Judgment S.H.S.Abidi, J. 1. Criminal Appeal Nos. 414, 427, 440, 446, 448 and 457 of 1983 arising out of special Case No. 16 of 1977 have been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. For appellant Mahendra Narain Sah the learned Counsel for the appellant has said that he has died on 19-4-1989. Since, there is no sentence of fine against him, so his appeal, bearing Cr. A. No. 446 of 1983 has abated. Now, out of seven accused appellants, six appellants as detailed above are for consideration. 3. All these appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated 13-8-1983 passed by the learned Special Judge (C.B.I.), North Bihar, Patna in Special Case No. 16 of 1977 by which appellants Ram Chandra Goswami and Shabir Ahmad have been convicted for the offence under Sec. 120-B, 477-A, 409 of the Indian Penal Code (For short IPC) and under Secs. 5(2) read with Sections 5(1)(c) and 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short the P.C. Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each under all the four sections and Rest of the appellants have been convicted for the offences under Secs. 120-B, 477-A, IPC and under Sec. 5(2) r/w Secs. 5(1)(c) and 5(1)(d) of the PC. Act and have been sent sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each under Sec. 477-A, IPC and Sec. 5(2) of the PC. Act. No separate sentence has been passed under Sec. 120-B against any of the appellants. AH the sentences have been ordered to be run concurrently. 4. D.N. Singh, Deputy Manager (vigilance), Office of the Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India (for short F.C.I.) has submitted a report (Ext. 5/1) dated 29-4-1977 on the basis of which first information report (Ext. 29) was registered for the occurrence from October, 1975 to 7th of June, 1976 in respect of the food shortage in the depot of the F.C.I. at Muzaifarpur. Appellant Ram Chandra Goswami was posted as depot incharge of the F.S.D.F.C.I., Muzaffarpur appellant Shabir Ahmad was the incharge of the two sectors of the aforesaid depot at Muzaffarpur, appellant Mehendra Narain Sah A.G. II staff was attached to the aforesaid depot, Narain Mahto A.G. II staff was attached to sector A, appellant Jagannath Singh A.G. III staff was attached. Appellant Ram Chandra Goswami was posted as depot incharge of the F.S.D.F.C.I., Muzaffarpur appellant Shabir Ahmad was the incharge of the two sectors of the aforesaid depot at Muzaffarpur, appellant Mehendra Narain Sah A.G. II staff was attached to the aforesaid depot, Narain Mahto A.G. II staff was attached to sector A, appellant Jagannath Singh A.G. III staff was attached. to the depot and was incharge of movements, appellant Madhu Sudan Singn A. G. III was attached to Sector A. The whole depot was divided into two sectors, A and B and both the sectors consisted of three sheds each. Ram Chandra Goswami was godown incharge of entire depot and Shabir Ahmad was incharge of both the sectors of the depot. A.G. III staff attached to the sectors had to assist both Ram Chandra Goswami and Shabir Ahmad in day to day functioning of the depot. Himmat Singh was Assistant Superintendent of Muzaffarpur F.S.D. in March, 1976. He found the arrangement of the stocks of wheat in the godown was not proper and much of the quantity of wheat was lying dumped in the vacant space. Bags containing wheat where not position to be counted as the stacks were not properly arranged. Moreover, accounts were also not properly maintained. He had moved for physical verification which was done and huge shortage was detected, the details of which will be given out later on in this judgment. The total shortage and misappropriation came to about 2564.00.000 quintals weight valued at Rs. 3,20,500. On the basis of this report, the first information has been registered. 5. After the registration of the first information report against Ram Chandra Goswami, Shabir Ahmad, Mahendra Narain Sah and Jagannath Singh, the case was investigated by Nageshwar Prasad Singh, Inspector of police but later on, he found involvement of accused Narain Mahto, Madhusudan Singh and Jagarnath Prasad Singh and so they were also made accused in the case, on investigation of which, charge sheet against all of them was submitted. 