Judgment G.N. VAIDYA, J.:---There is no merit in the above Criminal appeals filed by the State against the order of acquittal passed on July 9, 1973 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, in Sessions Case Nos. 10, 11 and 12 of 1973, in which the two respondents were tried for offences under sections 409, 467, 477-A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case against the two accused, briefly stated, was as under. Between the years 1966 to 1971, respondent No. 1, Raghunath Rajaram Patil, was the Sarpanch and respondent No. 2, Jankiram Lrishna Patil, was the Sevak-cum-Secretary of the village panchayat at village Ainpur, Taluka Raver, District Jalgaon. After the election for the year 1970-71 accused No. 1 was re-elected a member of the panchayat but ceased to be the Sarpanch as Shrawan Punjaji was elected as the Sarpanch by the new body. Shrawan took over the charge from accused No. 1, sometime in July, 1971. 3. Sub-auditor, Shiva S. Kedar of Local Fund Office, at Jalgaon, inspected the accounts of the Panchayat for the period 1968-69 to 1970-71 and found Several irregularities in the expenses incurred by the Panchayat relating to the road repairs, drain erection and other repairs, well clearance and waterpipe line as they were undertaken without inviting tenders in the requisite forms. Kedar, therefore, made a report pointing out the defects to the village panchayat. 4. The report was placed by Shrawan before the village panchayat and the Gram Sabha, and during the course of the discussion, it was disclosed that many of the works shown in the vouchers had not been done, and the expenses shown in the same were fictitious. Written complaints were received by Shrawan. He also recorded the statements of several persons. He then sent a report to the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad. 5. The Chief Executive Officer in his turn forwarded Shrawans report with a covering letter to the Block Development Officer. Written complaints were received by Shrawan. He also recorded the statements of several persons. He then sent a report to the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad. 5. The Chief Executive Officer in his turn forwarded Shrawans report with a covering letter to the Block Development Officer. The Block Development Officer went to Ainpur to verify the statements recorded by Shrawan and visited the spot to see whether the works shown in the vouchers, maintained by the Panchayat, were in fact done prepared a report; and filed a complaint on April 30, 1972 in the Police Station at Raver, alleging that the accused had misappropriated between April 2, 1968 to December 30, 1970, a total sum of Rs. 21,162.59; and thereby committed offences under sections 409, 467 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code, by falsification of the accounts and vouchers. 6. After completing the investigation, the police filed three charge-sheets for the three years 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71, specifying various items of false vouchers and false accounts and misappropriation. The learned Magistrate before whom the charge-sheets were filed committed the accused to be tried before the Sessions Judge who tried them as Sessions Case Nos. 10, 11 and 12 of 1973 being respectively for the misappropriation in Sessions Case No. 10 for the year 1970-71, from April 1, 1970. November 25, 1970 Sessions Case No. 11 for the year 1969-70 and Sessions Case No. 12 for the year 1968-69. The reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge for acquitting the accused in the three cases were almost identical. 7. Thus in Sessions Case No. 10 of 1973, the learned Sessions Judge observed in paragraph 31 of his judgment : "Having discussed the evidence of the payees, it is necessary to mention that practically all of them have a grudge against accused No. 1. As a class, the material supplied are vague. They cannot recall important details connected with the work done by them. They given contradictory answers as to the reasons for their signing on blank vouchers. The other witnesses follow the same line. Some like Raghunath have deliberately assumed a pose of poverty or humility. At every meeting of the Panchayat, expenses incurred in the proceeding month used to be discussed. If work on good number of accused No. 1s Political opponents, would have raised a hue and cry. The other witnesses follow the same line. Some like Raghunath have deliberately assumed a pose of poverty or humility. At every meeting of the Panchayat, expenses incurred in the proceeding month used to be discussed. If work on good number of accused No. 1s Political opponents, would have raised a hue and cry. To show that no road was repaired is falsifide by the testimony of the porters. In the very nature of things, boring of the well and cleansing of the same were essential and must have been done. The witnesses examined had no reason to sign blank vouchers. Accused No. 2 was an employee of the Panchayat and did not have any held over the villagers to make them do whatever he intended. Thus all the circumstances taken into consideration, militate against the prosecution version. An important circumstance in favour of the accused is that even Kedar did not suspect frand. He suspected no more than irregularity in the functioning of the Panchayat. For reasons not difficult to comprehend, this entirely innocuous report became the inspiration for initiating a whispering campaign against the accused by Shrawan Punjaji and his allies. It was said that Shrawan had received applications and complaints from the villagers. But it is not difficult to guess that he himself had inspired some of these. Evidence coming from vague, interested and inimically disposed witnesses which militates against the record, cannot be the foundation for believing that accused committed the offences with which they stand charged. 8. Having carefully considered the nature of the evidence and all the facts and circumstances of the learned Sessions Judge, therefore, acquitted the accused by his judgment and orders, dated July 9, 1973. The orders of acquittal in all these three cases are challenged in the above three appeals. 9. It is well settled that if the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge in a acquitting the accused in a case like this, is a reasonable view, based on a careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances and on proper appreciation of the oral testimony, given by the witnesses, this Court does not interfere with such an order in the exercise of its appellate powers even assuming that more reasonable view may be possible, on further arguments on the evidence on record. 10. 10. We have carefully perused the record in these cases; and we are in complete agreement with the learned Sessions Judge in holding that all the expenses, incurred were supported by vouchers, and the witnesses, who were examined in respect of some of the vouchers, in these three cases, cannot be believed when they say that no work was done for the village panchayat as they had given the evidence several years after the work was actually done. 11. Even Mr. Deo, the learned Public Prosecutor had to fairly state that it was not possible for him to contend that the view taken by the Sessions Judge was an impossible view. He only argued that at least when the road was seen two years after, the road appeared to have been in a bad condition and that to some extent supports the evidence of the witnesses that they had not done the work. 12. He argued that in respect of boring the well the depth was not reached as originally stipulated; and there was, therefore, dishonesty on the part of the accused. Neither of these arguments can be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the cases. The fact that the road was inspected two years afterwards and it was found in a bad condition merely can show that whatever material was put must have been washed or worn off in two seasons. 13. Nothing has been relied upon before us to show that the accused No. 1, Sarpanch, who is a medical practitioner and accused No. 2 who was only the Secretary of the village Panchayat-cum-Gramsevak were expected to go personally and inspect and find out the depth of the borning well which is admittedly there. In any event, nothing has been proved to show that accused Nos. 1 and 2 led the mens rea necessary for the offences charged against them under sections 409, 467, 477-A of the Indian Penal Code. 14. As we are in incomplete agreement with the reasons and findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, who had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses, it is not necessary for us to reiterate what he stated in support of our conclusion except to observe that we concur in his reasons and findings in every aspect of the matter. 15. Orders of acquittal are, therefore, confirmed, and the three appeals are dismissed. Bail bonds cancelled. 15. Orders of acquittal are, therefore, confirmed, and the three appeals are dismissed. Bail bonds cancelled. -----