JUDGMENT

PRADIP MOHANTY, J. — This revision is directed against the judgment dated 15.09.1998 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar in Criminal Appeal No.2/10 of 1997/96 affirming the judgment and order dated 31.01.1996 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhubaneswar in S.P.E. No.26 of 1988 convicting the petitioner under Sections 420 and 468 read with Section 471 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default to undergo R.I. for six months for the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default to undergo R.I. for six months from the offence under Section 468 read with Section 471 I.P.C., the substantive sentences to run concurrently.

2.Sans unnecessary details, the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and one Krushna Chandra Pattnaik were working as Field Officer and Branch Manager respectively of the State Bank of India, Nuapada Branch during the period from January, 1987 to April, 1987. The petitioner recommended for a loan of Rs.8,000/- in favour of a fictitious loanee, namely, Lochan Rout on 29.01.1987 and K.C. Pattnaik, the Branch Manager, sanctioned the said loan amount. Not only the loanee, but also the guarantor, namely, Ghanashyam Rout was a fictitious person. The petitioner had filled up the loan application in his own hand and also put the signature of the loanee and the guarantor in his own hand. During the absence of the Branch Manager, Loan Account No.287 was opened and the money was disbursed in favour of the said fictitious loanee. Thereafter, no repayment was made towards the loan. Ultimately, the matter was investigated by the C.B.I., Bhubaneswar, and charge sheet was filed against the petitioner for commission of offences under Sections 420 and 468 read with Section 471 I.P.C.

3.The plea of the accused is complete denial of the allegation. His specific plea is that one Rajesh Pattnaik had introduced the loanee Lochan Rout and recommended for sanction of loan in his favour. The said Lochan Rout obtained the “No Dues” certificate where after the Branch Manager sanctioned the loan amount. The petitioner only passed the cheque and the Cash Officer disbursed the amount in favour of Lochan Rout.

4.In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as twelve witnesses including the I.O. and exhibited 54 documents. Defence examined none on its behalf and exhibited only one document, i.e., Ext.A.

5.Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhubaneswar framed charge against the petitioner under Sections 420 and 468 read with Section 471 I.P.C. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted and sentenced the petitioner as already stated hereinbefore. Against that judgment and order, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Sessions Judge which was registered as CRLA No.2/10 of 1997-96. Learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar, who heard the appeal, by his judgment dated 15.09.1998 dismissed the appeal by confirming the conviction of the petitioner. He, however, modified the sentence to R.I. for three years in respect of the offence under Sections 468 and 471 I.P.C.

6.To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, this Court carefully went through the judgment of the Courts below, L.C.Rs. and the decisions cited by the parties. P.W.1 is the constable of C.B.I. He stated that he was entrusted with the notice (Ext.1) for service on Lochan Rout, the loanee. He visited village Lukupali and on enquiry learnt that no such person was there and reported accordingly. He was also entrusted with another notice (Ext.2) to serve on Churubihari Rout of village-Lukupali and he reported that no such person was living in that village. He admitted that the Gramarakhi and the Ward member of the village in question were absent when he had been there to serve the no