JUDGMENT - S.M. HAJARNAVIS, J.:---These three criminal appeals are directed by the accused against the judgment delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Poona, who has convicted them under section 120-B read with section 408 of the Indian Penal Code, section 120-B read with section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, section 120-B read with section 471 of the Indian Penal Code, sections 465, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code read with ssection 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced accused Nos. 3 and 4 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months on each of the first three counts. Accused No. 2 was also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and a fine of Rs. 1500/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months on each of the first three counts. Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. No separate sentences were imposed against any of the accused under sections 465, 467 and 468 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. These accused along with five other accused were serving in Poona Municipal Corporation at the relevant time. It appears that there was over-payment to the employees of the conservancy department of the Municipal Corporation to the extent of Rs. 15,431.89 during the period from 1st March, 1964 to 31st December, 1964. It was the case of the prosecution that all these eight persons have conspired to make such over-payments and thus caused wrongful loss to the Corporation. Accused No. 1 Charles N. Daniel was serving at that time as Sanitary Inspector in the Health Department of the Corporation, while accused No. 3 Gangaram Jadhav, accused No. 3 Laxman Adsul and accused No. 5 Raghunath Chowk were, at that relevant time, serving as Mukadams in the Sanitary department. Accused No. 4 Madhukar Joshi was serving as Pay Clerk in the Conservancy Department. Accused No. 6, Madhusudan Kale, accused No. 7 Vishnu Gandhi and accused No. 8 Miss Kunda Bhende were the Internal Auditors of the Corporation. Accused No. 4 Madhukar Joshi was serving as Pay Clerk in the Conservancy Department. Accused No. 6, Madhusudan Kale, accused No. 7 Vishnu Gandhi and accused No. 8 Miss Kunda Bhende were the Internal Auditors of the Corporation. It may be mentioned that there is a Refuge Transport Division of the Health Department, the function of which was to collect refuge from different wards, load it in the refuge vans with the help of the labourers attached to each van and dump it at the specified place during the day. Each van is allotted a number of labourers whose names are noted down in the diary by a Mukadam at the place from which these refuge vans start in the morning, viz., from High Level Tank. This job was done by Mukadam Basappa Shivram Kamble (P.W. 20). It may also be mentioned that as soon as these vans started early in the morning with the complement of the labourers and drivers, they had to pass to the various wards allotted to them via Swargate Naka, where another Mukadam of the Sanitary Department, Accused No. 3 Laxman Adsul was posted, whose job was to note down serially the numbers of the vans and the names of the labourers attached to these vans. This, he had to note on printed forms maintained in duplicate, a copy of which he maintained himself and the other copy was sent to the Health Department every day. These forms are called Rojavadas. Accused No. 3 had also to prepare the Muster rolls every day on the basis of the Rojavadas after all the vehicles, which were about 27 in number, had passed. It may be mentioned that all these vehicles were supposed to pass through Swargate Naka before 8 O clock in the morning because they were supposed to collect the refuge right from the morning during the course of the day. It may be mentioned that the permanent complement of labour attached to these refuge vans was 189 labourers. It often happened that some of the permanent labourers were absent. In their place, the substituted labourers were engaged. The substituted labourers were available at the High Level Tank where they collected at the relevant time offering their services. They were recruited in the absence of the permanent labourers. It often happened that some of the permanent labourers were absent. In their place, the substituted labourers were engaged. The substituted labourers were available at the High Level Tank where they collected at the relevant time offering their services. They were recruited in the absence of the permanent labourers. The Muster Roll of these substituted labourers was prepared separately from the Muster Roll of the permanent labourers. In addition to this, seasonal work was undertaking by this department viz. at the time of onset of the monsoon or in the monsoon itself when additional labour was required to be recruited to collect the refuge which accumulates and those employees were not called substituted labourers because they were additional employees for the season and that was why they were called seasonal labourers and their Muster Roll was also prepared separately. It will be, therefore, clear that on the basis of Rojavada, three Muster Rolls were prepared. It is the case of the prosecution that accused No. 4 Madhukar Joshi had to prepare the pay bills of only permanent employees with the help of accused No. 2 Gangaram Jadhav and accused No. 5 Raghunath Chowk who is already acquitted. It may be mentioned that the Muster Rolls were sent to the accused No. 4 at the