Page No.# 1/14 GAHC010121982014 2025:GAU-AS:15744 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.A./121/2014 VIRENDRA KUMAR DHIR and 2 ORS. S/O LATE AMAR CHAND DHIR 2: MRS. SUNITA DHIR W/O SHRI MONMOHAN DHIR BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF J.P.R. ROAD JORHAT DIST. JORHAT PIN 785002 3: RAJNI DHAR PRINCIPAL RAHI FOUNDATION SCHOOL NOIDA R/O 722 SECTOR 29 NOID VERSUS C.B.I. Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.P CHAKRABORTY, MR A TEWARI, AMICUS CURIAE,MS.A DEKA,MS.A DAS,MS.K KHAN Advocate for the Respondent : SC, CBI, ,, Page No.# 2/14 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER 03/11/2025 Heard Mr. A Tewari, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the appellants and Ms. M Kumari, learned Standing counsel, CBI appearing for the State respondent. 2. The present criminal appeal has been instituted assailing the judgment and order dated 28.06.2013 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, CBI, Assam in Special Case No. 34/2004, convicting the appellants, herein, under Sections 120B/420 IPC and sentencing them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 (one) year along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand), for the offence under Section 120B IPC and further, Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 (one) year along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) for the offence under Section 420 IPC. It was further ordered that in default of payment of fine, the appellants, herein, would suffer Simple Imprisonment for 3 (three) more months. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that M/s Raj Marketing Company Private Limited had banking transactions with the Jorhat Branch of UCO Bank and the Lower Circular Road Branch, Kolkata of the said Bank. The said company had a Cash Credit Account No. 53/C/C- 3RCDF with Jorhat Branch of the Bank and one current account No. C4/90-91 with its Lower Circular Road Branch at Kolkata. The said accounts were operated by the appellants, herein. On 19.03.1991, the said company had presented 5 (five) cheques of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) each, totaling Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs) into their Cash Credit Account No. 53/C/C-3RCDF for collection from their account, operated with the Lower Circular Road Branch, Kolkata of the Bank. The appellants sought for an advance against the cheques, so deposited in the Cash Credit Account. However, the then Branch Manager of the Bank did not permit such advance to be authorized to the company on the ground that the credit balance in the current account of the company operated at its Kolkata Branch stood at Rs.42,807.83, only, which was clearly insufficient to honour the cheques, so deposited. However, it is seen that subsequently, the Divisional Manager, UCO Bank Jorhat Branch, C. L. Page No.# 3/14 Baruah had authorized the Branch Manager, B.K. Ghose (since deceased) to allow overdrawal of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs) against the collection of the cheque worth Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs) to the company. Accordingly, on the same day, Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs) was credited to the C/C account of the company. It is alleged that the Divisional Manager of the bank while authorizing the advance to the company had not taken any steps to examine the sufficiency of fund available in the account maintained by the company at the Lower Circular Road Branch, Kolkata of the Bank. It was further projected that for authorization of the advance, no permission was taken from the Zonal Office. The cheques, as deposited was found to have been received by the company through one of its Directors. Accordingly, the accused persons, which included bank employees, were alleged to have conspired with each other to cheat the bank to the tune of more than Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs). The CBI authorities had carried out a due investigation in the matter and on conclusion of the investigation, a charge-sheet came to be laid against the appellants under Sections 120B/420 IPC. Charges also came to be framed against the accused Bank employees. Prosecution sanctions were duly received for prosecuting the accused bank employees. The learned Trial Court on examining the materials coming on record proceeded to frame a charge under Sections 120B/420 IPC against the appellants, herein. A further charge under Sections 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was framed against the bank employees, i.e., C.L. Baruah and B. K. Ghose. The charge on being read over and explained to the accused persons, including the appellants, herein, they having pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, a trial ensued. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses, including the Investigating Officer. The statements of the appellants were thereafter recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court upon appreciating the evidences coming on record proceeded to convict the appellants, herein, under Sections 120B/420 IPC and sentenced them, as noticed hereinabove. Page No.