulently by abusing his official position granted loans to 6 fictitious persons for purchase of sheep, based on the false and fabricated documents and also obtained signatures from the fictitious persons and based on the documents, which are forged and fabricated, used the same as genuine and sanctioned the loan thereby causing wrongful loss of Rs.61,000/- to the bank.

3. Based on the source information, CBI registered the case in R.C.No.7(A)/1994 and on completion of the investigation, final report filed alleging that the appellant along with the certain unknown persons entered into the conspiracy and pursuant to the said conspiracy, used certain documents as genuine in order to cheat the Canara Bank by obtaining signatures in the name of 6 non-existing persons viz.,(1) Shri Kalappan, (2)V.Gopal, (3)Kanniappan, (4)S.Purushothaman, (5)R.Muthu and (6) Thirunavukarasu. Knowing fully well that they are fictitious persons and the loan documents are forged and fabricated. Though the procedure for granting loan mandates that the loanees should be resident of service area and he should furnish No Due Certificate from the Bank or financial institution in the area in a specific format that he has no liability with any other bank or financial institution. Further, as Manager the appellant should have conducted pre-sanction verification about the credential of the loanees and thereafter, the bank accounts should be opened in the name of the loanees and also should have conducted post-sanction verification regarding the cattle purchased from the loan amount.

4. Whereas, the appellant has not obtained any No Due Certificate for the loan and he has sanctioned in the name of the fictitious persons. The bank accounts were opened without any introducer and after sanctioning the loan, credited the loan amount into the accounts of the fictitious loanees and the same have been withdrawn. Thus, without following the procedure, the loans were extended to 6 non-existing fictitious loanees and 3 loans to existing persons but, without following the procedure before sanctioning the loan.

5. The trial Court, after perusing the final report, had framed four charges against the appellant. To prove the charges, the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses and marked 155 exhibits.

6. The trial Court, after appreciating the evidence let in by the prosecution, has concluded that the charge of criminal conspiracy against the appellant that he with certain unknown persons known to him cheated the branch by sanctioning the loan to the fictitious persons, is not proved since the prosecution is unable to place the name of those unknown persons. Further, it has also not been established by the prosecution, how many persons, when, where and how, the accused had conspired with the unknown persons. However, the trial Court held that the prosecution has proved the guilty of the accused having committed the offence of cheating and