JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25th Sept, 1979, passed by the Special Judge, ACD, Cases, Jaipur, whereby he has convicted the appellant under section 409, IPC and sentenced him to 1 year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 6 months' simple imprisonment; and to 1 year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days' simple imprisonment under section 5(1) (c), read with S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 2. The Deputy Secretary, General Administrative Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur, sent a letter dated 21st May, 73 to the Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Department, Jaipur, informing him that during the course of audit of the Government-Hostel, Jaipur, by the Internal Checking Party, it was found that the accounts from 1962 to 1972. were not reliable, and in some cases, they were found false. The bill books and the visitors' registers for the period from May, 70 to Mar 72, were either missing or were not being maintained. The entries in the ledgers were also not supported by the bill-books. The difference between the amount shown as deposited in the receipts issued to the Members of the Legislative Assembly and the counterfoils retained in the Government-Hostel indicated clearly some embezzlement of the government-money, and it was requested that necessary investigation may be made in the matter. After a preliminary inquiry, a case was registered and investigation was conducted. A report under section 174, Criminal Procedure Code , was submitted after completing the investigation and obtaining due sanction for prosecution. The learned trial court, after perusing the documents, framed charges against the appellant under section 409 & under section 5(1)(c) read with S. 5(2) of the PC Act. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. The contention of the appellant was that he had issued a receipt of Rs. 300/- to one Ram Prasad Bohra (Ex. P 1), and an entry was made in the cash-book (Ex. P 3). There are some interpolations and overwriting in the cash-book (Ex. P3), for which, the contention of the appellant was that he did not make those interpolations and overwriting. He has also denied that by overwriting on the figure of Rs. 300/-, he did not write the amount of Rs. P 3). There are some interpolations and overwriting in the cash-book (Ex. P3), for which, the contention of the appellant was that he did not make those interpolations and overwriting. He has also denied that by overwriting on the figure of Rs. 300/-, he did not write the amount of Rs. 290.12 in the cash-book. He has further contended that he had prepared the receipt (Ex. P4) in the name or Meghraj Panwar, but, when the amount was not paid by Meghraj, he cancelled that receipt and also cut his signature on it and pasted this receipt on the front side of the counterfoil in the receipt-book. He has also denied to have issued the `no-dues' certificate (Ex. P5). He has further alleged that in the year 1972, one Mohanlal was the Supervisor in the Government-Hostel and after his retirement, Narainsingh became the supervisor there. Narainsingh had asked him to intimate him of the wrongs committed by Mohanlal, and also demanded liquor for his personal use. As thereafter the appellant refused to comply with this order, Narainsingh, the latter was annoyed, and on account of that, he has been falsely implicated in this case. 4. The trial court, after completing the trial, hearing the arguments of both the sides and perusing the documents, found that the case was made out against the appellant, and sentenced him as mentioned above. 5. I have heard both the learned counsel, at length. It would be futile to repeat the entire evidence here. However, the case would be discussed in the light of the statements and other evidence on the record, also keeping in mind the documents which have been relied on by the trial court, and the fact that there are so many interpolations and overwriting in the documents, which would show that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused-appellant, beyond reasonable doubt. These documents indicate that the evidence has been tried to be created in such a manner which would implicate the appellant in the charges made against him, so that conviction can be obtained on the basis of the altered facts. 6. I would like to mention here that the receipt (Ex. P 4) which indicates the name of Meghraj, MLA. is a very important document. This Ex. P 4 is the receipt of making a payment of the Government Hostel, twice. 