end of the month and he was expected to make the payment on the basis of the Muster Rolls that were sent to him and he was supposed to disburse the payment to the employees on the spot at High Level Tank with the help of the above-mentioned two employees on the 3rd day of the next month. It is the case of the prosecution that each employee was given a pay slip on the earlier day showing the amount of pay that he was to receive on the day of the payment. He has to be present at the High Level Tank and whenever his name was called, he had to present that slip to accused No. 5 first who used to take the thumb impression or signature of the employee and he used to call for the amount mentioned in the slip and accused No. 4 Madhukar Joshi used to pay that amount through accused No. 2 who used to disburse that amount to the employee. It was alleged by the prosecution that some of the employees who had, in fact, not worked for the whole month were shown in the Muster Roll having worked for the whole month and that salary for the whole month was drawn for them but at the time of the payment, the employee was told that he had not worked for the whole month and that he had worked only for a few days and that is why the salary was paid to him only for those days on which he had worked and the rest of the salary was pocketed by accused No. 2 Gangaram Jadhav. It is the case of the prosecution that in this way, accused No. 3, Laxman Adsul, accused No. 4 Madhukar Joshi and accused No. 5, Raghunath Chowk have misappropriated the amount which belonged to the Corporation and for that purpose they have forged and falsified the documents and that is how they have committed the offences. So far as the payment of the substituted employees is concerned, it was done by accused No. 2 Gangaram Jadhav and so far as the payment of the seasonal employees is concerned, accused No. 5 seems to have prepared the bills and made the payments. The rest of the accused have been arraigned as conspirators in this affair of defalcation and falsification of documents. During the enquiry, it was found that the Muster Rolls of the permanent and seasonal employees were in existence and were available, while the Muster Rolls of the substituted employees were not available and were destroyed except those for the months of March and August. V.D. Haldavanekar (P.W. 2) detected some mistakes in the accounts and reported the matter to the Assistant Medical Officer, Shri Diddi. The matter was enquired into and the Internal Auditor Shri Gupte audited the accounts. He found that the seasonal Muster Rolls were missing. He, therefore, reconstructed the seasonal Muster Rolls on the basis of Rojavadas and then came to the conclusion that in all Rs. 15431.89 were misappropriated and he also reported that there must have been conspiracy between the employees. A report was made to the police. The offence was registered and the police, after conducting investigation, charge-sheeted the accused for offences punishable under sections 408, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 15431.89 were misappropriated and he also reported that there must have been conspiracy between the employees. A report was made to the police. The offence was registered and the police, after conducting investigation, charge-sheeted the accused for offences punishable under sections 408, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate, after going through the documents filed by the police, committed the accused to face their trial in the Sessions Court for the above-mentioned offences. At the trial, as stated earlier, charges under sections 408, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the accused. They were read over and explained to the accused. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution led evidence of as many as 27 witnesses and filed voluminous documents in support of their case. The accused were examined under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They stated that they have not committed any offence. Madhukar Joshi, Accused No. 4 stated that he has prepared the pay bills on the basis of the Muster Rolls which were sent to him at the end of the month. He further stated that it was not his job to find out whether the Muster Rolls were prepared correctly, nor was it his job to verify the Muster Rolls on the basis of Rojavadas. He has correctly made pay-bills and the payment on the basis of the Muster Rolls. He stated that he has not made any deductions from the salaries made to the employees. He pleaded that he was innocent and that he had been falsely implicated in this case. Accused No. 2 Gangaram Jadhav stated that he had prepared the pay bills of the substituted labourers on the basis of the muster rolls of the substituted labourers supplied to him. He stated that the Muster Rolls of the substituted labourers were lost and in absence of the substituted Muster Rolls it was not possible for him to explain how the mistake had been committed. The prosecution has not led any evidence to show where the Muster Roll of the substituted employees were lying and in absence of that evidence, he should not be held guilty. The prosecution has not led any evidence to show where the Muster Roll of the substituted employees were lying and in absence of that evidence, he should not be held guilty. So far as accused No. 3 Laxman Kashav Adsul is concerned, he admitted that he was working at Swargate Naka and that it was his job to prepare Rojavadas and the Muster Rolls on the