- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4878 CRL.A No. 40 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 35 of 2012 CRL.A No. 45 of 2012 AND 1 OTHER IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 40 OF 2012 C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 35 OF 2012 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 45 OF 2012 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 115 OF 2012 IN CRL.A No. 40/2012 BETWEEN: SHRI. K.S. SRINIVASA MURTHY, S/O. K.R. SUBBA RAO, AGED ABOUT 65 YREARS, FORMERLY ASST. GENERAL MANAGER, REGION I, SBM BANGALORE, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.S-202, "THE HEAVEN" APARTMENTS, CHIKKA KALLASANDRA MAIN ROAD, 14TH CROSS, PADMANABHA NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 061. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. P.N. HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ACB, BANGALORE …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. P. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C BY THE ADV., FOR THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.2 PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4878 CRL.A No. 40 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 35 of 2012 CRL.A No. 45 of 2012 AND 1 OTHER DATED:28.11.11 PASSED BY THE XLVII ADDL.C.C. AND S.J., AND SPL. JUDGE FOR CBI CASES, BANGALORE IN SPL.(CORRUPTION) CASE NO.509/02 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.2 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 120(B) AND 420 IPC AND SEC.13(1)(d) AND 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT. AND THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.25,000/- (RUPEES TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND). IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE, HE SHALL UNDERGO FURTHER S.I. FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 120B OF IPC. IN CRL.A NO. 35/2012 BETWEEN: SRI. V.J.G PAIS S/O S.M. PAIS CHRISTIAN, AGED 60 YEARS, NOW R/AT NO.2, LAZAR LAYOUT, FRAZER TOWN, BANGALORE - 560 005. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. S. KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ACB, BANGALORE. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. P. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:28.11.11 PASSED BY THE XLVII ADDL.C.C. AND S.J., AND SPL.JUDGE FOR CBI CASES, BANGALORE IN SPL.(CORRUPTION) CASE NO.509/02 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.3 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 120(B) AND 420 IPC AND SEC.13(1)(d) AND 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT. AND THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS AND TOPAY FINE OF RS.25,000/- (RUPEES TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND). IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE, HE SHALL UNDERGO - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4878 CRL.A No. 40 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 35 of 2012 CRL.A No. 45 of 2012 AND 1 OTHER FURTHER S.I. FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 120B OF IPC. IN CRL.A NO. 45/2012 BETWEEN: 1. SRI MATHEW JOSEPH S/O.LATE JOSEPH CHRISTIAN, AGED 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.301, SILVER STONE, 5TH CROSS, CHINNAPPANAHALLY, MARATHAHALLY, BANGALORE - 560 037, PERMANENT ADDRESS AT POTTAKULAM, CATHOLIC TRUST BUILDING, MOTTAMBALAM POST OFFICE, KOTTAYAM, KERALA. 2. M/S. GEYEM IMPEX (PVT) LTD., SECTOR 1, HSR LAYOUT, SUBBAIAH REDDY GARDEN, BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI. MATHEW JOSEPH. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. S. KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ACB, BANGALORE ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. P. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:28.11.11 PASSED BY THE XLVII ADDL.C.C. AND S.J., AND SPL.JUDGE FOR CBI CASES, BANGALORE IN SPL.(CORRUPTION) CASE NO.509/02 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.5 AND 4 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 120(B) AND 420 IPC. AND THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NOS.5 IS SENTENCED TO - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4878 CRL.A No. 40 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 35 of 2012 CRL.A No. 45 of 2012 AND 1 OTHER UDNERGO R.I. FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS AND ACCUSED NO.4 IS SENTENCED TO PAY FINE OF RS.50,000/- (RUPEES FIFTY THOUSAND), IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE, ACCUSED NO.5 SHALL UNDERGO FURTHER S.I. FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FOR SELF AND SAME PERIOD OF ACCUSED NO.4 COMPANY FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 120(B) OF IPC. IN CRL.A NO. 115/2012 BETWEEN: 1. M/S. GEYEM IMPEX (PVT) LTD., SECTOR 1, HSR LAYOUT, SUBBAIAH REDDY GARDEN, BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY GEORGE JACOB. 