S.S. Mishra, J. The sole appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.06.1991 passed by the learned Special Judge, Bhubaneswar in T.R. Case No. 1 of 1984, whereby the appellant, Sujaya Kumar Mohanty, was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 477-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. By the said judgment, the learned trial Court sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year on each count, with a direction that both the sentences shall run concurrently. It is pertinent to note that the co-accused in the instant case, namely Sasanka Sekhar Jena, has been acquitted of the charges framed against him.

2. Heard Mr. Soura Chandra Mohapatra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Sarthak Nayak, the learned Special P.P.-cum-Retainer Counsel appearing for the Respondent-Republic of India (CBI) assisted by Mr. Manish Dhir, learned Counsel.

Prosecution Story

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that during the years 1981–82, accused Sujaya Kumar Mohanty was working as a Clerk in Syndicate Bank, Cuttack Branch and was posted in the Loans on Deposit Section. In that capacity, he was entrusted with duties such as preparation of loan applications, maintaining loan ledgers, recording particulars of deposits and advances, authenticating debit slips, marking banker’s lien on deposit folios, and calculating the loan amounts along with accrued interest.

The co-accused Sasanka Sekhar Jena, who is the brother-in-law of accused Mohanty, had opened an Adarsh Deposit Account bearing No. 4074 in the said bank. It is alleged that both the accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat the bank and, in furtherance of such conspiracy, facilitated the sanction and disbursement of multiple loans against the said deposit account without repayment of earlier loans.

In pursuance of the said conspiracy, on 06.05.1981, accused Jena applied for a loan of Rs. 7,000/- against the aforesaid deposit account. The relevant loan documents, including the application for advance, pledge letter, promissory note, and debit slip, were filled up by accused Mohanty after obtaining the signatures of Jena. The loan was sanctioned by the then Assistant Manager and disbursed on the same day under Loan Deposit Account No. 215/81. Although entries were made in the loan ledger by Mohanty, he failed to obtain the signature of the loanee in the ledger. Subsequently, false entries dated 11.07.1981 were made by him showing repayment of Rs. 7,108/- along with Rs. 3/- as interest. These entries were neither supported by any credit voucher nor reflected in the cashier’s or officer’s scroll.

The account was falsely shown as closed by making fictitious entries and remarks to that effect.

Thereafter, on 29.05.1981, despite the earlier loan remaining unpaid, accused Jena submitted another loan application for Rs. 7,000/-. The loan was processed and sanctioned under Loan Deposit Account No. 271/81. Accused Mohanty scrutinized and processed the documents and made entries in the ledger. He again fabricated entries indicating repayment of Rs. 7,075/- and falsely marked the account as closed. No supporting credit vouchers or corresponding entries in official records were available, and even the officer’s signature appearing in the ledger was found to be forged.

Subsequently, on 17.06.1981, accused Jena applied for a third loan of Rs. 5,000/- despite the outstanding liabilities under the previous loans. In furtherance of the conspiracy, accused Mohanty processed the application, filled in all necessary documents, and facilitated sanction of the loan under Loan Deposit Account No. 289/81. He made entries in the ledger showing fictitious repayment of Rs. 5,024/- and falsely recorded closure of the account on 27.07.1981 without any supporting documents such as credit vouchers or authenticated entri