6. The prosecution, the support of its case, examined 16 witnesses out of whom, P.W. 1 Shankar Chaudhary had typed out the sanction order against all the applleants on the dictation of the Regional Manager, P.K. Pathab, P.W. 2 was the District Manager of F.C.I. deport at Muzaffarpur from 25-5-1975 to 1-3-1977. P.Ws. 3 and 4 Madan Prasad and Rajendra Prasad were A.G. II and I respectively. P.Ws. 3 and 4 Madan Prasad and Rajendra Prasad were A.G. II and I respectively. P.W. 5 Brahamanand Sinha, was Assistant Manager, F.C.I. and P.W. 6 Mahendra Prasad Sinha was A.G. II and Satyanarain Lal, P.W. 7 was Assistant Manager in Region Office, F.C.I., Patna, P.W. 8 Upendra Kumar Asthana was A.G. II depot, Amarchandra Das P.W. 12 was District Manager F.C.I., Muzaffarpur and Himmat Singh, P.W. 14 was Assistant Manager P.W. 7 Staya Narain Bhar was Assistant Manager, accounts, F.C.I., P.W. 9 Shyam Bihari Lal was Assistant Manager, F.C.I., Kemans, P.W. 10 Bimal Chakravorty was Assistant Manager, F.C.I. quality. P.W. 11 Devendra Narain Singh was Deputy Vigilance Manager, F.C.I. who submitted the report. P.W. 14 Bijai Gopal Swaroop Bhatnagar was the hand-writing expert and P.W. 15 Nageshwar Prasad Singh, Inspector of Police was the Investigation Officer himself. 7. The accused in defence, denied the prosecution case and alleged that the prosecution against them is false. They have taken out the pleas that the shortage was not there and the shortage, if any, was due to mistake of accounts. Ram Chandra Goswami and Shabir Ahmad has said that A.G. II and HI staff were incharge of maintaining actual account and so, both these appellants were not responsible for the shortage as disclosed in O form. The next was the defence of A.G. II and III staff that the responsibility for the proper maintenance of the accounts or the stock was that of the Deputy Superintendent and the Sector incharage and according to the rules they had to prepare O form on the basis of the other forms and so A.G. II and III were responsible for any irregularity who were not at all incharge of the acutal and physical of the wheat stored. Appellant Narain Mahto has said that he had written only 21/2 daily branch wheets on O form, 4431 and 1/2 of O form 4429 and he was attached to Sector A. He has said that Jagannath Singh was writing on dictation from Shabir Ahmad while preparing O from the after writing half of the said form 4429, Jagannath Singh went away and the rest half was writing was on dictation of Shabir Ahmad. 8. The learned Special Judge, after considering the entire material on record and also facts and circumstances of the case, convicted the appellants as said above. 9. 8. The learned Special Judge, after considering the entire material on record and also facts and circumstances of the case, convicted the appellants as said above. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellants has argued that the sanction for the prosecution have not been properly given, that the accounts have been maintained properly and there was no shortage, that the verification was also not proper, the stocks have been kept in the open space and so others might have been taken away the grains stored there, that the only responsibility of the maintaining the accounts was of Ram Chandra Goswami and Shabir Ahmad and under the rules, the Assistant Grade II were not responsible and they had to assist the officers only as and when directed. If at all, there was any irregularity, then the shortage did not amount to misappropriation. 10. To appreciate these contentions, the evidence will have to be scrutinized. The details of the irregularities and shortage as detected are as following: (1)O Form which is daily balance sheet of the depot disclosed that the stock No. 46 contained 1552 bags of wheat weighing 1465,88,000 qtls. on 12-11-1975. On 13-11-1975 number of these bags has been recorded as 1552 but weight has been reduced to 1446.88.000 qtls. Thus, opening balance on 13-11-1975 has been reduced by 19 qtls. (2) on 10-2-1976 opening balance of stock No. 6112 as per O form No. 4875 was 965 bags weighing 915,75,000qtls. Out of the aforesaid quantity of the wheat 201,60,000 qtls were issued on date. The closing balance of that date will come to 714,15,000 qtls but the closing balance was recorded as per O Form and ledger No. 92 on 10-2-1976was 705,15,000 qutls. Thus 9 qtls. short balance was made, (3) third item of irregularity occured in O Form No. 4824, dated 15-11-1975 relating to stock No. 5/9. It contained 1388 bags of wheat weighing 1388,00,000 qtls. From this stock there was no operation till 1-3-1976. O Form No. 4896 dated 1-3-1976 also shows closing balance of this stock as 1388 bags weighing 1388qtls on 2-3-1976 the entire bags were declared to be non-standard and the opening balance and consequently weight of the entire stock was reduced from 1388 to 1038 qtls. This shows misappropriation of 350 qtls. of wheat, (4) on 13-12-1975 closing balance of stock No. 5/3 was declared