JUDGMENT - G.N. VAIDYA, J.:---The above appeals are directed against the judgment dated June 28, 1974 passed by the Special Judge, Sangli, convicting the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 657 of 1974, who were original accused Nos. 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9 and acquitting the remaining 9 accused including accused Nos. 1 and 11 against whom the State has filed Criminal Appeal No. 1101 of 1974, challenging their acquittal. 2. The case appears to be a cause celebre in the district of Sangli as it related to mal-administration of the free skim milk powder distribution Scheme among the villages affected by scarcity. In 1966-67, at the relevant time, the Government of Maharashtra had declared the existence of scarcity conditions in 268 villages of Sangli District, as per the Resolution, dated January 7, 1966. 56 villages in Shirala Mahal, were included in the said list of scarcity affected villages. 3. Accused No. 1 was then working as Mahalkari at Shirala. Accused No. 2 was working under him as Treasury Aval Karkun. Accused No. 3 was working under them as Jamabandi clerk in the office of Mahalkari, Shirala. Accused No. 6 was working as Talathi of peltond Saja village. Accused No. 7 was the Talathi of Panumbre Marun Saja. Accused No. 8 was the Head Master of Wadi Bhagai Primary School. Accused No. 9 was working as sarpanch of Peltond village. Accused No. 4, Ananda Shankar Tandale, who later was examined as an approver assumed charge of the table of Jamabandi clerk sometime in March 1967. Accused No. 5 was appointed as Circle Officer of Charan Circle from April 1, 1967. Accused No. 10 was a business man of Shirala. Accused No. 11 was a hotel-keeper of Shirala. Accused Nos. 12, 13, 14 and 15 were alleged to have transported the milk powder. 4. The Government of Maharashtra had at that time received skim milk powder through the Government of India for free distribution in the scarcity affected areas. It was a gift of charitable foreign countries like West Germany, France, Austria and Czechoslovakia. It is unfortunate that neither the Government of Maharashtra nor the then Collector of Sangli had made a proper scheme of distribution of 3049 drums of skim milk made available to the district. It was a gift of charitable foreign countries like West Germany, France, Austria and Czechoslovakia. It is unfortunate that neither the Government of Maharashtra nor the then Collector of Sangli had made a proper scheme of distribution of 3049 drums of skim milk made available to the district. Various circulars have been referred to in the lower Court to show that the officers concerned were personally responsible; but neither these officers nor their superiors took care to ensure a proper maintenance of account relating to the distribution of the skim powder to the villagers in the various scarcity affected villages. 5. 255 bags of skim milk powder and 3004 drums of skim milk powder were received from Bombay at Karad Railway Station. The delivery of these was taken by accused No. 3 as representating the Mahalkari, Shirala. The drums were transported from Karad to Shirala. 255 bags of skim milk powder received from Sangli and Miraj were stored in the room near the compound gate of the Mahalkaris office and part of the drums received via Karad Railway Station were stored in the same room. Part of them were stored in the Lahore-shed godown. 6. It is shocking to see that the prosecution is not able to place before the Court the godown register or anything by way of delivery of the milk powder from these godowns-storage places. In the Lahore shed godown, there was also the storage of the food-grain to be supplied to the fair price shops. P" 89, Lugade was the godown keeper of the Lahore-shed godown. One Shiva Hari Gosavi was the watchman of the Lahore-shed godown during the relevant period. He was succeeded by the Ganu Jadhav, (P.W. 111). It is under such person and circumstances that the distribution of skim milk powder in Shirala Mahal commenced in June 1966. 7. For some days, no record was kept in the Mahalkaris office for delivery of the drums or bags of skim milk powder. There was no acknowledgement received from persons who has received the drums of bags. Thereafter a register was maintained which is referred to in the lower Court as the old register. It is at Ex. 188. It describes itself as a register showing 10 columns as under : Rubber seal. There was no acknowledgement received from persons who has received the drums of bags. Thereafter a register was maintained which is referred to in the lower Court as the old register. It is at Ex. 188. It describes itself as a register showing 10 columns as under : Rubber seal. S.No. Opening Receipt in No. of Date of Name of Quantity Closing Remarks balance tones and people issue village to of issue balance date T. Kgm fed whom issue T. Kgms. -------------- Child- Nurs- ren ing Yrs. moth- 14 ers upto 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 In the remarks column, although there was a rubber stamp of Mahalkari Shirala, the Mahalkari himself does not appear to have signed that register. 8. There is another part in that register which is called "Dudh Watap, Aata Watap, Golya Watap" and that part has signatures of the persons who have received the things delivered to them or their thumb impressions. A regular register showing an account of the skim milk powder in the year 1967-68, was subsequently prepared and shows entries from June 10, 1966 till June 2, 1967, for various villages. The register is at Ex. 23-G. 9. The allotment of the milk powder drums or bags to the various villages, used to be made by the Mahalkari, accused No. 1. Accused No. 3, who was Jamabandi Clerk, used to enter the stock allotted to the various villages from time to time in the register. He used to obtain the signatures of the persons to whom the stock was issued in the said register and also to issue slips to the persons concerned. On the basis of these slips, the godown-keeper Lugade used to issued the stock as per the slips to the concerned persons. No separate stock register was being maintained by the godown-keeper, Lugade. Although this part of the prosecution story is very difficult to accept, it is the allegation of the prosecution that many times, accused No. 3 used to go to the godown and issued milk powder bags or drums without issuing any slips to the godown keeper Lugade. 10. At the trial, the prosecution story was that accused Nos. 1 to 15 entered into a conspiracy to commit misappropriation of the skim milk powder drums or bags. 10. At the trial, the prosecution story was that accused Nos. 1 to 15 entered into a conspiracy to commit misappropriation of the skim milk powder drums or bags. In pursuance of this conspirary, a considerable portion of the skim milk powder drums or bags was not distributed in the scarcity affected areas. Instead, they were sold in black market at Karad, Satara and Bombay. With a view to sell the milk powder in the black market, the accused had forged milk powder distribution register, fortnightly returns submitted to the Collector, Sangli and later made alterations in the said documents. Accused No. 11 who runs hotel and a mess at Shirala, accused No. 10 who is also a business-man of Shirala with the help of accused Nos. 12, 13, 14 and 15, transported the skim milk powder drums of bags in trucks to Karad, Satara and Bombay and sold them in black market. 