The court affirmed that multiple convictions from the same transaction can lead to concurrent sentences, honoring the principles of justice and humane treatment.

J U D G M E N T

The appellant is the same in all these appeals.

He was Special Assistant in the Guruvayoor Branch of the State Bank of Travancore during 1990-1995. On the allegation that he dishonestly misappropriated money from the bank funds on different occasions during 1993-1995, the appellant faced prosecution before the Special Court (SPE/CBI)-II, Ernakulam in eight cases which arose out of two crimes registered by the C.B.I. In Crime No.R.C 2/A/95 the C.B.I submitted six final reports splitting up the different instances of misappropriation in terms of different periods. In R.C3/A/95, the C.B.I submitted two final reports splitting up the instances of misappropriation period-wise. Thus, cognizance was taken on eight final reports which arose out of the two crimes. Of the eight cases registered on eight final reports in the two crimes, one happened to be tried first. In the said case, tried as C.C 5/95, the accused was convicted by the trial court. On conviction under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short “the P.C Act”) and the IPC , he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each under Section 13 (2) of the P.C Act, and under Sections 420 and 477A of I.P.C. Besides the jail sentence, fine sentence was also imposed by the trial court. The said conviction and sentence was confirmed in appeal by this Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also confirmed the said conviction and sentence. The appellant has been undergoing the said sentence since 12.9.2015. The other seven cases were tried in the trial court as C.C 49 to C.C 55 of 1998. C.C 49/1998 and C.C 55/1998 relate to the Crime No.R.C 3/(A)/95, and the cases C.C 50/1998 to 54/1998 relate to the Crime No.R.C 2/(A)/95. After the disposal of C.C 3/95, the other seven cases were tried jointly by the trial court.

2. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him by the trial court in the seven cases. The prosecution examined 22 witnesses and also proved Exts.P1 to P143 documents. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused denied the incriminating circumstances. Though opportunity was granted by the trial court, the accused did not adduce any evidence in defence.

3. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found the accused guilty in all the seven cases. The amount of misappropriation involved in C.C 49/1998 is ₹ 20,000/-, it is ₹25,000/- in C.C 50/1998, ₹ 15,000/- in C.C 51/1998, ₹ 15,000/- in C.C 52/1998, ₹ 25,000/- in C.C 53/1998, ₹ 15,000/- in C.C 54/1998, and ₹20,000/- in C.C

55/1998.

4. On conviction, in C.C 49/98, the accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of ₹ 5000/- each under Section 120B read with 420 & 477A I.P.C, under Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the P.C Act, and also under Sections 420 and 477A I.P.C read with 13 (2) and 13 (1) (d) of the P.C Act. In C.C 50/1998, the accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one ear each, and to pay a fine of ₹ 5000/- each under , 468, 471 & 477A I.P.C and also under (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the P.C Act. In C.C 51/1998, the accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of ₹ 5000/- each under and 477A IPC , and also under (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the P.C Act. In C.C 52/1998, the accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of ₹ 5000/- each under and 477A I.P.C and also under (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the P.C Act, in C.C 53/1998, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of ₹ 5000/- each under , 468, 471 and 477A I.P.C and also under (2) read with 13 (1) (d ) of the P.C Act, in C.C 54/1998, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of ₹ 5000/- each under and 477A I.P.C and also under (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the P.C Act, and in C.C 55/1998, the accused was sentenced to unde