IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that suspicion cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the trial court must apply its judicial mind before passing a conviction.

JUDGMENT :

1. List has been revised and the case was taken up in the revised call.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant, Shri Shiv. P. Shukla, learned Counsel for C.B.I. and Shri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A-I for the State-respondents.

3. The instant Criminal Appeal under Section 9 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act read with Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the appellant, namely, Smt. Madhu Tandon against the judgment and order dated 10.02.1998 passed by Special Judge (Anti Corruption), U.P (West) Lucknow, in Case No.1/81 arising out of R.C. No.19/1979, convicting the husband of the appellant under Section 409 I.P.C. and Section 5(2) readwith Section 5(1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentencing him to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.18,000/- on each count, the sentences of imprisonment directed to run concurrently and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment of six months.

4. The prosecution case in brief is that P.K. Tandon i.e. accused (now deceased), who was the husband of the appellant, was appointed as a Branch Managar at Koraw Branch Allahabad in the U.C.O Bank formerly known as United Commercial Bank and one-Shri T.N. Bhalla served as the chief accountant in the same branch. On October 10, 1979, at 11:45 AM, a case was registered against P.K. Tandon and T.S. Bhalla as R.C. No. 19/79 under sections 120B , 419, 420, 409, 467 I.P.C. and under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. During the period 1976-77, the accused obtained a blank cheque book of Shri Kamala Shankar Pandey, the proprietor of M/s Agro Service Center situated in Allahabad (now Prayagaraj) under false pretext. The chequebook, numbered 775830 to 775850, was subsequently used by the accused to forge the signature of the P.W.-5 on eight cheques between September 9, 1996, and February 17, 1997, the accused had fraudulently withdrawn a total sum of Rs.43,000/- using these forged cheques.

Additionally, it was alleged that the complainant had entrusted the accused with a sum of money to be deposited into a savings account. The accused, identified as P.K. Tandon, provided pay-in-slips with his signature acknowledging receipt of the money on various dates: November 29, 1976 (Rs.19,000/-), December 9, 1976 (Rs.7,000/-), January 13, 1977 (Rs.5,000/-), and January 21, 1977 (Rs.5,000/-), totaling Rs.36,000/-. However, the accused did not deposit the said amount into the bank account of the complainant, resulting in a loss to the bank.

Upon investigation, the case was handed over to C.B.I Inspector Shri K.P. Singh, who collected evidence indicating the guilt of the only accused, P.K. Tandon-accused, husband of the appellant for misappropriating the aforementioned sum of Rs.36,000/- and failing to deposit it into the bank account as instructed. Consequently, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

5. Charges were framed by the trial court under Sections 409 I.P.C. and under Section 5(2) r/w 5(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The accused persons denied charges and sought trial.

6. In order to substantiate their case, the prosecution examined witnesses Rajeshwar Amolak Ramshani, Assistant General manager UCO Bank, D.R Kapoor, Director of UCO Bank, N.P Khare, Officer UCO Bank, T.N Bhalla Chief accountant UCO Bank, Kamala shankar pandey i.e. P.W.5 proprietor M/ s Agro Service Center, Koraw, Amar singh Deputy G.E.Q.D, State Handwriting examiner, K.P Singh Inspector C.B.I Supervising officer.

7. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution banked upon three types of evidences to substantiate the charges leveled against the accused. The first evidence consists of direct testimony of witness who has entrusted the amount to the accused, who had issued pay-in-slip related to depos