2. GEORGE JACOB , S/O T.C. JACOB, JOINT MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. GEYEM IMPEX (PVT) LTD., SECTOR 1, HSR LAYOUT, SUBBAIAH REDDY GARDEN, BANGALORE, THUNDIATH HOUSE, VAZHOOR - 686 504 ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. P.N. RAMESH, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ACB, BANGALORE. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. P. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:28.11.11 PASSED BY THE XLVII ADDL.C.C. AND S.J., AND SPL.JUDGE FOR CBI CASES, BANGALORE IN SPL.(CORRUPTION) CASE NO.509/02 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.4 AND 6 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 120(B) AND 420 IPC. AND THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NOS.4 AND 6 ARE SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS EACH AND ACCUSED NO.4 AND 6 SENTENCED TO PAY FINE OF - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4878 CRL.A No. 40 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 35 of 2012 CRL.A No. 45 of 2012 AND 1 OTHER RS.50,000/- (RUPEES FIFTY THOUSAND) EACH. IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE, ACCUSED NO.6 SHALL UNDERGO FURTHER S.I. FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FOR THE SELF AND SAME PERIOD FOR A-4 COMPANY, BEING REPRESENTATIVE OF A-4 COMPANY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 120(B) OF IPC. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri.S.Krishnaswamy, Sri.P.N.Hegde, Sri.P.N.Ramesh, learned counsels for the appellants and Sri.P.Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. In all these appeals, appellants are challenging the judgment passed in Special (Corruption) Case No.509/2002 dated 28.11.2011 on the file of XLVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Case, Bangalore whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced. 3. For the sake of convenience, case numbers, rank of the accused persons, provision for which they have been convicted and order of sentence in the impugned judgment is tabulated as under: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4878 CRL.A No. 40 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 35 of 2012 CRL.A No. 45 of 2012 AND 1 OTHER Case Numbers Rank of accused persons Provision for which accused Nos.2 to 6 have been convicted Sentence ordered by the learned Special Judge Accused Nos.2 and 3 Accused Nos.4 to 6 Crl.A.No.40/ 2012 K.S.Srinivasa Murthy Accused No.2 Accused Nos.2 to 6 have been convicted for the Offence under Section 120B and 420 of IPC and under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Accused Nos.2 and 3 are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- each. Default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months each. Further accused Nos.2 and 3 are hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC ad sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each and to pay fine of Rs.26,000/- each. In default of payment, they shall undergo further simple Accused Nos.4 to 6 are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC and accused Nos.5 and 6 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each and accused Nos.4 to 6 are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, accused Nos.5 and 6 shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one year each for self and same period for A-4 Crl.A.No.35/ 2012 V.J.G.Pais Accused No.3 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:4878 CRL.A No. 40 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 35 of 2012 CRL.A No. 45 of 2012 AND 1 OTHER Crl.A.No.45/ 2012 Mathew Joseph – accused No.5 and M/s. Geyem Impex (Pvt.) Limited – accused No.4 imprisonment for a period of six months each. Further the Accused Nos.2 and 3 are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year each. company, being representative of A-4 company. Further the accused Nos.4 to 6 are hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and accused Nos.5 and 6 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each and accused Nos.4 to 6 sentenced to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, accused Nos.5 and 6 shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one year each for self and same period for A-4 company, being representative of A-4 company. Crl.A.No.115 /2012 M/s. Geyem Impex (Pvt.) Limited – accused No.4 and George Jacob – accused No.6 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:4878 CRL.A No. 40 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 35 of 2012 CRL.A No. 45 of 2012 AND 1 OTHER 4. Being aggrieved by the same, appellants are before this Court, in these appeals. 