6. I would like to mention here that the receipt (Ex. P 4) which indicates the name of Meghraj, MLA. is a very important document. This Ex. P 4 is the receipt of making a payment of the Government Hostel, twice. A receipt book is kept in the Hostel with the cashier, who receives the cash and on receipt, he issues the receipt. Ex. P 4 is the original receipt and its counter foil must be in the receipt book, bearing No. 109006. This is the general principle of keeping a receipt book. The receipt book in the present case was of 100 pages. The receipt in the name of Meghraj Panwar bears the No. 68. The receipt book has been produced. and have perused it also. Receipt No. 67 therein, is of 30th December 71, while Receipt No. 69 is of 5th Jan. 72. Thus, the Receipt No. 68 was issued prior to 5th Jan. 71 and after 30th Dec., 71. The date mentioned on Ex. P 4 is 15th Mar., 72. In naked eyes, it is clearly visible that this date 15th Mar 72, has been interpolated. There is double writing over this date. Therefore, the figure of this date, has been overwritten. The month "3" shows that there was some other figure under this `3'. Similarly `5' shows that there was some other figure under this figure. And, also under figure `2'. the position is the same. It means that the complete date, 15-3-12 has been overwritten. Who has done it, Is to be looked into. The receipt is signed by the person who received the cash, but his signature is found to be cut. The entire receipt has been crossed. The receipt (Ex. P 4) is in a dilapidated condition, and on the back of it, one paper has been pasted. I do not find any reason as to why that paper has been pasted on its back. Let us suppose that in order to keep the receipt in a good condition, the paper was pasted on its back. But, the contention of the appellant was that he had prepared the receipt (Ex. P 4) and sent to the person concerned, i.e., Meghraj Panwar, for making its payment and giving receipt. As Meghraj refused to make the payment, the receipt was returned to one Wali Mohammad, Peon. But, the contention of the appellant was that he had prepared the receipt (Ex. P 4) and sent to the person concerned, i.e., Meghraj Panwar, for making its payment and giving receipt. As Meghraj refused to make the payment, the receipt was returned to one Wali Mohammad, Peon. He, therefore, immediately, cancelled the receipt, cut his signature and pasted it on the original counterfoil. Now, the important aspect to be taken note of is that the original counterfoil is missing from the receipt book. In the Receipt Book, counterfoils of receipt Nos. 67 & 69 are available. but that of 68 is missing. There is no mention or indication about the counterfoil of receipt No. 68. It means, it has been completely removed from the receipt book. As contended by the appellant, he had pasted Receipt No. 68 on the face of the counterfoil and he did not remove the counterfoil from the receipt book, but, somebody else has done that mischief. This contention of the appellant, appears to be correct The original receipt (Ex. P 4) was perused. After looking on the back of the said receipt, two figures "10" are clearly visible under the paper which has been pasted thereon. These figures are below the figures of No. 109006 on the original receipt No. 68 (Ex. P 4). It is found that the number of the Receipt-book on the counterfoil, is below the word, "Government", while the original number of the Receipt-Book on Receipt No. 68 is just on the word, "Government". So, the places of number of the Receipt-Book on the counterfoil and on the original part, are different. The original receipt was pasted on the counterfoil, and the number of the Receipt Book on the counterfoil left its impression on the back of this original receipt (Ex. P 4). That impression has been covered by a paper pasted later on, but, unfortunately, the two figures. "10" are clearly visible on the back of this receipt (Ex. P 4). This impression shows that the appellant, after cancelling the receipt (Ex P 4), had pasted it on the counter foil, and so, the contention of the appellant that he had cancelled the receipt and cut his signature, is correct, and agree with him. 7. The next aspect to be seen is as to who committed the mischief, who has removed the counterfoil from the Receipt-Book. 7. The next aspect to be seen is as to who committed the mischief, who has removed the counterfoil from the Receipt-Book. In this regard, the statement of Kunwar Bahadur Nag PW 4, was perused. He audited the Hostel-Accounts in the year 1973. He has stated in his statement that during his audit, he had seen the receipt (Ex. P 41) which was with regard to a sum of Rs. 983.33, and according to this receipt, this amount was recovered from Meghraj. So, in the year 1973, i.e. in October, 73, when the audit-party checked the Government-Hostel Accounts, the receipt (Ex. P 41) was available in the Receipt-Book. The original receipt was already removed from the Receipt, Book, and after cancelling it, the appellant had pasted it on the counterfoil. So, the original receipt (Ex. P 4) and its counterfoil were available to the auditor or the audit-party when they audited the accounts in Oct., 73. 