to have 1122 standard bags weighing 1122 qtls. This shows misappropriation of 350 qtls. of wheat, (4) on 13-12-1975 closing balance of stock No. 5/3 was declared to have 1122 standard bags weighing 1122 qtls. as per O Form No. 4841, dated 13-12-1975. There was no operation from this stock till 1-3-1976 and so the closing balance of this stock on 1-3-1976 was shown to be same. On 2-3-1976 the entire bags of wheat in this stock were declared to be non-standard and total weight was reduced to 866 qtl. Thus, a shortage of 256 qtls. was recorded, (5) on 20-2-1976 closing balance of stock No. 5/4/2 as per D Form No. 4884 was declared to have 1728 standard bags weighing 1728 qtls. There was no operation from this stock till 1-3-1976 and so the closing balance on 1-3-1976 was shown to be the same as above. On 2-3-1976 the entire standard bags of this stock were declared to be non-standard. The result was that the opening balance of this stock on 2-3-1976 as per O Form No. 4401 was reduced to 1545 qtls instead of 1728 qtls. 580 qtls were recorded short, (6) on 20-3-1976 as per O Form No. 4420 of stock No. 6/d, 3890 standard bags weighing total wieght as 2604.1.500 qtls. was recorded. There was no operation from this stock till 22-3-1976 and the closing balance remained the same till 22-3-1976. On 23-3-1976, 1600 bags were cut open for siandarisation. The contents of these bags were filled in 825 bages having one qtl. each. Thus the closing balance of non-standard bags comes to 1690 bags having 1779-11-500 qtls. on 23-3-1976. On this very date the entire non-standard bags were transferred to another stock No. 4/3 as per O From No, 4421, dated 23-3-1976 showing 1690 bags having weight of 1489-11-500 qtls. Thus there was misappropriation of 315 qtls. of wheat, (7) on 21-2-1976 the closing balance of stock No. O/K/2 as per O Form No. 4885 the closing balance was 2052 of non-standard bags weighing total quantity of 1590 qtls. There was no operation from this stock till 16-3-1976 and so the closing balance of this stock remained the same till 16-3-1976. On 17-3-1976, 1100 bags were taken out from standarisation as per O Form No. 4417, dated 17-3-1976. The containts of 1100 bags were filed in 560 bags having one quintal each. Consequently, 952 non-standard bags having total weight of 1030 qtls. On 17-3-1976, 1100 bags were taken out from standarisation as per O Form No. 4417, dated 17-3-1976. The containts of 1100 bags were filed in 560 bags having one quintal each. Consequently, 952 non-standard bags having total weight of 1030 qtls. remained in this stock but the quantity of this bags have been shown to be 730 qtls as per O Form No. 4417, dated 17-3-1976. Moreover, as per O Form No. 4428, dated 17-2-1976 the bags were shown to have been transferred to another stock No. O/10, but the receipt colum of O Form No. 4428, dated 17-3-1976 did not shows receipt of 10 bags in stock No. 0310. There was thus, misappropriation of 310 qtls of wheat, (8). The closing balance of stock No. 6/D, dated 17-3-1976 as per O Form No. 4417 of this date was declared to have non-standard bags as 4783 weighing 4151.30.000 qtls. There was no operation from this stock till 23-3-1976. On 24-4-1976, 1500 bags were taken out for standarisation as per O Form No. 4423, dated 24-3-1976. The contents of these bags were filled in 797 bags weighing total quantity of 797 qtls. So the total quantity of wheat as closing balance comes to 3282 bags having 3354.30.000 qtls. There was no operation till 29-3-1976 from this stock. On 30-3-1976 weight of this stock was declared to have 2854. 30.000 qtls. instead of 3954 30.000 qtls as per O Form No. 4430, dated 30-31976, Thus there occurred misappropriation of 500 qtls (9) on 18-3-1976, as per O Form No. 4115 closing balance of stock No. 5/d was 1434 bags weighing 1342.36.000 qtls. There was no operation till 29-3-1970. On 30-3-1976 as per O Form No. 5428, dated 30.2-1976, 1072 bags weighing 980 46.000 qtls. were transferred to stock No. O/15,11 bags containing 10 qtls. were transferred to stock No. 4/A. So the closing balance of this stock remained as 343 bags containing 358.50.000 qtls. but 318.50.000 qtls. have been shown in stock ledger No. 4428, dated 30-6-1976. Accordingly there was misappropriation of 40 qtls., (10) on 9-3-1976 the closing balance of stock No. 0/4/5 was 1156 bags containing 944 qtls as per O Form No. 4411. There was no operation from this stock till 21-3-1976. On 22-3-1976, 1690 bags weighing 1429.11 500 qtls were added in this stock and the closing balance thus comes to 2846 weighing 2373.11.500 qtls. There was no operation from