basis of the diary maintained by the driver in which entries were made by Kamble (P.W. 20) at the High Level Tank. He, however, submitted that only the names of the employees mentioned in the diary were entered in the Rojavadas and the Muster Rolls. He submitted that in addition to the labourers on the vans, some other labourers were sent on different work cites, viz., Naidu Hospital and for them no independent Muster Roll was maintained. The learned Judge, after taking all these facts into consideration, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the offence against accused Nos. 1 and 5 to 8. He held accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 guilty for offences punishable under sections 408, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and convicted them for the offences mentioned above. It is against this judgment that these appeals are filed. As these three appeals arise out of the same judgment, they are heard together and are being disposed of together by a common judgment. In my opinion, it is not necessary to discuss all the evidence in this matter as much of the evidence is absolutely irrelevant and useless. Much labour would have been saved if the learned Judge has used some discretion in admitting this evidence. As stated above, the only evidence that has been led against accused No. 4 is that he had to prepare the pay bills on the basis of the Muster Rolls which are maintained by the Mukadam at Swargate and sent to the Head Office. These copies are sent to accused No. 4 for preparing the pay bills and he was supposed to prepare the pay bills on the basis of the Muster Rolls. These copies are sent to accused No. 4 for preparing the pay bills and he was supposed to prepare the pay bills on the basis of the Muster Rolls. There is not an iota of evidence led by the prosecution to show the guilt of the accused No. 4, nor is there any whisper that any mistake has been committed by accused No. 4 or by accused No. 2 who was assisting him in preparing the pay bills on the basis of the Muster Rolls. By what process, the accused No. 4 is found guilty is beyond my comprehension. It is true that some evidence has been led by the prosecution to show that at the time of the payment, accused No. 2 Gangaram Jadhav used to deduct some amount from payments made to labourers. The only evidence that is led by the prosecution is about the short payment by accused Nos. 2, 4 and 5 at the time of actual payment and for that purpose three witnesses have been examined. Daji Kengar (P.W. 10) has been disbelieved by the trial Judge himself and, therefore, it is not necessary to discuss his evidence at all as the learned Public Prosecutor could not show why his evidence should be accepted. Pralhad Shankar Waghmare (P.W. 11) stated that he has made report about the short payment to his union. He evidence showed that short payments were made to him for the months of March, July and November. No grievance seems to have been made by him to the Corporation authority about the short payments. Normally, if his salary was drawn for full month even though he had worked for a limited period, he would have at least demanded a share in the amount which accused No. 2 Jadhav is alleged to have pocketed on his behalf. No does not state that he has demanded that amount. His evidence therefore, sounds that of an accomplish and should not be accepted without independent corroboration. That apart, this man has stated that he had made the report about the short payment to the union and the unions of the labours, especially of the public bodies, are very powerful unions and do not take these things lightly. If an officer were to make a short payment, they would have taken the matter to the higher authorities of the Municipal Corporation. If an officer were to make a short payment, they would have taken the matter to the higher authorities of the Municipal Corporation. This does not seem to have been done and I have, therefore, no hesitation in rejecting this evidence. In my opinion, he is a got-up witness whose evidence should not have been accepted. To the same effect is the evidence of Adnyan Pethade (P.W. 12) which is also liable to be rejected for the same reason. This is all the evidence against Madhukar Joshi accused No. 4. Therefore, nothing has been brought on record to establish that accused No. 4 Madhukar Joshi was responsible for making the deduction, nor has be been shown pocketing that amount. As stated earlier, it was not the duty of accused No. 4 Madhukar Joshi to find out that the Muster Rolls were correctly prepared on the basis of Rojavadas. I have already stated that the prosecution has not shown that the pay bills were not correctly drawn on the basis of the Muster Rolls. On the contrary, it is the case of the prosecution that the Muster Rolls and the Pay bills appear to have been tallied. That being so, accused No. 4 Madhukar Joshi has been wrongly convicted and his conviction is set aside and the fine if he has paid should be refunded and his bail bond should stand cancelled. Mr. Sawant, the learned Public Prosecutor, has strenuously urged that the copies of Rojavadas and Muster Rolls were sent to accused No. 4 Madhukar Joshi, accused No. 2 Gangaram Jadhav and accused No. 5 Raghunath Chowk from Swargate Naka but Haldavanekar himself had to admit in his cross-examination that he had no personal knowledge of the matter. If they were really sent, the best proof would have been the inward and outward registers. As I have already