8. Meghraj PW 6 has stated that on 15th Mar, 72 he made payment of Rs. 683.33, and the Cashier had issued him the receipt (Ex. P 4). The said receipt remained with him unto the time when it was recovered from him by Peeraram, Head-Constable PW 7, in the month of August, 74. So, upto August, 74, this receipt (Ex. P 41) was with Meghraj Panwar PW 6. But, according to Kunwar Bahadur Nag PW 4, in the month of Oct., 73, when he had audited the Hostel Accounts, this receipt (Ex. P 4) was in the Receipt-Book, and he had seen it. It shows that the statement of Meghraj Panwar, is a false one. No payment was made by Meghraj Panwar on 15th Mar., 72, nor was any receipt issued by the appellant to Meghrai Panwar. Had it been a fact that the amount was paid by Meghraj and he had received a receipt therefor on that very date, then, how was it found in the Receipt-Book and perused by the audit-party in October, 73 ? So, it proves that the appellant had prepared the receipt (Ex P 4); sent it to Meghraj Panwar through Wali Mohammad, Peon, for taking the payment; and when Meghraj refused to make the payment, he immediately cancelled the receipt, cut his signature on it and pasted it on the original counterfoil. So, it proves that the appellant had prepared the receipt (Ex P 4); sent it to Meghraj Panwar through Wali Mohammad, Peon, for taking the payment; and when Meghraj refused to make the payment, he immediately cancelled the receipt, cut his signature on it and pasted it on the original counterfoil. So, his contention is corroborated and proved by the statement of Kanwar Bahadur Nag PW 4. When the receipt was seen in the Receipt-Book in the year 1973, who took away it from the Receipt-Book, later on ? How did this receipt (Ex. P 4) reach the hands of Meghraj Panwar in 1974, when it was recovered by Head-Constable Peera Ram in August, 74 ? It means that somebody removed this receipt from the Receipt. Book, along with the counterfoil, destroyed the counterfoil and handed over the receipt either to Meghraj Panwar, or the police made a false recovery of it and prepared a case in order to implicate falsely the appellant in this case. So, a conspiracy was entered into by the then Supervisor, and the then staff of the Government Hostel, who might be interested in creating some evidence against the appellant and implicating him falsely in this case. 9. Another aspect is that Ex. P. 4 is a very important document. This is the document by which the prosecution alleges that the amount was embezzled by the appellant. During investigation, whenever document is recovered or seized, the investigating officer prepares a recovery-memo. Without preparing a recovery-memo, no document can be seized. But in the present case, when the receipt (Ex. P.4) was recovered from Meghraj Panwar, the Head-Constable Peeraram, who recovered it, did not prepare any recovery-memo. Later on, when Peeraram submitted this receipt to the investigating officer, Satwant Singh (Dy. S.P.) PW 8, he too did not prepare any recovery memo for the said receipt. Why this type of investigation is done by an officer of the rank of Dy. S P., who does not know how to investigate a matter, or intentionally keeps the lacuna ? However , this Court cannot give any reason for this, but it can only say that the entire case in this matter, gives rise to a great suspicion regarding correctness and fairness of the investigation, 10. Another important aspect is regarding the documents (Ex. C. & C. 2). Ex. C. 1 is the alleged true-copy of Et. However , this Court cannot give any reason for this, but it can only say that the entire case in this matter, gives rise to a great suspicion regarding correctness and fairness of the investigation, 10. Another important aspect is regarding the documents (Ex. C. & C. 2). Ex. C. 1 is the alleged true-copy of Et. P. 4; and Ex. C. 2 is the alleged true-copy of Ex. P. 5 , the `no-dues" certificate. These true-copies were issued by the DSP, Churu, on 23rd Aug. 74, i.e. when the original papers were recovered from the possession of Meghraj Panwar. Why the true-copies were prepared by the DSP who had nothing to do with the investigation of this case. It was not a case of his jurisdiction. The information was given to DSP, Churu. But, Satwant Singh was the investigating officer. If any true-copies were to be issued, they were to be so issued by Satwant singh, DSP and not by the DSP, Churu. Then, whether these true-copies were given on 23rd July, 78 or they were prepared later on in order to falsely implicate the appellant, could have been explained by the DSP, Churu, himself. He could have come forward and say that on 23rd Aug.,78, these papers were recovered from Meghraj, and that he had issued the true-copies of these documents to Meghraj. But, unfortunately, the said DSP has not been examined. Why was he not examined ? Had he been examined as a witness, most probably, the correct fact could have come on the record of the case. Furthermore, if we look into the statement of Meghraj PW 6 recorded by the trial court and also that recorded by this Court, during the course of hearing the appeal, he (Meghraj) is found to have stated that on 15th Mar., 72, he had made payment of Rs. 683.33, for which, the receipt (Ex. P.4) was issued to him. According to him, this receipt was given to him on that very day. But, he has not stated that when he handed over the receipt to the police, they gave him the true-copies of the documents (Exs. P. 4 & P. 5). He has admitted in his cross-examination that no memo was prepared by the police when he had handed over the receipt to him. But, he has not stated that when he handed over the receipt to the police, they gave him the true-copies of the documents (Exs. P. 4 & P. 5). He has admitted