5. Sri.P.N.Hegde, Sri.P.N.Ramesh and Sri.S.Krishnaswamy, learned counsel for the appellants reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, contended that the role assigned to the public servant and beneficiaries in the impugned judgments that they have misused the funds of the bank resulting in commission of the aforesaid offences is not proved by placing cogent and convincing evidence on record and thus, sought for allowing the appeals. 6. They together point out that no pecuniary loss has been caused to the bank and therefore, offence under Section 420 of IPC does not get attracted. They also pointed out that public servant namely K.S.Srinivasa Murthy was not the person who was required to process the loan application and it is accused No.1 - Shivaswami who was the official superior of K.S.Srinivasa Murthy was the person who was responsible for parting away the funds of the bank and since he is no more, the case of the prosecution stood abated as against - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:4878 CRL.A No. 40 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 35 of 2012 CRL.A No. 45 of 2012 AND 1 OTHER Shivaswami and taking note of the fact that said K.S.Srinivasa Murthy was adhered to the directions issued by his official superior – Shivaswami, no independent motive could be attributed to K.S.Srinivasa Murthy and thus there is no material on record to direct the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 7. Sri.Krishnaswamy, learned counsel for the appellants contended that beneficiary M/s.Geyem Impex (Private) Limited, represented by its Managing Director – Sri.S.Mathew Joseph did not obtain any benefit which is beyond the scope of public servant and his application seeking financial assistance was processed in due course by the bank. Amount of loan is repaid by the company and if at all in processing said request, any irregularities committed by the bank officials, the beneficiary cannot be held responsible for the same as material on record would hardly support the conviction of the M/s.Geyem Impex (Private) Limited, or its Managing Director for the offence punishable under Section 120-B of IPC and therefore, sought for allowing the appeals. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:4878 CRL.A No. 40 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 35 of 2012 CRL.A No. 45 of 2012 AND 1 OTHER 8. Alternatively, Sri.P.N.Hegde, learned counsel representing K.S.Srinivasa Murthy and M/s.Geyem Impex (Private) Limited represented by Sri.Krishnaswamy, learned counsel files separate affidavits and memo and sought for setting aside jail sentence. 9. Contents of the memo and affidavits are extracted here under for the sake of clarity and certainty: Memo filed by accused No.5 in Crl.A.No.45/2012: “It is submitted that accused No.5, the appellant being the beneficiary of loan, is not benefitted in any other manner, nor has made any other Accused, namely Accused Nos.2, 3 ad 5 any benefit under the transaction. There is no illegal gratification. The same be taken on record in the interest of equity and justice.” Affidavit filed by accused No.3 in Crl.A.No.35/2012 “V.J.G.Pais S/o S.M.Pais, Christian aged 72 years, residing at No.42, Chetana B Blok, 100 feet Road, Navule, Shivamogga – 577204, now in Bengaluru do hereby solemnly affirm and stake on oath as under: 1. I am the appellant in this case and I am conversant with all facts of the case. 2. I was accused No.2 in the trial Court. 3. I state that CBI has registered a case against me and others under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act and other offences under IPC in CC 509/2002, on the file of XLVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI cases. In view of pendeny of the CC - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:4878 CRL.A No. 40 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 35 of 2012 CRL.A No. 45 of 2012 AND 1 OTHER 509/2002 I was denied promotion, increments etc. I attained super annulations on 30th November 2011. 4. I submit that after trial the trial court has convicted me along with others by judgment dated 28.11.2011. Now I have filed this appeal urging my innocence. 5. I hereby declare that I will not claim any notional promotions, increments or any other monetary benefits out of such notional promotions or increments even if I succeed in the appeal.” Affidavit filed by accused No.2 in Crl.A.No.40/2012 I, K.S.Srinivasa Murthy S/o K.R.Subba Rao, aged about 78 years, Former Assistant General Manager, Region-1, SBM, Bangalore, No.s-202, “The Heaven Apartment”, Chikkakallasandra Main Road, 14th Cross, Padmanabhanagar, Bangalore-61, do hereby state on oath as under: 1. I state that, I am the appellant in the above matter and as such, I am competent to swear the contents of this affidavit. 