11. Accused No. 4 Tandale, assumed charge of the table of Jamabandi clerk sometime in March 1967 and during his time also the mis-appropriation of powder by selling the same in black market, was going on. To conceal mis-appropriation, the new Milk distribution Powder Register, Ex. 23-G was maintained during the time. Accused No. 4 was Jamabandi Clerk. To conceal the misappropriation of the milk powder drums or bags, the prosecution alleged that in this register, Ex. 23-G, false entries about the issue or milk powder drums or bags to the various villages were made and the old register was suppressed. Signatures and thumb impressions of the concerned persons were taken in the new register by falsely representing to them that the old register was incorrect and therefore, a new register was opened. 12. In pursuance of this conspiracy, it was alleged that accused Nos. 1 to 3, being public servants as Mahalkari, Treasury Aval karkun and Jamabardi clerk, have committed breach of trust in respect of 1800 drums out of 3849 drums supplied to Mahalkaris office Shirala for distribution in the scarcity affected villages in Shirala Mahal during the year 1966-67. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 had forged the milk powder distribution register, fortnightly returns submitted to the Collector with intent to cause damage to the State, and had dishonestly used them as genuine documents knowing them to be forged and effected alterations in the above mentioned said documents. They also abetted accused Nos. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 had forged the milk powder distribution register, fortnightly returns submitted to the Collector with intent to cause damage to the State, and had dishonestly used them as genuine documents knowing them to be forged and effected alterations in the above mentioned said documents. They also abetted accused Nos. 10 to 15 in the commission of the offence of receiving stolen property. Accused No. 5 abetted accused Nos. 1 to 3 in the commission of the offence in respect of the skim milk powder drums received in the Mahalkaris office and had forged the statements of villagers from 19 villages from Charan Circle with intent to cause damage to the State and had knowingly used them as genuine documents. 13. Accused No. 6 as Talathi of Peltond Saja was entrusted with 11 drums for distribution in the scarcity affected villages in his Saja and had committed criminal breach of trust in respect of 76 drums. Accused No. 7, as Talathi of Panumbre-Warun Saja was entrusted with 77 drums for distribution in the scarcity affected villages and committed criminal breach of trust in respect of 64 drums. Accused No. 8 being a school teacher was entrusted with 29 drums for distribution in the scarcity affected area and committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the entire 20 drums. Accused No. 9 being a Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Petlond, was entrusted with 353 drums and had committed criminal breach of trust in respect of 331 drums. It was further alleged that accused Nos. 6 to 9 had abetted accused Nos. 1 to 3 to commit the offence of criminal breach of trust, by forging registers and reports. It was also alleged that accused Nos. 10 to 12, 14 and 15 had abetted the offence of criminal breach of trust of the skim milk powder drums. 14. There were several complaints about misconduct of the accused as a result of which the skim milk powder was not being properly distributed. Accused No. 1 had ordered accused No. 5 to make inquiries. A news item appeared in the Daily Tarun Bharat dated June 24, 1967, alleging that the skim milk powder meant for distribution in the scarcity affected areas in Shirala Mahal was being sold in black market. Accused No. 1 had ordered accused No. 5 to make inquiries. A news item appeared in the Daily Tarun Bharat dated June 24, 1967, alleging that the skim milk powder meant for distribution in the scarcity affected areas in Shirala Mahal was being sold in black market. On June 30, 1967, P.S.I. Pawar lodged a complaint on behalf of the State and on the basis of the vardi, registered an offence and started investigation. 15. On June 30, 1967, P.S.I. Pawar wrote yadi to the office of the Mahalkari, Shirala, for supplying information regarding the skim milk powder bags or drums supplied for distribution in the scarcity affected areas. On the same day a typed letter giving information about the distribution of skim milk powder in the scarcity affected areas on the basis of the new register, was sent by the Mahalakaris office to the P.S.I. This information, according to the prosecution, was prepared by accused Nos. 3 and 4 and had been sent to the P.S.I. under the signature of accused No. 1. On the same day, P.S.I. took search of the house of Talathi Chitnis and seized 17 drums of skim milk powder. He arrested accused Nos. 10 and 11 and two others Gulab Hasan Mulla and Rajak Hasan on the same day. On July 2, 1967, he took search of the house of Talathi B.M. Sawant and seized 21 drums of milk powder found in his house. He recorded statements of the witnesses. On July 12, 1967, he recorded statements of the Ganu Jadhav, watchman of the Lahore shed godown and he produced one tippan which he took into his custody. On July 16, 1967, accused No. 4, Talathi produced the new register regarding the distribution of the skim milk powder and the same was seized by P.S.I. Pawar. On July 18, 1967, 27 offences were registered by P.S.I. Pawar in respect of mis-appropriation of skim milk powder relating to different villages. 16. On February 28, 1968, the investigation was taken over by C.I.D. Inspector Shaikh (P.W. 158), under the orders of the D.I.G. He completed the investigation after examining numerous witnesses from different villages and taking into custody various documents and taking necessary sanction and filed a charge-sheet on June 9, 1972. 16. On February 28, 1968, the investigation was taken over by C.I.D. Inspector Shaikh (P.W. 158), under the orders of the D.I.G. He completed the investigation after examining numerous witnesses from different villages and taking into custody various documents and taking necessary sanction and filed a charge-sheet on June 9, 1972. An additional charge-sheet regarding some of the accused was filed by Suryavanshi P.S.I. Accused were charged under sections 120-B, 409, 466, 468 471 A and section 411 read with section 100 and under section 413 I.P.C. and under section 5(1)(c) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Accused No. 13 out of 15 accused died on September 28, 1973. 