the higher officers, inspection of the branch was carried out on 09.01.2004. When confronted the accused persons got the amount deposited immediately on the next day. It came out in the report that 3 (2022) 14 SCC 392 : 2021 INSC 697 Page 5 of 7advance was enjoyed by the petitioners without payment of any interest. It was not a loan transaction as was sought to be argued. 9. The argument that the High Court had failed to consider all the issues in detail is merely to be noticed and rejected as it was a case of confirmation of conviction by the Trial Court. Relevant facts have been noticed and relevant evidence discussed by the High Court, as it was agreeing with the views expressed by the Trial Court. 10. The manner in which the entries were made in the accounts could not be disputed. In SLP (Crl.) No.3787 of 2024, the amount deposited by the petitioner after the inspection was to the tune of ₹ 20.05 lakhs (Rupees twenty lakhs and five thousand only) which was ₹ 21.45 lakhs (Rupees