in hand, there was no instrument submitted. Even the temporary overdraft granted to the parties was not reported to the head office. After the inspection, the fraudulent entries were pointed out on 09.01.2004 to the tune of ₹ 1,10,66,100/- (Rupees one crore ten lakhs sixty-six thousand and one hundred only) in the case of 10 borrowers including the petitioners. Immediately on the next date, the payment got deposited by the manager of the bank. It is in this factual scenario that the Trial Court convicted the petitioners, and the conviction was upheld by the High Court. 7. The star argument raised by Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners was that there were 5 separate trials of the accused. However, the High Court without discussing the evidence in detail in each case separately has upheld the conviction by merely noticing the details of the exhibits, the prosecution witnesses and the defence witnesses in the matter. The petitioners cannot be said to be the persons involved in