2. I state that, during 1998-99 I was working as Assistant General Manager, Region-1, State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore. 3. I state that, CBI has registered a case against me and others in Crime No.R.6(A)/2001 for the offence punishable under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption At and Indian Penal Code. On account of the registration of the case, all my service prospect like promotions, increments etc were withheld/stopped though I was eligible and ultimately, I attained the super annuation on 31/10/2006 in the same Grade. 4. I State that, after the full dressed trial, I have been convicted of the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act and Section 120B read with Section 420 of IPC vide judgment dated 28/11/2011. 5. I state and declare that, I will not claim any notional promotions, increments or any monitory benefits out of - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:4878 CRL.A No. 40 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 35 of 2012 CRL.A No. 45 of 2012 AND 1 OTHER such notional promotion or increments even if I succeed in the above appeal either partly of fully.” 10. Per contra, Sri.P.Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel representing the CBI contended that but for the active participation of K.S.Srinivasa Murthy, the file could not have been processed by Shivaswami and if at all, K.S.Srinivasa Murthy was duty bound to carry out the instructions of Shivaswami, he was free to make necessary endorsement emphasizing the fact that file does not require to be further processed as the loan had already been disbursed. If any such, endorsement had been made by K.S.Srinivasa Murthy, then there could have been inference that he was not a part of conspiracy and in the absence of such note been made by K.S.Srinivasa Murthy in processing the request made by M/s.Geyem Impex (Private) Limited representing by its Managing Director, the argument put forth on behalf of K.S.Srinivasa Murthy that at the most, the act attributable to K.S.Srinivasa Murthy is in the nature of irregularity and not illegality cannot be countenanced in law. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:4878 CRL.A No. 40 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 35 of 2012 CRL.A No. 45 of 2012 AND 1 OTHER 11. Insofar as contentions urged on behalf of M/s.Geyem Impex (Private) Limited and its representatives are concerned, Sri.P.Prasanna Kumar, contended that mere repayment of the financial assistance would not ipso facto efface the criminal liability in terms of the principles of law enunciated in the case of Gian singh v. State of Punjab reported (2012) 10 SCC 303 and thus, sought for dismissal of the appeals. 12. Insofar as alternate submission is concerned, Sri.P.Prasanna Kumar, contended that material evidence on record is sufficient enough to infer that there was an pecuniary advantage obtained by K.S.Srinivasa Murthy and Shivaswami as admittedly the financial assistance sought for by M/s.Geyem Impex (Private) Limited and which has been granted to it beyond the powers of Shivaswami and K.S.Srinivasa Murthy as the branch was not authorized to lend the loan beyond Rs.100,00,000/- limit. 13. He also pointed out that in respect of pecuniary advantage is concerned, it is difficult to place positive evidence on record and Courts are not precluded from inferring the - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:4878 CRL.A No. 40 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 35 of 2012 CRL.A No. 45 of 2012 AND 1 OTHER exchange of pecuniary advantage by the circumstances which are placed on record. In other words, the pecuniary advantage can also be established by indirect evidence which is present in the case on hand in an over whelming manner and thus, sought for dismissal of the appeal in toto. 14. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 15. On such perusal of the material on record, following points would arise for consideration: 1. Whether the prosecution was successful enough in establishing all ingredients to attract the offences under Section 120B and 420 of IPC and under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988? 2. Whether the impugned judgments are suffering from legal infirmity and perversity and thus calls for interference? 3. Whether the sentence needs modification? 4. What order? REG. POINT Nos.1 AND 2: 16. In the case on hand, the fact of M/s.Geyem Impex (Private) Limited approaching the State Bank of Mysore, TATA - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:4878 CRL.A No. 40 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 35 of 2012 CRL.A No. 45 of 2012 AND 1 OTHER Silk Farm Branch for financial assistance stands established. Accused No.1 – Shivaswami was earlier in State Bank of Travancore and at that juncture, he had come in contact with M/s.Geyem Impex (Private) Limited. Later, when he approached for the financial assistance from State Bank of Mysore, TATA Silk Farm Branch having regard to the limit that was available to the TATA Silk Farm Branch, his request for financial assistance would not have been finalized by accused No.1 at the branch level. 