# 4/14 Being aggrieved, the appellants, herein, have instituted the present proceeding. 4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 5. The learned Trial Court basing on the evidences coming on record as well as the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties had framed the following issues for consideration:- “1. Whether accused Chandan Lal Baruah in April 1991 in his capacity as Divisional manager UCO Bank, Jorhat Branch had entered into a criminal conspiracy with Sri Bipul Ghosh, the then officiating Branch Manager from 6/4/91 to 16/4/91, Jorhat Branch of UCO bank, since deceased and M/s Raj Marketing Co. Pvt. Ltd represented by accuseds Virendra Dhir, Rajni Dhir and Sunita Dhir and in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy fraudulently and in unauthorized manner allowed overdrawing of Rs. 30 lakhs on 10/4/1991 and clean advance of additional Rs. 2,00,500/- against collection of five cheques worth Rs. 25 lakhs into the cash credit account of the company maintained at UCO bank Jorhat Branch without obtaining information from the drawee branch of those 5 cheques regarding the advisability of honouring those cheques and later fraudulently got Rs. 30 lakhs transferred to the said account of drawee branch from the CC account of the company at Jorhat branch of UCO bank and there by cheated the UCO bank Jorhat Branch of Rs. 32,00,500/- causing wrongful loss to the bank and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves? 2. Whether the accused C. L. Baruah in his capacity as Divisional Manager UCC bank Jorhat Branch, a public servant had committed the offence of criminal misconduct by allowing Raj Marketing Company Pvt. Ltd. over drawl facility of Rs. 30 lakhs by resorting to illegal and corrupt means and by abusing his position as such public servant and thereby committed an offence u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P. C. Act 1988?” 6. The appellants, herein, before the learned Trial Court had raised a plea that the issue involved with regard to the allowing of overdrawal facility by the company to the tune of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs) had been resolved in the form of a compromise Page No.# 5/14 between the bank and the company and the company had cleared all its liabilities to the bank. Accordingly, it was contended that the continuation of the criminal proceeding is a futile exercise. The said issue was examined by the learned Trial Court and the Trial Court had drawn the following conclusions:- “The Id counsel for the accuseds No. 3,4, 5 argued that Deposit of five cheques in to the bank by the accused persons does not prove any dishonest intention on the part of the accused persons nor establishes meeting of minds with other accused persons to do an illegal act. None of the PWs on record stated that Raj Marketing Co Pvt. Ltd had tried to cheat the bank. The existence of an agreement to do an illegal act, one of the primary ingredients of the offence U/S1208 amongst accused persons is not evident in the prosecution evidence. According to the Ld advocate the company had been having monitory transactions with the bank since it was incorporated in the year 1986 and had enjoyed cash credit limit of Rs.50 lacs sanctioned by the Zonal office. Now according to ld counsel the source with regard to the allegation that the company had nurtured dishonest intention to cheat the bank in connivance with the accused C.L. Baruah, the then Divisional Manager and B.K. Ghosh officiating branch manager at the relevant point of time, in absence of Mr. S. R. Lanke, who was on leave, has not been proved. Thus according to Ld counsel circumstances alone cannot be used to bring home the charge against the accused persons No.3, 4 and 5. The Ld advocate for the accused No.3 to 5 in support of his argument put reliance upon the decision of the supreme court as reported in 20013 SCC 451. The Id advocate had brought the attention of the court to para18 of the decision. Where in it was observed by the Apex Court as follows "the last circumstance which has been used against the appellant is that after the alleged occurrence he absconded from his house and surrendered in court only after about a month from the date of alleged occurrence. The only evidence on this circumstance is of the Investigating Officer (PW.10) who has stated that during the course of investigation he received secret information to the effect that the appellant was seen fleeing away wearing only undergarments and in order to verify the same, he left the police station along with Page No.