17. The learned Special Judge framed a charge as per Ex. 19 under the said sections, with 9 heads. Before the trial commenced, accused No. 4 Tandale made an application for permitting him to give evidence as an approver; and conditional pardon was given to him. The accused pleaded not guilty to the said charge and they were tried. The prosecution examined 159 witnesses including the said approver, accused No. 4 and also produced before the Court a large number of documents in the form of circulars of the Government, reports and other documents. On behalf of accused Nos. 6 to 9, defence witnesses were examined viz. (D.W. 1), to (D.W. 16). 18. Accused No.1 contended that he was not concerned with the day-to-day distribution of the skim milk powder or bags ; and he no knowledge about the existence of the new register, Ex. 23-G. Further he stated that he himself moved the P.S.I. Shirala to investigate into the matter, as he had multifarious duties as regards the Village Panchyats Elections, General Elections, Zilla Parishad Elections, Panchayat Samiti Elections, collection of paddy levy and collection in regard to Small Savings Scheme for which he had to do extensive tourings. He contended that he had been falsely involved by the group of disgrunlled Talathis, viz., N.B. Mulla, D.G. Jadhav, R.A. Chitnis, M.B. Bhonsale, B.D. Joshi and D.S. Patil. He contended that because of some prejudice, C.I.D. Inspector Shri Shaikh had created false evidence against him. Technical objections were also raised in regard to the sanction of the prosecution. 19. He contended that he had been falsely involved by the group of disgrunlled Talathis, viz., N.B. Mulla, D.G. Jadhav, R.A. Chitnis, M.B. Bhonsale, B.D. Joshi and D.S. Patil. He contended that because of some prejudice, C.I.D. Inspector Shri Shaikh had created false evidence against him. Technical objections were also raised in regard to the sanction of the prosecution. 19. Accused No. 2 contended that he was never working as Head Taluka Aval Karkun, and he was not concerned with the distribution of the skim milk powder, Although he might have signed some letters in the absence of the Mahalakari and the Additional Mahalkari, he has signed them in the routine course as they were put up by accused No. 4, Tandale, who was then Jamabandi clerk in charge of the distribution of the skim milk powder. He contended that he had been falsely implicated in the case. Accused No. 3 also contended that when he was in charge of the Jamabandi table, he had only to maintain the register of receipt and distribution and whatever reports were made on the basis of the returns submitted to him by the distributing agent; and he too was therefore, not responsible for the actual distribution or alleged misappropriation. Accused No. 5 denied his connection. He has been acquitted. 20. Accused Nos 6 and 7 contended that the milk powder which was entrusted to them was to be distributed in several villages and there were no good reads to that tract or facilities for transport. No provisions was made regarding expenditure on account of transport. In view of these difficulties, it had been decided that the services of police Patils, teachers, Sarpanchas, Kotwal and prominent persons from the villages, should be taken for the distribution of the skim milk powder. It was therefore, not possible for them personally to do the work of distribution of the skim milk powder or even personally to supervise the work of distribution. They had, therefore, carried out the distribution of the skim milk powder through the abovesaid agencies, who had been asked to maintain accounts regarding the distribution done by them but they had failed to do so. 21. They further contended that they had submitted the information regarding the distribution to the office of the Mahalkari on the basis of the actual quantity of the milk powder drums which they had handed over to the abovesaid agencies. 21. They further contended that they had submitted the information regarding the distribution to the office of the Mahalkari on the basis of the actual quantity of the milk powder drums which they had handed over to the abovesaid agencies. They also used to obtain information orally from the distributing agencies. They contended that all the milk powder drums entrusted to them, had been distribution by them through the abovesaid agencies and hence they should not be charged with the offence of committing misappropriation. They also stated that the witnesses, who had been given the milk powder drums for distribution, were falsely denying that they had received less number of drums in order to avoid their own liability to account. 22. Accused No. 8 contended that he distributed all the milk powder drums which he had received, and that he also maintained a register regarding the distribution and the same had been submitted by him to accused No. 4 for verification. He contended that witness, Vishnu Vithu Patil was inimical and, therefore, he had given false evidence and similarly, the other witnesses viz., police Patil, Hindurao Jadhav, Narayan Hari Borgge, Shiva Gosavi and others are desposing falsely as they had been tutored by the police. 23. Accused No. 9 contended that he had been saddled with the work of distributing the skim milk powder in the Petlond Saja by the Mahalkaris office and he had been told that he should get the work of distribution done through the Sarpanchas and deputy Sarpanchas of the various group Gram-panchayats in his Saja. Accordingly, the milk powder drums which had been handed over to him had been made over by him to sarpanchas and some prominent persons from the various villages. He contended that he had obtained receipts for the drums which he had made ever to the sarpanchas an had submitted them to the Mahalkaris office from time to time and he also submitted accounts to the office of the Mahalkari on the basis of those receipts. 24. He too submitted that as no provision or facility was made to the transport of the milk powder drums to the hilly regions, the skim milk powder drums had to be unloaded at Chandoli and from there, they had to be carried in bullock-carts to Petlond and from Petlond, they had to be carried to the various villages on head. He too submitted that as no provision or facility was made to the transport of the milk powder drums to the hilly regions, the skim milk powder drums had to be unloaded at Chandoli and from there, they had to be carried in bullock-carts to Petlond and from Petlond, they had to be carried to the various villages on head. He contended that the prosecution had deliberately not examined the sarpanchas and other prominent persons through whom he had done the milk powder distribution. He also argued that he belonged to the Peasents and Workers Party and that in 1967 Zilla Parishad Elections, he had contested against the Congress Party candidate and, therefore, the Congress Party people have set up false witnesses against him and they also influenced the investigation by bringing pressure upon investigation officers. 