17. Admittedly, if the branch intends to grant a financial assistance to the customers beyond a particular limit that was made available to the branch (in the case on hand Rs.100,00,000/-) the only course is to recommend the said proposal to the regional office with necessary appraisal note. 18. In the case on hand, prosecution placed on record such necessary documentary evidence whereby it is established that application seeking financial assistance was not properly processed and material on record also depict that the assistance was sanctioned at the first instance and later on the appraisal notes were being prepared. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:4878 CRL.A No. 40 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 35 of 2012 CRL.A No. 45 of 2012 AND 1 OTHER 19. Defence taken by accused No.2 – Shrinivasa Murthy is that he was working under accused No.1 and he is bound to adhere to the directions issued by accused No.1 at the branch level as accused No.1 was his official superior. No doubt, such a defence is tried to be probabilised by accused No.2 not only by suggesting the prosecution witnesses about the role played by him but also based on documentary evidence were signature of accused No.2 is found with necessary precautionary guidelines. However, as could be seen from the documentary evidence placed on record by the prosecution, majority of which was not disputed by the appellants herein, the proposal was not properly processed at the branch level. 20. Reasons assigned in this regard by learned counsel for the appellants is that on account of competitive business in the banking sector, loan applications or loan proposals must be processed early and while so doing, a few minor deviations are found, the same would amount to irregularity and not illegality. 21. The deficiencies noticed by official superior of accused No.1 and accused No.2 while according the sanction to prosecute would prima facie depict that deviations were not - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:4878 CRL.A No. 40 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 35 of 2012 CRL.A No. 45 of 2012 AND 1 OTHER minor deviations resulting in irregularity but it was hitting to the very bottom of the procedure for processing the request for financial assistance turning out to be illegality. 22. Even though there is a detailed cross-examination with regard to validity of the sanction granted by P.W.3, 4 and 7, but in such cross-examination, no useful material is elicited so as to hold that the sanction orders are invalid or it has been issued in a mechanical manner. Usual suggestion that there was no independent application of mind while passing the sanction order issued by aforesaid prosecution witnesses having been denied by them. As such, the learned Special Judge has rightly recorded that there is no material on record which would indicate that the sanction order was invalid. 23. No doubt, mere sanction order would not itself be treated as proof of illegality because same is to be established by the prosecution before the Court by placing cogent evidence on record. But for the limited purpose of finding out whether the acts attributable to the officials of the bank would be a irregularity or illegality, it is the sanctioning authority who are the best persons to depose about the same. - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:4878 CRL.A No. 40 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 35 of 2012 CRL.A No. 45 of 2012 AND 1 OTHER 24. Apart from issuing the sanction order, departmental enquiry also ensued insofar as accused Nos.1 to 3 are concerned. In such enquiry also, there was a clear finding recorded that accused Nos.1 to 3 did not discharge their work as per the norms, rules and regulations applicable to them while processing the request for financial assistance. 25. Needless to emphasize that the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority became final and consequential orders were also passed insofar as accused No.1 to 3 are concerned. 26. All these aspects of the matter when viewed cumulatively, acts attributable to accused Nos.1 to 3 cannot be termed as mere irregularity. Therefore, the finding of guilt recorded by the learned Special Judge in the impugned judgment for the offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC needs no interference. 