Short Note : 1. Petitioner Sewasingh has been convicted under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. 2. The prosecution case in brief is this. The Central Board of Worker's Education, Nagpur, runs Workers' Education Centre at Bhilai. It is a registered society and is financed by the Ministry of Labour and Rehabilitation, Government of India. Sewasingh was the Regional Director of the Education Centre, Bhilai, at the relevant time. It was his job to tour various education centres at different places and supervise and guide officials connected with the education centres. He was entitled to claim T.A. and D.A. as per rules. 3. In connection with his tour in the month of June, 1970, Sewasingh submitted a consolidated bill for Rs. 897.41 Nps. It was passed by the Director and Sewasingh received payment. 4. It is alleged that the travelling and haulting allowance claimed for journey from Durg to Raigarh and back between 8-6-1970 to 10-6-1970 shown to be in connection with the closure of the Education Unit at Raigarh was a fictitious claim Held : The Courts below fell in error in connecting the ticket issued for the four sleeper berths on 7-8-1970 by Bara Patar with the travel in first class on 8-6-1970 by Sewasingh. The only relevant evidence to rule out possibility of Sewasingh travelling on those dates with ticket number quoted by him, could be the testimony of those T.T.I's., who were on the train. They could say what serial numbers they issued and for what classes. 5. I have my serious doubt if a man of the petitioner's status, drawing a salary of more than a thousand rupees, a man who had earned two promotions presumably because of good work, would try to cheat the Society for a paltry amount of Rs. 90/-. His T.A. Bills indicate travel far and wide. How is it that the prosecution could find fault with one item only? The evidence must, therefore, receive close scrutiny and conjecture and suspicion should not be allowed to take the place of legal proof. 6. In the present case, as discussed above, there is no reliable and unimpeachable evidence to show that the petitioner held not met the Chief Municipal Officer on the 9th June, 1970. The evidence must, therefore, receive close scrutiny and conjecture and suspicion should not be allowed to take the place of legal proof. 6. In the present case, as discussed above, there is no reliable and unimpeachable evidence to show that the petitioner held not met the Chief Municipal Officer on the 9th June, 1970. On the other hand, it appears, he did meet him. If that is so, it is reasonable to expect that the petitioner did not travel without ticket. And if he did travel, the possibility of his having purchased Excess Fare Ticket from the running staff is not ruled out. The petitioner's conviction under section 420, I.P.C. must be and is hereby set aside. The fine paid by him shall be refunded.