25. Accused No. 10, in his statement under section 342 contended that he had never helped in the disposal of any of the skim milk powder drums and that witnesses Hindurao Jadhav, Aba Ganu Jadhav, Usman Gani, Shiva Hari Gosavi and Tandle-accused No. 4 and given false evidence involving him because of police pressure. Accused No. 11 contended that as he was running a hotel and a mess at Shirala, he was having good business and the sarpanchas Talathis and teachers used to come to his mess for meals and they used to bring some milk powder drums had been given to them when they could not find transport facilities and later on, they used to take away those drums. 26. They denied that he had been personally given any milk powder drums on instructions from accused No. 1. He contended that the evidence of approver Tandale, witnesses Aba Ganu Jadhav and Salunkhe about milk powder drums being given to him, was false. He contended that he had no concern with the skim milk powder drums issued for distribution in the scarcity affected areas and that he had not helped in any way in disposal of the skim milk powder drums. Accused Nos. 12, 14 and 15 denied having any concern with the distribution or disposal of the skim milk powder drums. 27. The trial dragged on for about six months and the learned Judge relying on the voluminious oral and documentary evidence found as follows : (1) That there was nothing illegal in the sanction for the prosecution of accused Nos. 12, 14 and 15 denied having any concern with the distribution or disposal of the skim milk powder drums. 27. The trial dragged on for about six months and the learned Judge relying on the voluminious oral and documentary evidence found as follows : (1) That there was nothing illegal in the sanction for the prosecution of accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8. (2) The prosecution failed to prove that accused Nos. 1 to 3, 5 to 12, 14, 15 along with accused No. 13 since deceased had agreed to do or cause to be done criminal mis-appropriation of the skim milk powder drums supplied to the Shirala Mahalkaris office by the Maharashtra State Government and mis-appropriation of 1800 drugs worth Rs. 80,265.33 as alleged by the prosecution. (3) Accused No. 3 alone was guilty of criminal breach of trust in respect of 765 drums worth about Rs. 3393.05 and accused Nos. 1 and 2 were not concerned with the offence. (4) Accused No. 3 along with accused No. 4 who had been granted conditional pardon, forged milk powder distribution register and fortnightly returns. (5) Accused Nos. 1 to 3 had abetted accused Nos. 10 to 15 in the commission of the offence of receiving stolen property. (6) During the period accused No. 5 as Circle Officer had abetted accused Nos. 1 to 3 in the commission on the offence of criminal breach of trust in respect of the skim milk powder drums received in the Mahalkaris office. (7) Accused No. 5 as Circle Officer had forged the statements of villagers from 19 villages from Charan Circle with intent to cause damage to the State and had knowingly used them as genuine documents as alleged by the prosecution. (8) Accused No. 6 committed breach of trust in respect of 44 drums of milk powder worth Rs. 1952.28. (9) Accused No. 7 committed criminal breach of trust in respect of 65 drums of milk powder worth Rs. 2,884.05. (10) Accused No. 8 committed criminal breach of trust in respect of 24 drums of milk powder, worth Rs. 1,064.88. (11) Accused No. 9 committed criminal breach of trust in respect of 260 drums of milk powder worth Rs. 11, 536.20. (12) The prosecution failed to prove that accused Nos. 6 to 9 or any of the them had abetted accused Nos. 1,064.88. (11) Accused No. 9 committed criminal breach of trust in respect of 260 drums of milk powder worth Rs. 11, 536.20. (12) The prosecution failed to prove that accused Nos. 6 to 9 or any of the them had abetted accused Nos. 1 to 3 to commit offence of criminal breach of trust in respect of the skim milk powder drums or the offence of forgery, falsification of public documents. (13) Accused Nos 6, 7 and 8 forged the milk powder distribution returns submitted to the Mahalkaris office and fraudulently used them as genuine documents knowing that they were forged, as alleged by the prosecution. (14) It was not proved that accused Nos. 6, 7 and 8 had abetted accused Nos. 10 to 15 in the commission of the offence of the disposal of the stolen property viz. misappropriated skim milk powder drums. (15) It was also not proved that accused Nos. 10 to 12, 14 and 15 had abetted the offence of criminal breach of trust of the skim milk powder drums by accused Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 9. (16) It was not proved that accused Nos. 10 to 12, 14 and 15 had dishonestly received stolen property i.e. the misappropriated skim milk powder drums from the Mahalkaris Office, Shirala, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property. (17) It was also not proved that accused Nos. 6 to 12, 14 and 15 voluntarily assisted in the disposal or making away with the mis-appropriated skim milk powder drums knowing or having reasons to believe the same to be stolen property. (18) Accused Nos. 3 and 6 to 9 were, however, guilty of offence under section 5(1)(b) read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 28. In view of the said findings, the learned Judge acquitted accused Nos. 1, 2, 5, 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15 of all the charges. He convicted accused No. 3 of the offence under sections 409, 468, 471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of RS. 2,000/- in default rigorous imprisonment for six months on each count, directing substantive sentences, to run concurrently and further convicted him under section 5(1)(c) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, no separate sentence being awarded in respect of the said offence. 2,000/- in default rigorous imprisonment for six months on each count, directing substantive sentences, to run concurrently and further convicted him under section 5(1)(c) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, no separate sentence being awarded in respect of the said offence. Accused Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 were convicted under section 409, Indian Penal Code and each was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default rigorous imprisonment for six months. Accused Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 were further convicted of the offence under section 5(1)(c) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, without any separate sentence in that behalf. 29. The convicted accused have filed the above Criminal Appeal No. 657 of 1974 as already stated above and the State has filed the appeal challenging the acquittal of only accused Nos. 1 and 11 under section 120-B and the acquittal of accused Nos. 2 and 5. The acquittal of the convicted accused of the charge under section 120-B and the acquittal of accused Nos. 2, 5, 12, 14 and 15 are not challenged. Hence the only questions which arise in the above appeal are (1) whether accused Nos. 1 and 11 were rightly acquitted and (2) whether accused Nos. 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9 were rightly convicted by the learned Special Judge. 