JUDGMENT - N.D. KAMAT, J.:---The appellant Ramchandra Shankarrao Deshpande (Original accused No. 1) was tried along with one Bhaskar Shriram Rudrawar (Original accused No. 2) by the learned Special Judge, Parbhani, and he has been convicted under sections 218, 467, 468, 477-A and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and section 5(2) read with sections 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- or in default to suffer R.I. for two months on each of these counts. The substantive sentences on all the counts have, however, been directed to run concurrently. 2. During the year 1970, the Boring Sub-Division Aurangabad, was carrying out boring work departmentally at Chincholi-Darade, Taluka Jintoor, District Parbhani. At the boring site, the staff consisted of only three persons viz. (1) Accused No. 1 Ramchandra Deshpande, (2) accused No. 2 Bhaskar Rudrawar and (3) D.M. Maske, who were working as Muster clerk, Fitter and Operator respectively. As Muster clerk, it was the duty of accused No. 1 Ramchandra Deshpande to employ labourers, keep a record of their attendance, prepare muster rolls and submit them to the Boring Sub-Division at Aurangabad for sanction. Accordingly, during the period from April to July 1970, accused No. 1 Ramchandra Deshpande prepared and submitted five muster-rolls bearing Nos. 093411, 093435, 093434, 093078 and 093079 to the Boring Sub-Division at Aurangabad. In the Boring Sub-Division at Aurangabad, these muster-rolls and the measurements noted therein were scrutinised and the amounts to be paid to the labourers were sanctioned. Accordingly, one of the Overseers serving in the Sub-Division went to Chincholi-Darade and made payments of the moneys to the labourers whose names appeared in those five muster-rolls. Some time thereafter, somebody made an anonymous application, saying that in the matter of employing labourers for the Boring Division at Chincholi-Darade and in making payments to these labourers the persons concerned had indulged in certain malpractices. The matter was investigated into by P.S.I. Ramrao Joshi attached to the Anti-Corruption and Prohibition Intelligence Bureau at Parbhani and a charge sheet was eventually sent up against accused Nos. 1 and 2 to the Court of the Special Judge at Parbhani under several sections of the Indian Penal Code and also under section 5(2) read with sections 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 1 and 2 to the Court of the Special Judge at Parbhani under several sections of the Indian Penal Code and also under section 5(2) read with sections 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. On the request of the learned Public Prosecutor, the case was split up into five separate special case, one in respect of each of the five muster-rolls. The present case is in respect of the Muster-roll bearing No. 093411. This muster-roll is produced at Ex. 9 and it is for the period from April 24, 1970 to May 15, 1970. The entries in this muster roll are to the effect that one Rajdhar was employed as a helper and 8 others, including (1) Laxman Vithal, (2) Laxman Yada and (3) Laxman Sakhram were employed as male mazdoors for 12 days each and every one of them was paid Rs. 38.64 by way of their wages on May 28, 1970. These three persons purport to have affixed their left hand thumb impression against their names in the muster roll in token of having received the afore-mentioned amount of Rs. 38.64 by way of wages for the work they did for 12 days. 3. According to the prosecution, none of these persons really worked at any time as male mazdoors at the boring site and no moneys were also paid to them and that the accused had fabricated this false document for the purpose of misappropriating the amounts shown against the names of these three persons. Both the accused denied the charge and pleaded not guilty. 4. At the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses, the principal witnesses being (1) P.W. 2 Laxman Vithoba Darade, (2) P.W. 3 Laxman Yadavrao Darade and (3) P.W. 4 Laxman Sakharam Darade. All these three witnesses desposed that they never went to work as male mazdoors at the boring centre and they were also never paid any amount by way of wages. P.W. 11 Dattatraya Kashinath Ghate to whom specimen thumb impressions of these three witnesses were sent for comparison with the disputed thumb impressions on the muster-rolls at Ex. 9 gave evidence to the effect that the thumb impression of Laxman Vithal on the muster roll is not that of P.W. 2 Laxman Vithoba Darade. P.W. 11 Dattatraya Kashinath Ghate to whom specimen thumb impressions of these three witnesses were sent for comparison with the disputed thumb impressions on the muster-rolls at Ex. 9 gave evidence to the effect that the thumb impression of Laxman Vithal on the muster roll is not that of P.W. 2 Laxman Vithoba Darade. With regard to the thumb impressions of P.W. 3 Laxman Yadavrao and P.W. 4 Laxman Sakharam on the muster roll at Ex. 9, he could not give any opinion on the ground that those thumb impressions were not fit for comparison. Accused No. 1 Ramchandra Deshpande did not dispute the fact that P.W. 2 