(a) In E.O.C.C.Nos.563 of 1984 and 1410 of 1985, subject matter of Crl.A6 in E.O.C.C.Nos.563 and 564 of 1984, subject matter of Crl.A.Nos.895 and 896 of 1995 and A7 in E.O.C.C.No.1410 of 1985 was the Lower Division Clerk working in the office of the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Madras (JCC I & E).A7 in E.O.C.C.No.564 of 1984, subject matter of Crl.A.No.896 of 1995 and A6 in E.O.C.C.No.1410 of 1985, subject matter of Crl.A.No.897 of 1985 was the Upper Division Clerk working in the office of the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Madras (JCC I & E).A8 in E.O.C.C.No.1410 of 1985, subject matter of Crl.A.No.897 of 1995 was Class IV employee in the office of the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Madras, assisting A6 and A7 in handling the files.(b) Cash compensatory support is given by the Government of India to eligible exporters and they are eligible at 10% of the export value.The exporter should be eligible member in the Handloom Export Promotion Council and it should have been a registered firm as exporter.A declaration in the prescribed form is to be submitted along with application that no such application was preferred for grant of cash compensatory support with details of invoice, exported goods value and the name of the party to whom they have exported, the particulars as to the ship through which they were exported, income tax declaration, membership certificate issued by the Handloom Export Promotion Council(HEPC) and the registration certificate issued by the said Council, bank certificate in original in the prescribed form and shipping bills giving the details of the cargo.Cash compensatory support should be given only through the bank negotiated or the bank nominated by the firm, if the firm applies for the first time for payment of cash compensatory support.(c) In E.O.C.C.No.563 of 1984, subject matter of Crl.A.No.895 of 1995, A1 firm applied on 30.3.1983 to the JCC I & E, Madras for cash compensatory support to the tune of Rs.91,940/- as if they have exported handloom clothes to the value of Rs.9,91,400/-.A6 prepared voucher in 'C' form which contained all the particulars relating to the issue of cash compensation to A1 firm.A cheque for Rs.91,940/- was issued in favour of the Indian Overseas Bank, Madras for payment to A1 firm.A2 gave a receipt in the letter-head of Shri Krishna Kumar Textiles for Rs.91,940/- and has signed as Krishnakumar in the letter-head of A1 firm.Account was opened in the Indian Overseas Bank, Washermanpet, Madras by A3 as Krishnakumar.A4 and A5 accompanied A3 to the Bank when account was opened.A3 operated the account by signing as Krishnakumar and withdrew the money.Thus, A1 to A6 entered into a criminal conspiracy and A2 produced false and forged documents and in pursuance of the conspiracy A3 opened account in the fictitious name and A6 having prepared 'C' form with false particulars she abetted the other accused.(d) In E.O.C.C.No.564 of 1984, subject matter of Crl.A.No.896 of 1995, A1 firm applied for cash compensatory support on 31.10.1982 for Rs.96,160/-, on 20.12.1982 for Rs.93,910/- and on 3.1.1983 for Rs.96,160/-, on 29.11.1982 for Rs.92,410/- and on 22.3.1983 for Rs.91,660/-.These applications were processed by A6 and one application by A7 in the office of the JCC I & E, Madras.On these applications payments were made by cheques and the cheques were despatched by registered post to A1 firm.All these cheques were despatched in the account No.301 opened in the Bank of Madura Limited, Triplicane, Madras, in the name of M/s. Rajaram Textiles (A1).The amounts were withdrawn from the above account and deposited in the account of S.Ramkumar opened by A3 and they were later withdrawn.Thus A2 to A5 with the active connivance of A6 and A7 entered into criminal conspiracy, submitted false claims to the JCC I & E office towards cash compensatory support to the total sum of Rs.4,70,290/- and obtained the same for which they were not entitled to and that A6 and A7 failed to prepare the cheques in the name of the bank and enabled the cheques to be despatched to A1 firm.(e) In E.O.C.C.No.1410 of 1985, subject matter of Crl.Some of the applications were processed by A6 and some of the applications by A7 in the office of the JCC I & E, Madras.After perusing all the papers, payments were made by cheques and the cheques were despatched by registered post to A1 firm.All these cheques were despatched in the bank and amounts were withdrawn.JUDGMENT S. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1.The appeal in Crl.The appeal in Crl.The appeal in Crl.Since the offence involved in all the three matters are similar in nature and some of the respondents/accused and the appellant are also one and the same, all the three cases have been taken for joint hearing and disposed of by this common judgment.The brief facts that led to the filing of this appeal are as follows:-Thus, A2 to A5 with the active connivance of A6 to A8 entered into criminal conspiracy, submitted false claims to the JCC I & E office towards cash compensatory support to the total sum of Rs.4,62,300/- and obtained the same for which they were not entitled to and that A6 and A7 failed to prepare the cheque in the name of the bank and enabled the cheques to be despatched