# 6/14 the armed forces in search of the accused, went to the house of one Mithlesh Jha (husband of appellant's sister) at Village Murli where he was informed that Chandra Mohan Mishra, father of the appellant, had gone there in search of him and he having not found him there, went to the place of other relatives for searching him. This witness has nowhere stated from whom he received the secret information inasmuch as such information cannot be made a basis to prove this circumstance for being used against the appellant. The other portion of the evidence of this witness that he learnt at the place of appellant's brother-le-law, Mithlesh Jha, that his father, Chandra Mohan Mishra had come to the house of Mithlesh Jha and gone to the places of other relatives in search of the appellant could have been proved by examining Mithlesh Jha and Chandra Mohan Mishra who could have been the best persons to prove this fact, but, for the reasons best known to the prosecution, they have been withheld. It may be stated that the Investigating Officer has nowhere stated that he ever visited the house of the appellant nor any other witness stated that the appellant was not present in his house after the occurrence. Thus, we find there is no credible material to prove this circumstance. In any view of the matter, this circumstance cannot be used against the appellant as from his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, It would be amply clear that this circumstance was never put to him and consequently the same cannot be used." According to Ld PP there is sufficient evidence in the form of both documentary end oral evidence establishing the fact of accused Raj Marketing Company Ltd. represented by Virendra Dhir, Rajni Dhir and Sunita Dhir of having conspired with other accused persons to cheat the bank to the tune of Rs.32,00,000/- causing wrongful loss to the bank and as such the ratio in the decision cited above by the Ld advocate above is not applicable in the present case besides the facts and the circumstances in the said case are not similar with the instant case. The Ld PP had further contended in course of his argument that the objection with regard to the non admissibility of ext-12 to ext-18 again is not acceptable since all these documents had been admitted by the court though under objection. The LD PP had relied upon the decision of constitutional bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in AIR 1961 Page No.# 7/14 Supreme Court 1655 in this connection. The Apex court in Javer Chand and others, appellants Vs. Phokhraj Surana, respondent had held that once a document has been admitted in evidence, as aforesaid, it is not open either to the Trial Court itself or to a Court of Appeal or revision to go behind that order. Such an order is not of those judicial orders which are liable to be reviewed or revised by the same Court or a Court of superior jurisdiction, The Ld PP further contended that aftermath of the Judgment of Nikhil Merchant Vs CBI and another as cited by the Ld defence counsel above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in another decision Glan Singh Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & amp; Another Respondents had held a contrary view in the light of these three decisions; B.S. Joshi vs State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675; Nikhil Merchant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another (2008) 9 SCC 677; and Manoj Sharma vs. State and Others (2008) 16 SCC1. The relevant portions have been quoted as follows "in these decisions, this Court has indirectly permitted compounding of non- compoundable offence. One of us, Hon'ble Mr. Justice, Markandey Katju, was a member to the last two decisions. Section 320, Cr.P.C. mentions certain offences as compoundable, certain other offences as compoundable with the permission of the Court, and the other offences as non- compoundable vide Section 320(7) Section 420, IPC, one of the counts on which the petitioner has been convicted, no doubt, is a compoundable offence with permission of the Court in view of Section 320, Cr.P.C. but Section 1208 IPC, the other count on which the petitioner has been convicted, is a non-compoundable offence. Section 1208 (Criminal conspiracy) is a separate offence and since it is a non-compoundable offence, we cannot permit it to be compounded. The Court cannot amend the statute and must maintain judicial restraint in this connection. The Courts should not try to take over the function of the Parliament or executive. It is the legislature alone which can amend Section 320 Cr.P.C. We are of the opinion that the above three decisions require to be re-considered as, in our opinion, something which cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. In our, prima facie, opinion, non-compoundable offences cannot be permitted to be compounded by the Court, whether directly or indirectly. Hence, the above three decisions do not appear to us to be correctly decided". Thus according to the Ld PP the argument of the Id counsel for the accused in the light of Nikhil Merchant decision Page No.