in his cross-examination that no memo was prepared by the police when he had handed over the receipt to him. He has not specifically stated that at the time of handing over the receipt by him to the police, the true-copies of the documents which were got prepared by the DSP, Churu, were given to him, by Head-Constable Peeraram. Meghraj was examined in this Court also, when he stated that he had taken the original receipt from the DSP, Charu, which are Exs. C. 1 & C. 2. Why did he not give this statement in the trial court. The reason was obvious that it was not the fact at that time, but, subsequently, the case was made out by the police. And, when he was again examined by this Court, he was made to say that the DSP had issued the two true-copies (Exs. C. 1 & C. 2) to him. This fact he should have disclosed when he was examined by the trial court. Similarly, Peeraram PW 7 has not stated in the trial court that when he had recovered the documents (Ex. P. 4 & P. 5 their true copies (Exs. C. 1 & C. 2) were issued to Meghraj, by DSP, Churu. But, when examined by this Court, he was tutored to give this type of statement, and he stated that when the originals were recovered by him, the DSP Churu, had issued the true-copies (Exs. C. 1 & C. 2) to Meghraj. All these show that the entire case is a made out and concocted one. But, when examined by this Court, he was tutored to give this type of statement, and he stated that when the originals were recovered by him, the DSP Churu, had issued the true-copies (Exs. C. 1 & C. 2) to Meghraj. All these show that the entire case is a made out and concocted one. And, from the very beginning, as stated by the appellant in his statement under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code he has been falsely implicated in this case by Narain Singh, the then Supervisor, on account of something which he has mentioned in his statement, I am convinced that the entire case has been made out against the appellant; and the investigating officer and the then officer of the Government Hostel made all the plans to in plicate the appellant falsely and entangle him in a criminal case, which could be done only if they created some forgery in the official documents and made some interpolations therein, and what they have done in this case, as discussed above. 11. Another document is the cash-book (Ex. P. 3). It is a document which is to be prepared and kept in a most honest and clear manner. There should not be a single overwriting or interpolation in the cash-book; and if for any reason, some correction is to be made therein, then, according to the principles of keeping cash-book, a note has to be mentioned below the entries that for such and such reason, the necessary corrections were made; and on every correction and overwriting, the official who signs the cash-book, has to put his initials. Otherwise, there would be no sanctity of the cash-book. Looking into Ex. P. 3, the cash-book in this case, find that in a very pitiable condition, it is maintained. It cannot be said to be a cash-book of a Government department. It is, in my view, even worse than that of a private person. I surprise that a Government office is keeping this type of cash-book. Looking into Ex. P. 3, the cash-book in this case, find that in a very pitiable condition, it is maintained. It cannot be said to be a cash-book of a Government department. It is, in my view, even worse than that of a private person. I surprise that a Government office is keeping this type of cash-book. What I find in this case is that the Government was so keen that it sent a report to the Anti-Corruption Department for investigating the matter, hurriedly, but, the General Administration Department of the Government, did not notice as to in what manner the corrections, overwriting and interpolations were made in the cash-book; nor did they ask the Anti-Corruption Department to inquire into the fact as to who had done those corrections and interpolations therein. Why was the Government silent on the cash-book ? Why were all those entries made in the cash-book ? It means that the officers were biding all these. It is most unfortunate that in Government departments, such cash-books are maintained, and the officers throw responsibility of the corrupt practices over the lower employees, shielding the higher officers who are responsible for all these mischiefs. 12. There is an entry of 16th Nov., 71 in the cash book which is Ex. P 3. On that date, the amount of Receipt No. 20 was entered. Receipt No. 20 was of the Receipt-Book 109006 and dated 16th Nov., 71. If we look into this receipt, we find that it has also been manipulated by someone. There is a clear over writing over the name of whose name this Receipt No. 20 was prepared. By erasing the original name, the name of Meghraj Panwar had been written. Upon looking into the cash-book (Ex. P.3), we find that in the first column, the number of the receipt, i.e. 20 oblique number of the Receipt-Book. i.e., 109006; and in the next column of particulars, the name Shri Meghraj Panwar has been written, between A & B. This shows that the Meghraj Panwar has been overwritten on a previous name