this stock till 21-3-1976. On 22-3-1976, 1690 bags weighing 1429.11 500 qtls were added in this stock and the closing balance thus comes to 2846 weighing 2373.11.500 qtls. There was no operation from this stock till 29-3-1976. As per O Form No. 4431, dated 30-3-1976, the opening balance of this stock has been declared to contain 2846 bags weighing 2323.11.500 qtls. There has thus, been misappropriation of 50 qtls. and (11) the closing balance of stock No. O/K/1, dated 6-3-1976 as per O Form No. 4409 was shown to be 2640 bags weighing 2142.55.000 qtls. There was no operation till 29-3-1976 On 30-3-1976 as/or O Form No. 4409 the opening balance was shown to having 2042.55.000 qtls in stead of 2142.50.000 qtls. Accordingly, 100 qtls. of wheat was misappropriated. 11. The F.C.I., Muzaffarpur has got two sectors, A and B and each of the sectors has got three sheds. Being depot incharge, Ram Chandra Goswami was incharge of both the sectors. Shabir Ahmad was incharge of the two sectors. The duty of the A.G. II staff was to assist both Ram Chandra Goswami and Shabir Ahmad in day to day functioning. In Chapter 27 of the F.C.I. Manual, Volume I depot operations have been given out. Rule 27.1 of this chapter, provides for a District Manager who will be the incharge of all the activities of the F.C.I. within its jurisdiction and also for the proper functioning of all the depots within the Districts. Rule 27.2 says for a depot which shall consist of a number of godowns and each godown being a single entity whose storage capacity may be 1500, 2000, 5000 or 8000 tons, as the case may be. These individual godowns will be placed in charge of an Assistant Depot Superintendent. The Assistant Depot Superintendent will be assisted in the discharge of his duties by godown Assistant and other Class IV staff, like stitchers, sifters, etc. The Assistant Depot Superintendent is the person who will be directly and personally held responsible for the safety of all the stocks and for the proper maintenance of all the records held in that godown. Rules 27.3 provides that the duty of the depot Superintendent to see that each godown under the charge of an Assistant Depot Superintendent is properly and efficiently managed. Rules 27.3 provides that the duty of the depot Superintendent to see that each godown under the charge of an Assistant Depot Superintendent is properly and efficiently managed. It is also his duty to collect all the statistical data from the several godowns under his charge, compile them and send proper accounts on returns. Rule 27.4 says that if any malpractices or any delay in accounting is found, the person who will be immediately punished will be the Assistant Depot Superintendent so for as that godown is concerned. If there is any delay in the compilation or in the proper submission of returns, the Depot Superintendent must assume personal responsibility for it. It is thus clear that the responsibility for the proper maintenance of accounts, proper submission of accounts returns and proper safety of the stocks are therefore, squarely placed upon the shoulders of the two officials mentioned above. They may take the help of the godown assistants but they will be held personally responsible for the functions and duties laid upon them above. Thus, Ram Chandra Goswami and Shabir Ahmad being the depot incharge and sectors incharge, were personally responsible for the maintenance of the proper accounts and submission of proper returns and proper safety of the stocks and they could take help of the A.G. II and of other staffs in day to day functioning. 12. Himmat Singh joined as Assistant Depot Superintendent at Muzaffarpur in March 1976, when he detected that the management of sector, stock of wheat under godown, was not proper and large quantity of wheat was lying dumped in open space and also the accounts were not properly maintained, then by his report dated 21-4-1976 (Ext. 24/1), he requested the higher authorities for a physical verification which was done for the period between 12-11-1975 to 30-3-1976 and it gave out a misappropriation of the wheat weighing 2564-00-00 qtls. valued at Rs. 3,20,500 at the rate of Rs. 125 per qtls. (the details of shortage and misappropriation enumerated above). The alleged misappropriation became the basis of the report (Ext. 5/1) submitted by Devendra Narayan Singh, Deputy Manager (Vigilance) to the police which in turn became the first information report. 13. valued at Rs. 3,20,500 at the rate of Rs. 125 per qtls. (the details of shortage and misappropriation enumerated above). The alleged misappropriation became the basis of the report (Ext. 5/1) submitted by Devendra Narayan Singh, Deputy Manager (Vigilance) to the police which in turn became the first information report. 