30. Turning first to the appeal by the State and the acquittal of accused Nos. 1 and 11, we find that the learned Special Judge has discussed the case of the prosecution against the said two accused along with the case against accused Nos. 2 and 3, in paragraphs 53 to 114 of his judgment at great length. He came to the conclusion that having regard to the infirmities in the oral testimony of the approver, Tandale (P.W. 128), the godown keeper, Lugade (P.W. 89), and Salunkhe, cash clerk (P.W. 6) in the office of Mahalkari, Shirala, the prosecution must be held to have failed to establish any of the charges against accused Nos. 1 and 11. The evidence of these witnesses has been carefully considered by us. It looks too hazardous to be believed as it is difficult to understand how these witnesses could give evidence about things, not placed on record, in the form of oral directions given by the Mahalkari more than six years after the events. 1 and 11. The evidence of these witnesses has been carefully considered by us. It looks too hazardous to be believed as it is difficult to understand how these witnesses could give evidence about things, not placed on record, in the form of oral directions given by the Mahalkari more than six years after the events. 31. Mr. Kamble, the learned Public Prosecutor contended that according to the circulars, it was the personal responsibility of the Mahalkari, accused No. 1, to see that the milk distribution was properly carried out in accordance with the circulars in the scarcity affected areas and, therefore, he could not be escaped of his liability by saying that he was not actually concerned with the day-to-day distribution of the milk powder. Mr. Kamble further contended that the evidence of Tandale (P.W. 128) was corroborated by the evidence of (P.W. 1), Buge (P.W. 152), Thorawade and (P.W. 80), Lugade; and the learned Special Judge, therefore, erred in acquitting accused No. 1. 32. According to him, the evidence of Tandale (P.W. 128) established the fact that he issued 340 milk powder drums to accused No. 11 from the godown apart from 30 milk powder drums issued by Salunkhe during his absence and this is substantially corroborated by the evidence of A.G. Jadhav (P.W. 111) who was a watchman of the Lahore shed godown and all this was done on the oral instructions received from accused No. 1. 33. Mr. Kamble referred to the evidence of D.G. Yadav (P.W. 18) who stated that he carried 35 drums of skim milk powder from the godown at Shirala to the house of accused No. 11, at the instance of the sarpanch of the village Girijavade, and the learned Special Judge wrongly discarded his evidence as the sarpanch did not keep the drums in the name of accused No. 1, forgetting that the house of accused No. 11 was situated in front of accused No. 1. Mr. Kamble also referred to the evidence of S.T. Teli (P.W. 25) and M.D. Pisal (P.W. 92) and submitted that it was clear from the evidence that the milk powder drums used to be stored in the space in front of house of accused No. 1 at the instance of the Talathi. 34. He relied strongly on the evidence to the approver, Tandale denying that there were bogus entries in the register at Ex. 34. He relied strongly on the evidence to the approver, Tandale denying that there were bogus entries in the register at Ex. 236, as could be seen by the evidence of the witnesses, R.D. Joshi (P.W. 11), D.S. Patil (P.W. 13), R.A. Chitnis (P.W. 52), G.D. Desai (P.W. 60), S.V. Inamdar (P.W. 90), N.B. Mulla (P.W. 93), P.R. Kambale (P.W. 9), T.M. Devari (P.W. 94), A.P. Kambale (P.W. 95), M.D. Bhosale (P.W. 96), M.H. Joshi (P.W. 97), S.B. Kadam (P.W. 119) and A.R. Gurave (P.W. 10). We find it impossible to accept these arguments. 35. The learned Special Judge has given very cogent reasons for dis-believing the evidence of (P.W. 128) Tandale, who apart from being the approver as the learned Special Judge has pointed out, perjured himself by giving different versions with reference to different misappropriation of the same missing milk powder drums. He has also disbelieved Salunkhe (P.W. 6), Chitnis (P.W. 52) and Lugade (P.W. 89) for very cogent and valid reasons. The learned Judge has rightly treated Tandales evidence as accomplice evidence which does not even pass the test of reliability and is not corroborated by independent evidence. Thus Tandale, in paragraph 36 of his cross-examination, admitted that in his first statement dated 24-5-1969, taken by inspector Shaikh, he had not stated about his telling Salunkhe about 30 drums debited to Chitnis Talathi Antribudruk Saja. He admitted that there were 4 prosecution against Chitnis Talathi regarding misappropriation of milk powder drums including these 30 drums given to Chitnis on May 5, 1967 and May 9, 1967 and that he was examined as a prosecution witness in those prosecutions. Although he had stated on oath in those prosecution that those 30 drums were given to Chitnis Talathi he stated in the present cases and that he never stated that those 30 drums were not given to Chitnis Talathi, but on the contrary they were given to accused No. 11 at the instance of accused No. 1. The learned Judge rightly remarked that the witnesses had such audacity to say that the statements given in the previous case on oath by him were false. 36. The learned Judge rightly remarked that the witnesses had such audacity to say that the statements given in the previous case on oath by him were false. 36. Further the evidence of Chitnis Talathi was disbelieved by the learned Special Judge because he admitted in the cross-examination that he had been prosecuted for misappropriation of the very skim milk powder drums, and that in all there were four prosecutions and that these prosecutions relies to the four villages in Antribudruk Saja. He further admitted that 30 drums in question were included in those four prosecutions. In these circumstances, the evidence of Chitnis Talathi also must be considered not higher then the evidence of an accomplice which required independent corroboration. 37. Even Salunkhe (P.W. 6) admitted in his cross-examination that order in writing was passed by the head of the office to look after the charge of any clerk, who proceeded on casual leave. But no such order was produced by him before the police nor was he asked by the police to show what work he had done. The learned Judge, therefore, doubted whether he had been kept in charge of the table of Tandale during his leave period from May 23, 1967 to May 30, 1967. Though this witness stated that Lugade, godown keeper and peon of godown, Aba Gany Jadhav were present at the time of the delivery of 30 drums from the godown to accused No. 11, he had not stated before the police that no other person was present when the delivery of 30 drums was given to accused No. 11. 38. Lugade (P.W. 59) admitted in his cross-examination that in all the 10 statements of his recorded by the Investigating Officer, he had not stated that when he had gone to the office of the Mahalkari he had heard a talk between Salunkhe and Chitnis Talathi; and Salunkhe told Chitnis Talathi that he had given 30 drums to accused No. 11 at the instance of accused No. 1; and that he was giving the evidence about the talk for the first time at the trial. He also admitted that he had been examined as a prosecution witness in all the four prosecutions against Chitnis Talathi. Add to this, it must be remembered that he had not maintained any stock register or delivery register in his godown. 