27. The alternate argument putforward for interfering with the finding of guilt by learned counsel for the appellant in respect of 420 of IPC was that there was no pecuniary loss - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:4878 CRL.A No. 40 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 35 of 2012 CRL.A No. 45 of 2012 AND 1 OTHER caused to the bank nor as such, there was no wrongful gain to the appellants are concerned and therefore, sine qua non parameter namely wrongful loss to the bank and wrongful gain to the appellants being absent, learned Special Judge ought not to have convicted for the offence under Section 420 of IPC cannot also be countenanced in law inasmuch as even temporary loss that has been caused to the bank would get attracted and criminality does not get effaced by repayment of the amount as is held in Gian singh v. State of Punjab reported (2012) 10 SCC 303. Therefore, conviction under Section 420 of IPC needs to be maintained. 28. Insofar as offence under Section 120-B of IPC is concerned, it is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that seldom direct evidence would be available to be placed before the Court for establishing the offence under Section 120-B of IPC. Further, the Courts are not precluded from inferring from the set of circumstances that offence under Section 120-B of IPC as is held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohammad Khalid v. State of West Bengal reported in (2002) 7 SCC 334, wherein the Hon’ble Apex - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:4878 CRL.A No. 40 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 35 of 2012 CRL.A No. 45 of 2012 AND 1 OTHER Court reiterated the principles of law enunciated in the Constitution Bench in Kehar Singh v. State of West Bengal reported in (1988) 3 SCC 609. 29. In the case on hand, but for the active involvement of accused Nos.1 to 3 in processing the request of accused No.4 represented by accused Nos.5 and 6, the loan would not have been sanctioned based on the appraisal note and processing of the request of accused No.4. While establishing the offence under Section 120-B of IPC each and every conspirator need not know entire design of the final act. What is to be looked into is but for the individual role played by each of the conspirators, if the final act is not accomplished, the element of existence of conspiracy must be inferred by the Court. 30. Therefore, the argument putforth on behalf of the appellants that it is accused No.1 who was whole and sole responsible for granting of the loan beyond the scope and ambit of the State Bank of Mysore, TATA Silk Farm Branch cannot be countenanced in law. Therefore, conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 120-B of IPC also needs to be maintained. - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:4878 CRL.A No. 40 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 35 of 2012 CRL.A No. 45 of 2012 AND 1 OTHER 31. Having said thus, material evidence on record does not establish any positive material that there was an pecuniary advantage that has been parted away by accused Nos.4 to 6 for the favour that has been granted to accused Nos.4 to 6 by accused Nos.1 to 3 by misusing their official position. 32. While maintaining that there is material on record for upholding the conviction for the offence under Section 420 and 120-B of IPC, ipso facto this Court cannot infer that there was an pecuniary advantage transferred. 33. No doubt, when there is no direct evidence available on record for attracting the offence under Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Courts are not precluded from considering the circumstantial evidence. 34. In the case on hand, there is no such material available on record to show that there was a favour made by accused Nos.1 to 3 to accused Nos.4 to 6 misusing their official position. One such circumstance that is being emphasized by the prosecution in this regard is that accused No.1 was working in State Bank of Travancore, Kanjikuzhy Branch and again was - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:4878 CRL.A No. 40 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 35 of 2012 CRL.A No. 45 of 2012 AND 1 OTHER posted as a head of the branch in TATA Silk Farm Branch, (DGM for Bengaluru region comprising of Tumkur District as well) has shown some extra favour to accused Nos.4 to 6 who have followed him from State of Kerala to State of Karnataka. 35. Under the banking rules and norms, there is no bar for an interstate loan transaction merely on the fact that accused Nos.4 to 6 sought for necessary sanction of the loan through accused No.1. It cannot be held that accused Nos.2 and 3 have received pecuniary advantage in processing the loan at the request of accused Nos.4 to 6 nor there is any other circumstance placed by the prosecution even to infer or presume the existence of pecuniary advantage being transferred by accused Nos.4 to 6 to accused Nos.2 and 3. 