13. As said above, the prosecution has examined 16 witnesses besides producing a number of documents to show that there was a conspiracy by all for Criminal breach of trust, misappropriation of stocks and submission of false accounts. 14. The evidence of P.W. 2 P.K. Pathank, District Manager, F.C.I. and P.W. 3 Mandal Prasad, Assistant Grade I is to the effect that F.C.I. depot Muzaffarpur has got two sectors A and B. Both the sectors have separate accounts. O Form is written on the basis of D. Form (Form of receipt). G Form (form of receipt with weight), P.W. 7 Satya Narain Mai has said in paragraph 9 of his deposition that to show the stock in the godown, O Form is maintained. In Muzaffarpur, it is prepared in duplicate. After daily operation physical verification of O Form is essential. At some places two copies of this form prepared and at some places, three copies. Where three copies are prepared, one copy is sent to the Regional Manager, second copy is sent to the District Manager and the third copy is kept in the godown as office record. Where two copies of the said forms are prepared, one copy is kept in the godown as office records and the second copy is sent to the Regional Manager through the district Manager and the third copy is sent to the office of the District Manager on the next day. The receipts that is shown in Forms D and G, is shown in the receipt side of O Form. In Forms M and N, issue is shown. In the issue side of O Form receipt is shown. The entire stock position should come in O Form but in Muzaffarpur, that was not shown. Thus, from these, it is clear that O Form shows the whole stock of the godown. The receipt column in the 0 form is written on the basis of the D Form and G Form. The issue column in the O Form is written on the basis of the M Form (advice of despatch) and N Form shows issue. Thus, from these, it is clear that O Form shows the whole stock of the godown. The receipt column in the 0 form is written on the basis of the D Form and G Form. The issue column in the O Form is written on the basis of the M Form (advice of despatch) and N Form shows issue. Standardisation column in O Form is written on the basis of I Form. Hence, the closing balance will be some total of the opening balance plus receipt minus issue. 15. It appears that Himmat Singh, Assistant Manager, F.C.I. (P.W. 15) joined in F.S.D., Muzaffarpur on 18-3-1976 and at that time, Ram Chandra Goswami was the Depot incharge and Shabir Ahmad was incharge of both the sectors A and B. He did not take charge from Ram Chandra Goswami as he did not find the accounts up-to-date, rather it was only upto February, 1976. He asked both of them to make the accounts up-to-date but that was not done. So, on 27-3-1976, he wrote a letter to the District Manager, F.C.I., Muzaffarpur informing the situation. In April, 1976, again he sent a letter to him requesting for physical verification of the depot. A party was deputed from the District Office for quarterly physical verification in the last of March, 1976. Thereafter, Shabir Ahmad went home on 22-3-1976 and had deputed some assistant to work in his absence. Ram Chandra Goswami was suspended on 23-3-1976. On 8-4-1976 Shabir Ahmad returned and gave O From alter being completed after seeing the said from, p.w. 15, found the discrepancies for which on 21-4-1976, he sent a letter again to the District Magistrate. He requested for physical verification in respect of the O Form and in the meanwhile Zonal physical verification party had reached Muzaffarpur in 2nd half of April, 1976. In the meantime, Shabir Ahmad asked p.w. 15 to take charge but he refused his request, till the discrepancies in the O Form were not removed and for that he wrote to the Divisional Office. The special physical verification party reached Muzaffarpur on 14-5-1976 and did not verification from 15-5-1976 to 12-8-1976. Monthly stock statement was made up to February, 1976 and he completed the monthly stock verification by March 1976 on 20-6-1976 with the help of B. N. Sinha and Rajendra Prasad Sinha. On 14-8-1976, the physical verification party asked to declared the stock. The special physical verification party reached Muzaffarpur on 14-5-1976 and did not verification from 15-5-1976 to 12-8-1976. Monthly stock statement was made up to February, 1976 and he completed the monthly stock verification by March 1976 on 20-6-1976 with the help of B. N. Sinha and Rajendra Prasad Sinha. On 14-8-1976, the