Laxman Vithoba Darade had not been employed as a male mazdoor and no money had also ever been paid to him. He, however, put forth a plea that one Laxman Vithal as mentioned in the muster-roll at Ex. 9 had actually been employed and the amount of his wages was also paid to him. With regard to P.W. 3 Laxman Yadavrao Darade, accused No. 1 Ramchandra Deshpande put forth a plea that he did not remember whether he had been employed as a male mazdoor, but at the same time, he did assert that one Laxman Yada as mentioned in the muster roll had actually been employed and moneys had also been paid to him. With regard to P.W. 4 Laxman Sakharam Darade, accused No. 1 Ramchandra Deshpande seriously contended that he had actually been employed as a male mazdoor and moneys had also been paid to him and that this witness was now deposing falsely for reasons best known to himself. 5. On consideration of all this evidence adduced by the prosecution and after taking into consideration the statement of the accused under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Special Judge came to the conclusion that there was no case whatever as against accused No. 2 Bhaskar Rudrawar. He, therefore, acquitted this accused of all the offences with which he was charged. The learned Special Judge, however, held that accused No. 1 Ramchandra Deshpande was guilty of the offences under sections 218, 467, 468, 477-A and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. He, therefore, acquitted this accused of all the offences with which he was charged. The learned Special Judge, however, held that accused No. 1 Ramchandra Deshpande was guilty of the offences under sections 218, 467, 468, 477-A and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. He, therefore convicted this accused for these offences and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- or in default to suffer R.I. for two months on each of these two counts. Being aggrieved by the convictions recorded and the sentences of imprisonment and fine imposed by the learned Special Judge, accused No. 1 Ramchandra Deshpande has came up in appeal to this Court. 6. Mr. Patankar, learned Advocate for the appellant-accused, urged that the learned Special Judge has seriously erred in convicting his client. According to Mr. Patankar, the evidence of the three principal witnesses examined by the prosecution is unsatisfactory and unbelievable and the same should not have been accepted and relied upon by the Special Judge. Mr. Patankar also urged that even if the evidence of these three witnesses is believed, his client cannot be convicted in the absence of any further evidence establishing dishonest or fraudulent intention on his part. Lastly, Mr. Patankar also urged that the whole trial is vitiated on the ground that contrary to the provisions of section 5(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, the investigation in this case was carried out by a Police Officer below the rank of a District Superintendent of Police. 7. Mr. Patankar is not right in making his last submission that the trial in this case is vitiated on the ground that the investigation was carried out by an officer below the rank of a District Superintendent of Police. It is true that Mr. Ramrao Joshi, who carried out investigation in this case, was a Police Officer below the rank of a District Superintendent of Police, he being at the relevant time either a Sub-Inspector of Police or Inspector of Police. However, before taking up the investigation in this case, he had obtained permission from the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Jintoor and there is, therefore, no substance in Mr. Patankars contention that the trial in this case is vitiated on the ground that Mr. However, before taking up the investigation in this case, he had obtained permission from the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Jintoor and there is, therefore, no substance in Mr. Patankars contention that the trial in this case is vitiated on the ground that Mr. Ramrao Joshi was not authorised to investigate into this offence. 8. Mr. Patankar is, however, right in his submission that the evidence of the three principal witnesses examined by the prosecution should not have been regarded as being sufficient to convict the appellant-accused. P.W. 2 Laxman Vithoba Darade has stated that being an old man, aged about 85 or 90 years, he never went to the boring site for work and he was also not paid any amount on that account. This part of his evidence is also not challenged by the appellant-accused. The case of the accused in this connection is that one Laxman Vithal as mentioned in the muster-roll, Ex. 9, had really been employed as a male mazdoor and he was paid wages for the work he did for 12 days. Mr. Patankar very seriously urged that in the absence of any evidence on record, it would not be right to assume that Laxman Vithoba Darade is the same person as Laxman Vithal mentioned in the Muster-roll at Ex. 9. P.W. 3 Laxman Yadavrao Darade has stated that he did not go to the boring site for work as a labourer at any time and he was also not paid any moneys on that