39. He also admitted that he had been examined as a prosecution witness in all the four prosecutions against Chitnis Talathi. Add to this, it must be remembered that he had not maintained any stock register or delivery register in his godown. 39. The learned Judge, therefore, rightly observed in paragraph 66 of his judgment : "In my opinion, therefore, the evidence of Salunkhe as also the evidence of Lugade cannot be relied upon. Shaikh, C.I.D. Inspector, who is a very Senior Officer, and who was in charge of the investigation after the investigation was handed over to C.I.D., has been, in my opinion, very unfair inasmuch as he put up prosecutions against Chitnis-Talathi in respect of these very 30 drums with held the evidence of Salunkhe in those prosecution against Chitnis-talathi, and in this trial a charge has been made that those very 30 drums have been mis-appropriated by accused No. 1 and had been disposed of to accused No. 1." It is unnecessary to report the rest of the discussion of the learned Special Judge about the evidence against accused No. 11 which he was not prepared to believe because of the discrepancy in the statement before the Court and the statement before the police. 40. The learned Judge has further observed that so far as creation and manipulation of the new register, Ex. 236 is concerned, there was only the evidence of the approver, Tandale; and it was impossible to believe him. The learned Judge has discussed this aspect of the matter fully and it is unnecessary to elaborate on it as we are in complete agreement with what he had said. 41. With regard to the follow on register as evidence against accused No. 1, the learned Judge did not believe Tandale when he said that accused No. 1 had taken custody of the register as it appeared to be a deliberate improvement. The learned Judge was right in drawing the inference from the fact that accused No. 1 must have in the routine course submitted the various letters and particularly supplementary information about the register to the P.S.I. that no inference of guilt could necessarily be drawn from this fact against accused No. 1. 42. The learned Judge discussed the evidence regarding the signatures and thumb impressions obtained in the new register, Ex. 42. The learned Judge discussed the evidence regarding the signatures and thumb impressions obtained in the new register, Ex. 236 in paragraph 82 of his judgment and referred also to the admission made by Tandale himself, in paragraph 83, that he had obtained signatures of Talathis in the new register when the Talathis had come for the monthly meeting, as under : "I have already indicated above from the various circumstances that the version of Tandale that the new register Exh. 236 was prepared at the instance of accused No. 1 or that accused No. 1 had the knowledge about the existence of the new register, was unreliable. In one of the prosecutions in connection with the mis-appropriation of the skim milk powder in which Tandale was examined as a prosecution witness, he had made a statement on oath that the entries in Exh. 236 were not in his handwriting. Tandale admits now that statement on oath of his was false. Therefore, his story now about the preparation of the new register at the instance of accused No. 1, hard to believe." Having regard to these proper findings recorded by the learned Special Judge, in the facts and the circumstances of the case having regard to the infirmities in the evidence of the approver, it is not possible for this Court in an appeal against acquittal to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned Special Judge that the prosecution failed to establish its case against accused Nos. 1 and 11. 43. It is no doubt, difficult to believe that accused No. 1 would not have known about the register or could have gone on distributing milk powder from June 1966 to March 1967 without looking at the register and the way in which the powder was distributed. Inference of a conspiracy or of abetment of the falsification of action for the purpose of misappropriation of the skim milk powder, cannot however be necessarily drawn from such a circumstance. It is undoubtedly reprehensible on the part of the Mahalkari, who was entrusted with the humane work of distributing milk powder that he should have been so negligent as not even to see what kind of register was kept in his office for the distribution of milk powder. That itself does not amount to a criminal offence unless dishonesty or fraud is established by the prosection. 44. Mr. That itself does not amount to a criminal offence unless dishonesty or fraud is established by the prosection. 44. Mr. Kamble, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State strongly relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (Jaikrishnadas Manohardas Desai v. The State of Bombay)1, 62 Bom.L.R. 893 and also the decision of the Supreme Court in (Krishna Kumar v. Union of India)2, A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 1890 and asked us to inter from the nature of responsibility cast on accused No. 1 under various circulars issued by the Government and the maintenance of the register, Ex. 236 , from March 1967 showing entries from June 18, 1966 till June 5, 1967, that the accused must have been guilty of abetting criminal breach of trust and falsification of accounts and register. But the said decisions, while permitting such an inference to be drawn, have laid down that we have to take into consideration all the circumstances of the case. 45. In the present case, accused No. 1 has explained how he was busy with the various elections and his various other multifarious duties. He could not personally supervise over the actual distribution of the milk powder, in all the villages. This explanation may be true or may be false. But it cannot be said to be an explanation which does not reasonably explain the circumstance that he had not signed at any time the register at Ex. 236. 46. It may be that in the year 1966-67, the mal-administration in the office of the Mahalkari, Shirala, reached a high water mark; and the Mahalkari was not able to control the scheme of the distribution of milk powder for which the Government had not to incur any express for transport and for which people who got the powder had to pay nothing. He may be responsible for the burging of the scheme. He may be a Mahalkari guilty of dereliction of duty. 47. For those acts or omissions, he may be proceeded with departmentally, if found guilty, he may be punished; and if found not guilty, he may not be punished. But we find it difficult to hold, as suggested by Mr. Kamble that the only inference that can be reasonably drawn from the existence of the register, Ex. 47. For those acts or omissions, he may be proceeded with departmentally, if found guilty, he may be punished; and if found not guilty, he may not be punished. But we find it difficult to hold, as suggested by Mr. Kamble that the only inference that can be reasonably drawn from the existence of the register, Ex. 236 which according to him is supported by the evidence of Tandale; Lugade and Salukhe, is that accused No. 1 was guilty of the offences charged against him. We find it difficult to up hold this contention because we find that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is unreliable for the reasons stated by the learned Judge. 