# 8/14 that the present case deserve to be quashed is not acceptable. Further countering the argument of the Id defence counsels that exts-32 to 49 being not admissible same being certified copies of the originals, the Ld PP contended that the documents had been certified by the Court where originals have been held up in trial and cannot be produced without much difficulty. Thus submission of the LD defence counsels about ext-32 to ext-49 not being admissible cannot be accepted. …..Now so far the fact of allowing sanction advice on telephone by Zonal Manager enhancing the existing CC limit beyond Rs. 50 lacs allowed to the company is concerned, PW9 stated that the Zonal Manager had already exhausted his limit of extending CC limit to the company and the Zonal Manager even if he wanted could not allow enhancement of overdrawal facility to Raj Marketing Co. Pvt. Ltd. Further it is evident from the evidence of PW 9 M. P. Surana, the Chief Officer from May 1992 to 15/7/95 of Zonal Office UCO bank Guwahati that the accused C. L. Baruah, Divisional Manager at the relevant point of time Le. April 1991 UCO bank Jorhat Division was empowered to allow cash credit limit only up to Rs, 1 lac and the Branch Manager to the tune of Rs. 5,000/-. Thus by allowing overdrawal facility to the tune of Rs. 30 lacs and advance of 2,00,500/- the accused had acted illegally knowing well that the Zonal Manager had exhausted his power to enhance the cash Credit limit by already allowing as CC limit of Rs. 50 lacs to the Raj Marketing Company Ltd. PW 10 I.0 had stated that the ext-49, the certified copy of the ledger in respect of current A/c No. C4/90-91 of Raj Marketing Co. Pvt. Ltd that had been maintained by Raj Marketing Co. Pvt. Ltd at Lower Circular Road branch of UCO bank Kolkata shows a credit balance of Rs 42,815.34/-. According to PW 10 ext-48 is the certified copy of the register of outward bills of collection of the UCO bank Jorhat branch. It is evident from ext-48 that five cheques bearing No. 451471, 451472, 451473, 451474 and 451475 for Rs. 5 lacs each were deposited on 19/3/91 for collection and all these cheques were issued by Raj Marketing Co. Pvt. Ltd drawn on their current account maintained with UCO bank Lower Circular Road Branch, Kolkata. It is further evident from the statement of current account at Lower Circular Road Page No.# 9/14 Branch, ext-49 that no such cheques had been deposited in the said current account at any point of time. Which clearly indicates that before depositing all those five cheques for Rs. 5 lacs each into Jorhat Branch of UCO bank, the Raj Marketing Co. Pvt. Ltd was aware that it did not have sufficient fund at the current account at Lower Circular Road branch of UCO bank to honour those cheques. Thus the dishonest intention on the part of the accused persons 3 to 5 and the connivance of accused No.1, C. L. Baruah and accused No. 2 B. K. Ghose (since deceased) in this regard is also evident since accused no.land accused no.2 instead of sending those cheques to Lower circular branch of UCO bank Kolkata, the drawee branch by registered post had handed over those cheques to PW 6 Mahim Paul an employee of the company.” 7. The dishonest intention on the part of the Directors of the company coming on record from the evidences adduced by the PW6 Mohim Paul was appreciated by the learned Trial Court and had drawn the following conclusions: “PW6 Mahim Paul in clear terms had stated in his evidence that in the year 1991 he was doing business of Cigarettes on commission basis under Raj Marketing Co. Pvt. Ltd. On 19/3/91 on the instruction of Virendra Kr. Dhir he went to UCO bank Jorhat Branch and collected five cheques and handed back those cheques to V. K. Dhir, Director of Raj & Company. In acknowledgement of receipt of those cheques he had put…his signature on the dispatch Register, ext-25 (proved in original) of the bank. PW6 identified his signature, ext-25(1) on ext-25 when it was shown to him in the court. During re-examination he had stated that he had received those documents as mentioned in ext-25. To a query made by the court as to his knowledge about the cheque and a draft he had stated that he cannot differentiate between the draft and a cheque. Ext-25 reflects cheques bearing No. 451471, 451472, 451473, 451474 and 451475 for Rs. 5 lacs each were shown to have been dispatched through hand delivery to lower circular road Kolkata branch of UCO bank. The ext-25 shows that the PW-6 was telling the truth. Thus it is evident from the above evidence that the sum of Rs.30,000,00/- allowed as over drawl facility and Rs.2,00,500/- as plain advance to accused Raj Marketing Company Pvt. Ltd was without any security and same had been Page No.