to A1 firm.In all the three cases separate evidence was let in before the trial Court.In E.O.C.C.No.564 of 1984, subject matter of the appeal in Crl.As per trial Court judgment, when the accused in E.O.C.C.No.563 of 1984 were questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the basis of the incriminating evidence made available against them, A1 to A5 have stated that they do not know anything, A6 has stated that she was attached to the despatch section and she was asked to attend to this work and therefore she filled up the 'C' form and thereafter she handed over the file to the Dealing Assistant.When questioned A2, A3 and A6, they pleaded not guilty to the charges.Then after further cross-examination of all the witnesses, A2, A3 and A6 were questioned under Section 313(b) Cr.P.C. and they stated that they have nothing to do with the case.Eventhough they stated that they have got witnesses to be examined in defence, they did not examine any witness.As per trial Court judgment, when the accused in E.O.C.C.No.564 of 1984 were questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the basis of the incriminating evidence made available against them, A2 to A5 have admitted that they were partners of M/s.Ranganayaki Extraction Company, Kumarapalayam and the transaction with regard to that company with Bank and other offices and they have denied all other evidence against them.A6 and A7 admitted having prepared the 'C' forms and they stated that they have nothing to do with the cases.When questioned A2, A3, A6 and A7, they pleaded not guilty to the charges.Then P.Ws.43 and 44 were examined on the side of prosecution and the accused were given opportunity to cross-examine all the witnesses.Thereafter accused were questioned under Section 313(b) Cr.P.C. and they stated that they have nothing to do with the case.The accused did not examine any witness in defence.As per trial Court judgment, when the accused in E.O.C.C.No.1410 of 1985 were questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the basis of the incriminating materials made available against them, A2 to A5 have admitted that they were partners of M/s.Ranganayaki Extraction Company, Kumarapalayam and the transaction with regard to that company with Bank and other offices and they have denied all other evidence against them.A6 stated that the applications will be checked at the Special Counter and then only they will be sent to him.A7 stated that she is only attached to despatch and that since the Dealing Assistant was not available she was asked to attend the preparation of 'C' forms.A8 also denied the evidence against him.When questioned A2, A3, A4 and A6 to A8, they pleaded not guilty to the charges.Then P.Ws.34 and 35 were examined on the side of prosecution.Thereafter accused were questioned under Section 313(b) Cr.P.C. and they stated that they have nothing to do with the case.The accused did not examine any witness in defence.The trial Court, after considering the evidence adduced on either side, by recording finding that A2, A3 and A6 in E.O.C.C.No.563 of 1984; that A2, A3, A6 and A7 in E.O.C.C.No.564 of 1984 and that A2 to A4 and A6 to A8 in E.O.C.C.No.1410 of 1985 are not guilty in respect of the charges levelled against them, acquitted them by separate judgments.Challenging the said judgments, these appeals are filed by the Complainant.He further submitted that the trial Court is not correct in rejecting the evidence of P.Ws.14 and 16 showing that A6 was privy to the obtaining of cash compensatory support by fraudulent means by the other accused in the case.14.With regard to E.O.C.C.No.564 of 1984 subject matter of Crl.A.No.896 of 1995, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases for the appellant/complainant vehemently contended that the finding of the trial Court not considering the evidence of P.Ws.2, 5, 6, 9, 11 and 12 with regard to the identity of the accused, is not correct, in that the above witnesses had ample opportunities to see the accused earlier for identifying the accused in the Court and as such, the test identification parade was not at all necessary to identify the accused.He also submitted that the trial Court is not proper in rejecting the evidence of P.W.34, Handwriting Expert that there were dissimilarities in the writing compared by the Expert, though Expert has given evidence that there are no dissimilarities.He further submitted that the trial Court is not correct in rejecting the evidence of P.Ws.23 and 26 showing that A6 and A7 were privy to the obtaining of cash compensatory support by fraudulent means by the other accused in the case.With regard to E.O.C.C. No. 1410 of 1985 subject matter of Crl.A.No.897 of 1995, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases for the appellant/complainant vehemently contended that the finding of the trial Court not considering the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 5, 8, 10, 11, 28, 30 and 31 with regard to the identity of the accused, is not correct, in that the above witnesses had ample opportunities to see the accused earlier for identifying the accused in the Court and as such, the test identification parade was not at all necessary to identify the accused.

Sections cited: Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code