account. With regard to this witness, the case of accused No. 1 Ramchandra Deshpande is that he does not recollect whether P.W. 3 had really been employed as a labourer. He has, however, asserted that one Laxman Yada as mentioned in the muster-roll was actually employed as a labourer and the amount of wages also paid to him. Here again, the difficulty is of assuming that Laxman Yadavrao Darade is the same person as Laxman Yada mentioned in the muster-roll, Ex. 9. P.W. 4 Laxman Sakharam Darade has also stated on oath that he never went to work as a labourer at the boring site and no money was ever paid to him. Here again, the difficulty is of assuming that Laxman Yadavrao Darade is the same person as Laxman Yada mentioned in the muster-roll, Ex. 9. P.W. 4 Laxman Sakharam Darade has also stated on oath that he never went to work as a labourer at the boring site and no money was ever paid to him. This part of his evidence is, however, very seriously challenged by the appellant-accused and he has arrested that this witness had really been employed at a labourer and the amount of his wages was also paid to him. Unfortunately, the finger-print expert to whom the specimen thumb-impressions of this witness were sent for comparison with the disputed thumb-impression on the muster-roll, could not give any opinion on the ground that the disputed thumb-impression was not fit for comparison. When such corroborating evidence was thus not available, it is not known why the prosecution did not think it worthwhile to adduce some other evidence which could have lent some short of corroboration to the evidence of P.W. 4 Laxman Sakharam. Many labourers from Chincholi-Darade were employed at the boring site for some months and some of them could have easily been examined for the purpose of showing that neither of these three principal witnesses of the prosecution was ever seen by them working at the boring centre. That was not done. There is also some material on record to show that P.W. 4 Laxman Sakharam has tried to make material improvements in his story. In order to show that the appellant-accused knew him well, he has stated that the appellant-accused used to go to his well for taking water along with the labourers who were working at the boring centre. The defence has, however, brought it on record that in his statement before the police, this witness had clearly stated that he did not know either the appellant-accused Ramchandra Deshpande or Mr. Gul who was disbursing money at the boring centre. There is, therefore, a serious infirmity in the evidence of this apparently respectable witness Laxman Sakharam Darade. 9. It must be noted that it is not the case of the prosecution that without any work having been actually done at the boring centre, the appellant-accused showed false measurement in the muster-roll and got some moneys sanctioned by the Boring Sub-Division at Aurangabad. 9. It must be noted that it is not the case of the prosecution that without any work having been actually done at the boring centre, the appellant-accused showed false measurement in the muster-roll and got some moneys sanctioned by the Boring Sub-Division at Aurangabad. The work alleged to have been carried out and the measurements mentioned in the muster-roll were actually verified and scrutinised at the Boring Sub-Division at Aurangabad and the amounts to be paid to the labourers were thereupon sanctioned. It, therefore, appears that nine labourers as mentioned in the muster-roll, Ex. 9 did work for the number of days shown against their names. If these labourers who had actually worked at the boring centre did not really receive their wages, one of them at least would have complained to that effect. There is nothing on record to show that any of the labourers, who worked at the boring site, made a complaint saying that he had not received wages for the work done by him. In this view of the matter, I think it would be rather hazardous to accept the bare testimony of these three principal witnesses, especially when there is no other evidence on record to lend corroboration thereto and also when it is shown that the evidence of P.W. 4 Laxman Sakharam Darade suffers from a serious infirmity as indicated above. It is not unlikely that there is a person by name Laxman Vithal and another person by name Laxman Yada and they had worked as male mazdoors at the boring centre. The evidence of P.W. 4 Laxman Sakharam cannot be accepted at its face value when it is shown that his evidence suffers from a serious infirmity. The position, therefore, is that the evidence on record in this case gives rise to a reasonable doubt about the guilt of the appellant-accused and the benefit of such a reasonable doubt must necessarily go to him. 10. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The convictions recorded against and the sentences of imprisonment and fine imposed by the learned Special Judge on the appellant-accused Ramchandra Deshpande are set aside and he is hereby acquitted of all the offences with which he was charged. The amount of fine, if paid, shall be refunded to him. His bail bond shall stand cancelled. -----