Misappropriation through forged loan documents sustains conviction, while any recovered fine must benefit creditors via the liquidator.

Where evidence showed fictitious borrowers, loan papers prepared under the appellant's direction, and bank funds diverted through fabricated promissory notes, conviction for criminal breach of trust, forgery, and using forged documents as genuine was sustained and the sentence was not shown to be excessive. Because the misappropriated money belonged to the bank and the bank was in liquidation, any fine recovered was held payable to the liquidator for distribution among all creditors, not to a single complainant. The conviction and substantive punishment were confirmed, but the destination of the fine was modified accordingly.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant's conviction for criminal breach of trust, forgery, and using forged documents as genuine was sustainable on the evidence; (ii) Whether the fine, if recovered, was payable to the complainant or to the liquidator for the benefit of the creditors.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant's conviction for criminal breach of trust, forgery, and using forged documents as genuine was sustainable on the evidence.

Analysis: The evidence established that the alleged borrowers were fictitious, that the loan applications and promissory notes were prepared and completed under the appellant's direction, and that the money standing to the credit of the bank was not paid out to genuine borrowers. The surrounding circumstances supported the inference that the appellant misappropriated the bank's funds and fabricated the promissory notes to conceal the defalcation. The conviction under the relevant provisions was therefore based on proved facts and was not shown to be excessive in sentence.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentences were upheld and the appeal failed on the merits.

Issue (ii): Whether the fine, if recovered, was payable to the complainant or to the liquidator for the benefit of the creditors.

Analysis: The amount misappropriated belonged to the bank, and once the bank was in liquidation the proper recipient of any fine recovered was the liquidator, so that it could be applied for the benefit of all creditors rather than a single individual.

Conclusion: The direction making the fine payable to the complainant was set aside and replaced by a direction that the fine, if levied, be paid to the liquidator for the benefit of the creditors.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and substantive punishment were confirmed, but the order as to the destination of the fine was modified in favour of the liquidation estate.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the evidence proves that bank funds were misappropriated and forged loan documents were fabricated to conceal the diversion, conviction for breach of trust, forgery, and use of forged documents as genuine is justified; any fine recovered from misappropriation of bank funds should benefit the creditors through the liquidator when the bank is in liquidation.

---