48. There is nothing in Ex. 236 itself to suggest that accused No. 1 was a party to the misappropriation of the skim milk powder or that he joined hands with accused Nos. 3 and 4 to prepare a false register and secure delivery of the skim powder of accused No. 11. There is hardly any reliable evidence about the delivery of accused No. 11. Accused No. 11 has given a reasonable explanation which has been accepted by the learned Special Judge. 49. We cannot interfere with the findings recorded by the learned Special Judge in this appeal against acquittal as those findings are based on mere appreciation of moral evidence. The learned Judge had the advantage of seeing and hearing the evidence of all the witness. The appeal filed by the State is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 50. Turning now to the appeal filed by the convicted accused, as the charge of conspiracy has failed against them; and the State has not filed any appeal against their acquittal under section 120-B, we must consider the finding of the learned Judge only with regard to the specific offences in respect of which the learned Judge has found them respectively guilty. 51. Thus he found accused No. 3 guilty of criminal breach of trust in respect of 765 drums worth Rs. 33,943.05. He also found him guilty along with accused No. 4, who is granted conditional pardon, of forging the milk powder distribution register Ex. 236 and the fortnightly returns. 51. Thus he found accused No. 3 guilty of criminal breach of trust in respect of 765 drums worth Rs. 33,943.05. He also found him guilty along with accused No. 4, who is granted conditional pardon, of forging the milk powder distribution register Ex. 236 and the fortnightly returns. But both these findings in our view are interconnected : and they are based on the oral evidence of the witnesses with regard to the delivery of the drums of milk powder and bags of milk powder shown in the register to have been actually delivered. The evidence relied upon by the Special Judge in this connection is mainly the evidence of Tandale and the entries, signatures and thumb impressions in the register, Ex. 236. 52. Thus G.D. Desai (P.W. 60), stated that he had received only 3 bags and 2 drums of milk powder though the entry dated October 4, 1966 in Ex. 236 showed the delivery of 2 drums and the entry December 17, 1966, showed delivery of 5 drums of skim milk powder. It is very easy for such witnesses to come forward after having signed the register in 1966, more than 7 years later and say before the Court and say that he had not received all the drums for which he had signed. The learned Judge rightly did not accept the evidence of this witness too. 53. P.R. Kamble (P.W. 9), stated before the Court that he was working as Kotval since last 10 years, and that he did not know reading and writing; and that the entries dated 10-12-1966 and 6-1-1967 in the new register, Ex. 236 bore his signatures but he had not received 2 drums and 5 drums of milk powder as stated in the said register. The learned Judge appears to have believed this witness, although he was not in any better position than the other witnesses, merely because he could not be shaken in the cross-examination and he found animus against accused No. 3. We are unable to consider the evidence of such witnesses signing the entries in Ex. 236 to be so reliable as to be the basis of conviction in criminal trial of accused No. 3. 54. We are unable to consider the evidence of such witnesses signing the entries in Ex. 236 to be so reliable as to be the basis of conviction in criminal trial of accused No. 3. 54. It is very easy after 6 years for persons to come and say before the Court that they had signed the register for having received the particular number of drums of milk powder though they have not received them. In these circumstances, the contention of accused No. 3 that the witnesses are telling lies, being pressurised by the prosecution cannot be overruled. 55. Similarly, the evidence of witnesses T.N. Davari (P.W. 94) A.P. Kambale and M.B. Bhosale (P.W. 96) who had put their signatures to the entries, cannot be sufficient to convict accused No. 3 or to corroborate the evidence of the approver, Tandale against accused No. 3. 56. M.H. Joshi (P.W. 97), stated that he was Talathi at the relevant time in Takave Saja and that he got 3 bags of milk powder for the village P.T. Shirala and one bag of milk powder in June 1966 for the village Bambavade and at that time accused No. 3, had obtained the Signatures of this witness on a slip for having received these 3 bags for against the entry dated 21-6-1966 for 3 bags or drums and entry dated 17-8-1966 for 2 bags or drums for Rakave village under the register, Ex. 236. He contended that the entries dated 21-6-1966 for 3 bags or drums and 17-8-1966 for 2 bags or drums of milk powder did not bear his signature. 57. The learned Judge found that these signatures were forged by accused No. 3 without any basis whatsoever, as the prosecution did not examine any handwriting expert and there was nothing to show that accused No. 3 forged the signature. Merely because Joshi denied his signature, it could not be said that the signatures made in 1967, were not his signatures. The evidence led by the prosecution is stereo typed with regard to the entries in Exh. 236 and it appears that somehow or the other, the prosecution tried to catch at straw by way of corroborating the evidence of Tandale to make up this case against accused No. 3. 58. The evidence led by the prosecution is stereo typed with regard to the entries in Exh. 236 and it appears that somehow or the other, the prosecution tried to catch at straw by way of corroborating the evidence of Tandale to make up this case against accused No. 3. 58. We have carefully looked into the evidence and the findings recorded by the learned Judge; and we are constrained to say that it requires a great deal of gullibility to believe such witnesses, who after having made signatures 7 years earlier come and say that they have not received the number of drums mentioned in the register. It is the case of the prosecution that accused Nos. 3 and 4 had written the register, because accused No. 4 has admitted that it was in his hand writing. It is, therefore, difficulty to believe the witnesses deposing to events more than six years before they gave evidence and; saying that accused No. 3 was responsible for the entries with which they were concerned. 