# 10/14 allowed fraudulently and by corrupt and illegal means. It is also evident from above that the conduct of the accused B.K. Ghosh of Jorhat branch of UCO bank by allowing PW6 Mahim Paul to take those cheques by hand instead of having sent those cheques to the drawee branch at lower circular road branch in Calcutta by registered post that the accused B.K.Ghosh had acted in connivance with accused no. 3 to 5. Then Virendra Dhir, one of the directors of Raj Marketing Company Ltd though allowed the PW6 to collect those five cheques from the Jorhat branch but did not send those cheques to the Lower circular branch and the conduct of the accused definitely is indicative of the fact that they had conspired with the bank officials for an unlawful gain as well. This fact of depositing five cheques for Rs.5lakh each into the Jorhat branch of UCO bank has also been admitted by the DW2 Vijay Dhir, director of Raj and Company Ltd, a sister concern of Raj Marketing Company Ltd of which accused Virendra Dhir was a director. It is also evident from the evidence of DW-2 that those five cheques were handed over to one of their employees by name of Sarkar to deposit those cheques at Kolkata branch of the UCO Bank but said Sarkar did not deposit those cheques at Kolkata branch. Which establishes the fact that C.L Baruah had allowed over drawing of 30,00,000/- to the company without those cheques having been deposited at the lower circular branch of UCO bank Kolkata and it is admitted by the DW2 that those cheques were drawn on Kolkata branch of the UCO bank.” 8. With regard to the approval projected to have been received by the Zonal Office for authorizing to the company an overdrawal facility to the tune of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs) against the collection of 5 (five) cheques of Rs.25,20,000/-, the learned Trial Court had drawn the following conclusions:- “Thus it is evident from the evidence of PW9 that the decision to allow overdrawal facility to the company to the tune of Rs.30,000,00/- against collection of five cheques of Rs 25,20,000/- which were never in existence was that of the Divisional Manager alone and he was proved to have done so fraudulently by abusing his position as public servant for obtaining pecuniary gain to Raj Marketing Co. Pvt. Ltd Page No.# 11/14 represented by accused No.3 to 5. It is also admitted by DW2 in his cross examination that accused Rajni Dhir, Sunita Dhir and Virendra Dhir are the directors of Raj Marketing Company Pvt. Ltd and the fact that Cheque bearing no. 295715 for Rs.30,000,00/- in favour of your selves dated 10/4/91 and cheque bearing no. 295715 for Rs.2,00,500/- in favour of yourself dated 10/4/91 and ext-8 is a cheque bearing no. 295710 for Rs 25,20,000/- in favor of yourself dated 11/3/91 bear the signature of Virendra Dhir and Rajni Dhir respectively and the fact that both Virendra Dhir and accused Rajni Dhir are the directors of the company is also not disputed. It is evident from the evidence of PW 10 that these amounts of Rs. 30 lacs and Rs. 2,00,500/- lacs, respectively, had been allowed to be deposited in to the cash credit account by B. K. Ghosh since deceased the then officiating Branch Manager of UCO bank Jorhat Branch on 10/4/1991 with the concurrence of C. L. Baruah who had allowed the said overdrawal on 10/4/91 to the Raj Marketing Company Pvt. Ltd through a letter, ext-17 and fraudulently allowed the transfer of said amount of Rs. 30 lacs from the company's CC account with Jorhat Branch to the current account No. C4/90-91 at Lower Circular Branch in Kolkata telegraphically on the same day without having been empowered to do so.” The PW-10 had stated that ext-34 is the cheque no-295715 Issued by Virendra Kumar Dhir for Raj Marketing Pvt. Ltd dated 10/4/91for Rs30,00,000/-of UCO bank Jorhat branch and ext-35 is the chequeNo-295713 dated 10/4/91for Rs.200,500/- Issued by the said person of UCO bank Jorhat Branch. Both these cheques had been issued in favor of yourselves drawn on UCO bank Jorhat Branch. The ext-34 was issued for Issuance of TT on lower circular branch of UCO bank, Kolkata. Ext 36 is the TT issue voucher dated 10/4/91 of UCO bank Jorhat-branch in favour of the company on lower circular road branch of UCO bank Kolkata branch for Rs.30,00,000/-. These facts have been acknowledged by the accused in his examination u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. that he did not have the power to give advance of more than rupees one lakh. Page No.# 12/14 PW2 Mrs. Swagata Barthakur during March 1991 was posted as clerk at UCO Bank Jorhat branch. According to PW2 she had made the entry,ext-3(1) on page 56 of the ext-3,over draft, cash credit cheque pass register and as per the entry ext- 3(1) Rs.25,20,000/- was given in over draft to Raj Marketing as per the instruction of S.R. Lanke, then senior manager of the bank. Ext-3(2) is the writing and initial of S.R. Lanke, since deceased, authorizing her to make the overdraft to M/S Raj Marketing on 11/3/91. PW 4 Upananda Chakraborty had been working as Assistant Manager CO bank Jormat for the period from November 1991 to July 1999. According to PW 4 ext-3 is the overdraft/cash credit cheque pass register of Jorhat branch pertaining to the period from 11/1/91 to 19/4/91. According to PW 4, ext-8 is the cheque for Rs 25,20,000/-bearing no-295710 dated 11/3/91 issued by Raj Marketing Co. Pvt. Ltd. in favour of UCO bank and ext-8(3) is the initial of accused