36. Accused No.1 – Shivaswami being dead, he was the best person to answer those incriminatory materials and therefore, the arguments put forth on behalf of the prosecution that accused Nos.2 and 3 also shared the portion of pecuniary advantage is farfetched imagination and cannot be countenanced in law. - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:4878 CRL.A No. 40 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 35 of 2012 CRL.A No. 45 of 2012 AND 1 OTHER 37. It is settled principles of law in the criminal jurisprudence that any amount of suspicion would not take the seat of proof likewise, it is equally celebrated principles of criminal justice system that if two views are permissible in the same set of facts and material evidence on record, the view that favours the accused must be preferred. 38. Yet another celebrated principle in the criminal jurisprudence is that prosecution has to travel a long distance between ‘may be proved’ and ‘actual proof thereof’. 39. Keeping in background, these celebrated principles, this Court does not find any compelling circumstances so as to infer the exchange of pecuniary advantage by accused Nos.4 to 6 to accused Nos.2 and 3 so as to maintain the conviction of accused Nos.2 and 3 for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 40. Having said so, the apprehension expressed by the prosecution is that based on the finding recorded by this Court, accused Nos.2 and 3 may file necessary application for their re- instatement and seeking consequential financial benefits. Said - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC:4878 CRL.A No. 40 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 35 of 2012 CRL.A No. 45 of 2012 AND 1 OTHER argument holds sufficient force while considering the case of the parties and also appreciating the material evidence especially when the Courts ventures to acquit a public servant for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 by reversing the finding recorded by the learned Special Judge after due trial. 41. To quell such an apprehension, accused Nos.2 and 3 who are the appellants in Crl.A.Nos.40/2012 ad 35/2012 respectively, have filed affidavits. The contents of the affidavits and the memo as referred to supra would be sufficient enough to quell such apprehension of the prosecution. 42. Therefore, placing the affidavits on record filed by accused Nos.2, 3 and 5, this Court is of the considered opinion that conviction of accused Nos.2 and 3 for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 needs to be set aside. 43. Accordingly, point Nos.1 and 2 are answered partly in the affirmative. - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC:4878 CRL.A No. 40 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 35 of 2012 CRL.A No. 45 of 2012 AND 1 OTHER REG.POINT No.3: 44. This Court having acquitted accused Nos.2 and 3 for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, where minimum punishment of six months simple imprisonment is prescribed, the argument put forth on behalf of the appellants that appellants are in now advanced age and at this distance of time, if they are directed to join the prison by upholding the imprisonment period, severe hardship would be caused to them, cannot be lost sight of. 45. Moreover, since conviction is maintained for the offences punishable under Section 420, 120-B of IPC, where there is no minimum punishment prescribed, this Court is of the considered opinion that by enhancing the fine amount reasonably, if accused Nos.2, 3 and 5 are directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a day till rising of the Court by enhancing the fine amount to Rs.1,00,000/- each for accused Nos.2 to 6, the ends of justice would be met. Accordingly, point No.3 is answered partly in the affirmative. - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC:4878 CRL.A No. 40 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 35 of 2012 CRL.A No. 45 of 2012 AND 1 OTHER REG.POINT No.4: 46. In view of the findings of this Court on point Nos.1 to 3 as above, following: ORDER i. Criminal Appeals are allowed in part. ii. While maintaining the conviction of the appellants for the offences punishable under Section 120-B and 420 of IPC, accused Nos.2, 3 and 5 who are the appellants in Crl.A.Nos.40/2012, 35/2012, 45/2012 are directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a day till rising of the Court and accused Nos.2 to 6 are directed to pay enhanced fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/- each on or before 28.02.2025 failing which accused Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 are directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. iii. Since this Court has acquitted accused Nos.2 and 3 for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC:4878 CRL.A No. 40 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 35 of 2012 CRL.A No. 45 of 2012 AND 1 OTHER Act,1988, fine amount already deposited if any shall be adjusted against the enhanced fine amount. iv. Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records forthwith with copy of this order for the purpose of issuing modified conviction order. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1 CT: BHK