whose name started with "Shri Ram," though the complete name is not readable/visible. This proves that the cash-book and the receipt (Ex. P 2) have been manipulated later on. Then, a look into the amount mention in Ex P2 and the cash book (Ex. P. 3) shows overwriting of amount of Rs 290.12. This proves that the cash-book and the receipt (Ex. P 2) have been manipulated later on. Then, a look into the amount mention in Ex P2 and the cash book (Ex. P. 3) shows overwriting of amount of Rs 290.12. Previously, some other figure was there, and later on, it has been made as Rs. 290.12 and so also in the column of total. There is a general total of the date 16th Nov., 71. The general principle of maintaining a cash book is that after making entries, there should be a total of that making entries. The balance is to be broken up; on the next date, the opening-balance has to be shown above the entries for that date are made, and then, again the balance has to be mentioned. The opening-balance on 16th Nov., 71 in the cash book was Rs. 656.16 and because some interpolations were made on 16th Nov., 71 in the amount of Rs. 290.12, the whole balance of that date, became different, and in order correct that balance, as there was no overwriting in the balance and total of 16th Nov., 71, what they did, they made interpolations in the total amount of 12th & 13th Nov., 71. which are very clearly visible; and there is no initial either of the cashier or of the in-charge, who signed the cash-bock, over these interpolations. But, as they had to keep the balance of 16th Nov., 71 they made corrections in the total of previous dates also. This cash-book is found to have been with the supervisor of the Government Hostel. It can be easily imagined as to who made all these corrections and interpolations in the Cash-book. 13. Ex P 2 dated 16th Nov., 71 was in the name of Meghraj Panwar, but no question was asked to him when he appeared in the witness box, about it. Ex P 2 is the counterfoil, the original of which must have been in the name of Meghraj. Had it been with Meghraj the police could have recovered it and satisfied the court that no Interpolation was made in the cashbook. But, this fact was not brought to the notice of the court, nor was it asked to Meghraj Panwar that he had already made payment of Rs. 290.12 on 16th Nov. 71. When he had made payment of Rs. 290.12 on 16th Nov., 71. But, this fact was not brought to the notice of the court, nor was it asked to Meghraj Panwar that he had already made payment of Rs. 290.12 on 16th Nov. 71. When he had made payment of Rs. 290.12 on 16th Nov., 71. whereas the necessity for his making payment of Rs. 300/- on 15th Mar, 72. Just after 3 months. This all shows the it from the very beginning, the intention of the investigation officer was to entangle the appellant somehow, for the simple reason that they wanted to save the actual culprit; and the appellant being the lowest person in the ladder, was made scapegoat of the misdeeds In my considered view, the entire prosecution case of the prosecution falls on the ground, on this very ground alone as to how the receipt (Ex. P 4) came in possession of Meghraj. It was prepared on 15th Mar., 72 and was given to Meghraj, as stated by he appellant himself, and when the latter refused to take it, it was pasted on the counterfoil of Receipt No. 68, and was later on seen by the audit-part, which means that the receipt (Ex P 4) was not given to Meghraj on 13th Mar. 72; and so, the recovery from Meghraj as stated by Peeraram Head-Constable and Satwant Singh DSP, is falsified by this fact. Meghraj who is the star-witness of the prosecution and who has given totally a false statement, has manipulated the entire story, in fact, with the help of the then in charge of the Government Hostel, in order to implicate the appellant. 14. Another allegation against the appellant is with regard to Receipt (Ex P 2) which is pertaining to making payment of Rs. 300/- by Ram Prasad PW 9. This witness has stated that on 16th Nov. 71 he had deposited Rs. 300/- to Onkar appellant, who had issued him a receipt (Ex P 1). Perused the receipt (Ex P 1) dated 16th Nov. 71. This receipt is from the Receipt-Book bearing No. 109006; and the receipt No. is 20, which is the original and tie counterfoil of which is Ex P 2. This fact has not been disputed by the prosecution that Ex P 2 is not the counterfoil of the original receipt (Ex P 1). It means, Exs P 1 & P 2 pertain to Ramprasad, who had deposite Rs. 300/-. This fact has not been disputed by the prosecution that Ex P 2 is not the counterfoil of the original receipt (Ex P 1). It means, Exs P 1 & P 2 pertain to Ramprasad, who had deposite Rs. 300/-. In Ex P 2, there is no correction or overwriting, but in Ex P 1, there is overwriting on the name and a similar entry has made Ex P 3, as discussed above, wherein, the word "Ra" between Shree and Meghraj is clearly visible under the name of Meghra, and Meghraj has been overwritten. Thus, the amount of Rs 300/- was interpolated in that cash-book and it was made as Rs. 290.12. There is clear overwriting on the counterfoil over Rs. 300/-. The allegation against the appellant with to