B.K. Ghosh who verified the cheque and S.R. Lanke had passed the cheque for payment. On the same day an application for DD cum credit voucher,ext-9 for Rs. 25,20,000/- had been made by Raj Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Ext-9(1) is the signature of B.K. Ghosh since deceased and one of the accused in the case signifying that the amount in cheque, ext-8 had been debited. Ext-9 has been made in respect of amount in ext-8 cheque. Thus it is evident that the over drawl facility to the tune of Rs.25,20,000/- allowed to Raj Marketing Company Ltd was without any sanction advice from the Zonal office. Besides these facts have also been acknowledged by the accused C.L. Baruah in his statement U/S313 of Cr.P.C. and as per law anything admitted in the statement u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. can be used in the evidence against the accused when there is evidence in corroboration of those facts admitted and in this case there is sufficient corroboration of those facts by the above PWs.” 9. It is on the basis of the said conclusion that the learned Trial Court answered the points for determination against the appellants, herein, and proceeded to convict them under Sections 120B/420. This Court has perused the conclusions drawn by the learned Trial Court in the light of the evidences coming on record and finds that the said conclusions have been Page No.# 13/14 so drawn strictly basing on a due and proper appreciation of the evidences coming on record and no infirmity is found to exist therein. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants, herein, under Section 120B/420 IPC would not mandate any interference. 10. Having drawn the above conclusions, this Court notices that the offence involved in the matter was committed by the appellants, herein, in the year 1991, when they had presented 5 (five) cheques, each, totaling Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) and thereafter, made a claim for being allowed overdrawal facility of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs). More than 34 years have lapsed since the date of commission of the offence in the matter by the appellants. This Court finds that the appellants, herein, have been pursuing the matter before the learned Trial Court and thereafter, in the present appeal before this Court for the last around 21 years. 11. Accordingly, considering the long lapse of time occasioning in the matter since the date of commission of the offence involved in the matter by the appellants, this Court is of the considered view that the appellants, herein, are entitled to be extended with the benefits under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The appellants, having not been convicted under any provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, there would be no bar for this Court to extend to the appellants the benefit under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The said benefit being permissible to be granted by this Court in exercise of its Appellate jurisdiction, this Court extends the benefit under the Act of 1958 to the appellants, herein. 12. Accordingly, for the reasons recorded, hereinabove, the appellants, herein, are given the benefit under the Act of 1958 and the sentences modified to the effect that instead of sending the appellants to jail, they should be given the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 13. This Court has only modified the sentencing with regard to imprisonment of the appellants, herein, and the fine as imposed by the learned Trial Court not having been interfered with, the appellants, herein, would be liable to deposit the fine amount. 14. In view of the above discussion, it is directed that the appellants, herein, will file two Page No.# 14/14 sureties to the tune of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) each, along with a personal bond before the learned Special Judge, CBI, Assam, Guwahati, Kamrup and undertake to the effect that the appellants, herein, shall maintain peace and good behaviour during the period of 1 (one) year from the date of filing of the bond. The aforesaid bond be filed by the appellants within a period of 6 (six) months from the date of this order along with the deposit of the fine amount as imposed by the learned Trial Court. 15. With the above observations and directions, the present appeal stands disposed of. 16. As the appellants were represented in the present proceedings by an Amicus Curiae appointed by this Court, this Court requires the Trial Court to issue notices to the appellants for appearing before it for compliance of the directions passed, hereinabove. 17. Registry to send down the records to the learned Trial Court along with a copy of this order for information. 18. Before parting with the records of this case, this Court appreciates the able assistance rendered by Mr. A Tewari, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellants, towards disposal of the present appeal. JUDGE Comparing Assistant