stated, no rules have been shown to me to show that it was the duty of accused No. 4 Madhukar Joshi to scrutinize the Muster Rolls on the basis of the Rojavadas and then prepare the pay bills. Furthermore, there is no evidence to show that the copies of the Rojavadas were also sent by the Health Department to accused No. 4 Madhukar Joshi for that purpose. In absence of the rules and the registers in support, it is not possible to accept this submission of Mr. Sawant. Furthermore, there is no evidence to show that the copies of the Rojavadas were also sent by the Health Department to accused No. 4 Madhukar Joshi for that purpose. In absence of the rules and the registers in support, it is not possible to accept this submission of Mr. Sawant. So far accused No. 3 Laxman Adsul is concerned, he was supposed to work at the Swargate Naka early in the morning. It was his job to note down the numbers of the vehicles which used to come from High Level Tank, obtain the diary from the driver of the vehicle in which Kamble (P.W. 20) has made entries of the labourers who have gone with the van and from that diary he had to write down in the Rojavada the name of the driver and the number of the labourers working in that van. This he had to prepare in duplicate. This form is called Rojavada. On the basis of this Rojavada, he had to prepare three Muster Rolls, one for the permanent labourers, the other for the substituted labourers and the third for the seasonal labourers. He had to send the Rojavada to the Health Department of the Head Office every day. He had to send the permanent Muster Roll to accused No. 4 Madhukar Joshi and the other Muster Rolls to the head office at the end of the month. This accused had to face the charge that he had prepared false Muster Rolls, in-as-much-as, he had entered names of some labourers in the Muster Rolls whose names were not found in the Rojavada. Prima facie, the prosecution seems to have made out a case against the accused for preparing forged documents. He has, however, been successful to show that some of the labourers who has reported for work at the High Level Tank were not sent along with the refuge vans and their names, therefore, could not to entered in the diary and also could not be entered in the Rojavada but they had infact worked in the Corporation Office at various places. Conservancy Superintendent Haldavanekar (P.W. 1) has himself in terms admitted that he had been sending chits and telephones to the accused No. 3 informing him that some of the labourers who had reported for duty at High Level Tank were directed to work in the Naidu Hospital and, therefore, asked him to enter their names in the Muster Rolls. Nothing has been brought on record to show that these labourers had been shown twice in the Muster Rolls, viz. those Muster Rolls maintained by accused No. 3 and the Muster Rolls at the Naidu Hospital. It cannot be said that these labourers were paid twice by the Corporation. That being the case, I do not understand how the offence under section 408 of the Indian Penal Code or falsification of documents could be maintained. The Corporation should have initiated proceedings not against the accused but against the prosecution witness No. 1 Haldavanekar for issuing wrong instructions to his subordinate. That being so, he cannot be held guilty of having prepared false documents. There is another piece of evidence against his accused namely regarding paying to fictitious persons and for that purpose the prosecution has led evidence of P.W. 14, P.W. 16, P.W. 17, P.W. 18 and P.W. 19. It is true that all of them have stated that they have not put thumb impression for having received the payment of wages on behalf of the Corporation. They may have received the payment or they may not have received the payment; they may have worked for the Corporation or they may not have worked for the Corporation. The only evidence for the purpose was there is their oral testimony. It is well known that the science of thumb impression is much advanced and an experts opinion in that respect is the best evidence to lend assurance to the statement of a person who disowns thumb impression alleged to have been made by him. The learned Judge has, therefore, committed a serious error in accepting their evidence without any corroboration. Their evidence is, in my opinion, most unreliable and ought not to have been accepted. The conviction of the accused No. 3 Laxman Adsul is totally unwarranted and he is entitled for acquittal of all the offences for which he is charged. The learned Judge has, therefore, committed a serious error in accepting their evidence without any corroboration. Their evidence is, in my opinion, most unreliable and ought not to have been accepted. The conviction of the accused No. 3 Laxman Adsul is totally unwarranted and he is entitled for acquittal of all the offences for which he is charged. So far as accused No. 2 Gangaram Jadhav is concerned, additional evidence against him is that he is alleged to have deducted some amounts from the payments drawn in favour of the labourers and pocketed the amounts. As stated earlier, the evidence of the witnesses on the point is unreliable. His conviction also seems to be unwarranted and he is entitled for the acquittal. In the result, the appeals are allowed. The convictions and the sentences imposed by the learned Judge are set aside and the accused are acquitted. Fine, if paid, be refunded to the accused. The bail bonds of the accused stand cancelled. ------