59. The learned Judge appears to have viewed with suspicion the maladministration and the deficit of 19 tones as shown by the old register. He has based his conclusion on an assumption that accused No. 3 must have had a hand in the manipulation of the register. Ex. 236. There is nothing reliable to show that accused No. 3 himself was involved in the actual distribution of the skim milk powder to the various villages. It must be noticed that the learned Judge has convicted accused No. 3 under section 409 of criminal mis-appropriation of 19 tones and odd without any evidence to show that he had actually caused wrongful less to anybody or wrongful gain to himself or to anybody else by any of his acts or omission. 60. It was urged by Mr. Kamble that wrongful loss was caused to the Government and the public who were going to be benefited by the distribution of the free skim milk powder. But in the entire voluminous record of this case, there is not an iota of evidence on behalf of the public to show that they did not received the milk powder or that they asked for the milk powder and they could not get it. But in the entire voluminous record of this case, there is not an iota of evidence on behalf of the public to show that they did not received the milk powder or that they asked for the milk powder and they could not get it. It is common ground that the Government has not incurred any additional expenses in respect of the distribution of the milk powder in the Shirala Mahal. The prosecution has not proved that accused No. 3 in any way, benefited himself or any other person by maintaining the register at Ex. 236. The learned Special Judge in our opinion, was therefore, wrong in convicting the accused under section 409 merely because the old register showed a deficit of 19 tones, which deficit was wiped out subsequently in the register at Ex. 236. It may be that accused No. 3 had not maintained proper accounts. It may even be that he had committed a civil breach of the trust or of the work of keeping accounts. That by itself is not criminal breach of trust under section 405 of the Indian Penal Code. 61. The mens rea referred to in that section must be established by the prosecution by showing that the accused had a dishonest intention or had wanted to defraud the Government or someone else. The prosecution has failed to prove so; and, therefore, accused No. 3, in our opinion, cannot be convicted under section 409. 62. He cannot even be convicted under section 5(1)(c). Even that section requires the prosecution to establish that accused No. 3 had noted dishonestly or fradulently. It must have the same meanings which are attributed to these words by the Indian Penal Code. 63. There is also no clear evidences to show that accused No. 3 was guilty of the offence under section 408, 471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code. In the absence of clear proof, regarding the breach of trust with regard to the milk powder by accused No. 3, it would be wrong to convict him under section 408, 471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code. 64. Turning now to the case of accused Nos. 6 to 9, it is common ground that no accounts were maintained by them with regard to the actual distribution of the skim milk powder. 64. Turning now to the case of accused Nos. 6 to 9, it is common ground that no accounts were maintained by them with regard to the actual distribution of the skim milk powder. No receipts were taken by them from the persons to whom the milk powder was actually distributed in the liquid form as required by the circulars. The findings of the learned Special Judge are based on the evidence of police patils who generally stated about the number of drums of milk powder distributed in their villages being less than the numbers shown in the register. 65. As against this the accused examined the sarpanch as defence witnesses to show that more milk powder was distributed than what the Police Patil had deposed. Here again, not a single villager has come forward to say that he was not supplied the milk powder when demanded. There is no grievance made by any villager. The evidence relied upon by the learned Special Judge of the police patils is not only stereo-typed but very suspicious and unreliable, as the police patils are speaking only from their memory about the distribution of milk powder six years before they gave evidence in the Court. Again, it is possible that the instructions with regard to maintaining proper accounts and receipts, if any, could not be carried out by accused Nos. 6 and 7 who were Talathis, by accused No. 8, who was head master and by accused No. 9 who was sarpanch and who must have been busy in their own way in their routine functions. Nobody appears to have given them instructions to maintain any book or receipt or voucher in regard to the delivery of the free powder milk given to the various persons in the villages. They were not provided with any expense either for distribution of the powder or for maintaining account. It is, therefore, unnecessary for us to deal in detail with the stereo-typed evidence led against these accused by the prosection on the basis of which the learned Special Judge found accused Nos. 6 to 9 to be guilty of criminal breach of trust in respect of the various quantities of milk powder mentioned above and for the offence under section 5(1)(c). 66. 6 to 9 to be guilty of criminal breach of trust in respect of the various quantities of milk powder mentioned above and for the offence under section 5(1)(c). 66. Here again, the only inference that may be drawn is not that they were guilty of Criminal breach of trust or that they had dishonest intention or fraudulent intention in not maintaining the accounts, it may be that they did not maintain the accounts because they were not specifically asked to do so with regard to the actual distribution. The Police were not able to place before the Court any evidence of sales of milk powder or the sale proceeds as alleged by the prosecution. It is hazardous to convict such Talathis a Head Master and a sarpanch on the basis of the stereo--typed mechanically, reproduced evidence of the police patils of the villages who came forward in this case after 6 years to say in the Court that the Talathis, Head Master and sarpanch had not distributed the milk powder as many times as they were claiming to have distributed. 67. It may be that because proper accounts were not maintained, some scandals arose and will continue to arise with regard to what had happened in regard to the distribution of free skim milk powder in the year 1966-67 in the Shirala Mahal. Although they may be food for local gossips and scandals, and however, malacious they may be and although they may attract even a paper in Poona, in the absence of reliable evidence, it is impossible to convict accused Nos. 6 to 9 under section 409 and 5(1)(c) read with section 5(2) as has been done by the learned Special Judge. 68. In the result, Criminal Appeal No. 1101 of 1974 filed by the State, is dismissed; and the order of acquittal passed in favour of accused Nos. 1 and 11 are confirmed. 69. Criminal Appeal No. 657 of 1974 is allowed and all the convictions and sentences passed against accused Nos. 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9, the applicants, are set aside. Fine if paid to be refunded. Bail bonds of all the accused cancelled. -----