Ramprasad is that he had also embezzled the amount given by Ram prasad. There is entry in the cash book dated 16th Nov. 71 of Rs. 290.12. But, Meghraj has not stated that he had paid this amount on 16th Nov., 71. So, this entry pertains to Ex P 1 which was in the name of Ramprasad. The original amount was Rs. 300/- but interpolation has been made in Ex P 3. The name of Ramprasad was erased and that of Meghraj was written, and on the figure 300/-, 290.12 was written. Why was this interpolation done and false entries were created ? Its reason was best known to the Supervisor of the Government-Hostel, who maintained the cash-book. So the case against the appellant so far as Ramprasad is concerned, is a so a false case, and the entire story has been concocted and evidence is been created by the authorities of the Government-Hostel and it is unfortunate that the investigating machinery was also involved in the mischief. 15. Exs. P. 4 & P. 5 are also important documents. Ex. P. 5 is the `no-dues' certificate, issued by the authorities, and according to the prosecution, the appellant had issued it. The appellant has denied that he had issued the certificate, and he has also denied his signature on it. PW 2 Mohan was the Supervisor in the Government Hostel. He has stated in his statement that the signature from A to B in Ex. P. 5, appeared to be of accused Onkar. The appellant has denied that he had issued the certificate, and he has also denied his signature on it. PW 2 Mohan was the Supervisor in the Government Hostel. He has stated in his statement that the signature from A to B in Ex. P. 5, appeared to be of accused Onkar. It means, he was not sure whether that certificate was issued by Onkar and also whether it bore his signature. In such circumstances, it was the duty of the prosecution to have sent the document to the handwriting-expert for verification, but, it was not so sent. And, on the basis of the evidence on record, it cannot be said that the certificate (Ex P. 5) was issued by Onkar accused. When these many interpolations and corrections as mentioned above, could be made in those important documents, this "no dues" certificate could also be prepared by the interested person in order to entangle the appellant in a criminal case. 16. If the sanction of the Government which is Ex. P. 6 is perused, it is found that it has details of the documents which were perused by the authorities while granting the sanctions, but, here is no mention in it that the "no dues" certificate was also perused by the sanctioning authority, with a view to arrive at the conclusion that the accused had committed some offence for which sanction was to be accorded for his prosecution. It means that this document was not presented before the sanctioning authority, and it was later on prepared. Who prepared it and when it was prepared, is best known to the in-charge of the Government Hostel as well as the investigating officer. But, it is certain that the document (Ex. P. 5) does not bear the signature of appellant Onkar. 17. Meghraj PW 6, in his cross-examination has admitted that when he handed over the receipt (Ex. P. 4) to Head Constable Peera Ram, there was no cutting on the signature marked A to B, and the receipt was in the same condition as it was on that date when he was examined in the court. So, according to this statement, the signature of Onkar was there, but, no cutting was there in the signature, and there was a mark of crossover the receipt (Ex. P. 4). So, according to this statement, the signature of Onkar was there, but, no cutting was there in the signature, and there was a mark of crossover the receipt (Ex. P. 4). if this receipt was given to Meghraj in that very condition which was completely crossed, why and how did he accept this receipt ? Immediately, he should have asked Outer as to why he had sent a crossed receipt. Crossing a receipt means, it was cancelled. And certainly, Meghraj would not carry with him the receipt in torn condition. It means, the receipt was cancelled by Onkar, and his signature was also cut by him and his contention is that he had pasted this receipt on the face of the counterfoil, which is a correct statement, and later on, Maghraj, as stated above, gave a false statement. He is a liar, manipulator and hero of the crime, who, in order to create evidence against the appellant, has given a false statement. 18. In view of my above discussion, I am of the firm opinion that the entire case has been manipulated and falsely made out against the appellant; and the trial court has completely failed to appreciate the evidence as well as the circumstances in which the investigation of this case was conducted and the case was put up before the court. Absolutely, there is no case against the appellant, and he has been wrongly found guilty by the trial court. 19. In the result, the appeal is accepted the appellant is not found guilty either of offence under sections 409, IPC and 5(1)(c) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. He is, therefore, acquitted of these charges. He is on bail. He need not surrender to his bail-bonds, which are hereby cancelled.Appeal accepted. *******