physical verification party asked to declared the stock. The sector incharge declared the stock in his own signature. Annexures-A to H are under the siguatures of Shabir Ahmad and the said stock was filed up by Shabir Ahmad. The stock declaration also bears the signature of P.W. 15, Shabir Ahmad came back on 8-4-1976 and after that, Shabir Ahmad again absented. Then P.W. 15 told this matter to the District Manager. Then a Special Committee consisting of three members was formed which did the verification from 23-6-1976 which was completed on 13-8-1976. Ram Chandra Goswami was suspended and Shabir Ahmad had gone away. Bimal Chakravorty, Assistant Manager who had declared the final stock had given charge to p.w. 15. Who submitted the report regarding the discrepancies found in monthly statement of March. 16. P.W. 8, Upendra Kumar Asthana has stated that 0 Form of March, 1976 were not submitted till final Zonal Physical verification of the stock commenced in April, 1976. The non-submission of O Form was holding up of the physical verification and Shabir Ahmad returned from leave on 8-4-1976 and then the writing of O Form was commenced. Again Shabir Ahmad went away from 22-7-1976 to 7-4-1976. Ext, D/1 has been brought by the defence to show that on 3-4-1976 appellant Narain Mahto had written a letter (Ext.D/1) saying that the preparation of the account was impossible. He again wrote a letter on 6-4-1976 (Ext.24/3) saying that the bags had been made accountable but since Shabir Ahmad was not present, counting was not possible because for the month of March 1976 account has not been made. The statement of P.W. 15 shows that till February 1976, stock; statement was not available. 17. From all these, it appears that O Form which is the basis of all entries, had not been prepared. Narain Mahto is the writer of O Form to the extent of half of 30-3-1976. O Form Nos. 4430 and 4431 dated 30-3-1976 of Sector B were also written by Jagarnath Singh but all these forms had been written when Shabir Ahmad came from leave. Narain Mahto is the writer of O Form to the extent of half of 30-3-1976. O Form Nos. 4430 and 4431 dated 30-3-1976 of Sector B were also written by Jagarnath Singh but all these forms had been written when Shabir Ahmad came from leave. 18. Not only this, the irregularities in submission of form are there, regarding which there are statements of other witnesses. P.W. 2, R.K. Pathak, was the District Manager, F.C.I. between the period 25-5-1976 to 1-3-1977 said that from October 1975 to March 1976 sending of O Form was irregular and he reminded several times for sending the same and the physical verification party was sent in April 1976 which had found that the records had not been maintained and verification had not been done before him. P.W. 2 has also said that O Form is prepared to show daily receipt and issue and it is signed by the Shed Incharge. O Form filling is the duty of A.G. II and III. The Shed Ledger Stock is the responsibility of the Shed Incharge and he had found the O Form not regular. P.W. 3, Madan Prasad has said that he had joined in the Food Storage Depot as A.G. II in which there were two sectors, A and B of which Shabir Ahmad was the incharge. He joined Sector B on 12-5-1976 and in that sector, Shabir Ahmad, Jagarnath Singh, A.G. II and Rajendra Prasad were there, the Physical verification of the whole depot was started on 14-5-1976 in which they had assisted the party. Shabir Ahmad had gone away on leave from 8-6-1976 and on 27-6-1976, a Special Committee was formed and the accounts of Sectors A and B were prepared. P.W. 4, Kajendra Prasad has said that he had joined Food Storage Depot, Muzaffarpur as A.G.I. on 18-5-1976. He has also said about the sectors and their incharges. He has said that one godown some stock of wheat were there. He has also said about the O Form. In the 0 Form, there are ten pages in which totalling is done. Bags or weighments become clear if the O Form entries are made, then actual position in the stock month-wise gets clear and on the basis of this O Form, D Form, G Form, M Form and N Forms are prepared. Without weighment actual stock cannot be found out. Bags or weighments become clear if the O Form entries are made, then actual position in the stock month-wise gets clear and on the basis of this O Form, D Form, G Form, M Form and N Forms are prepared. Without weighment actual stock cannot be found out. After seven days of the goods coming to down, its weight is done. Standar bags 10% and non-standar bags 100% weighment should be done. If there is omission in O Form, then monthly account is checked. Goods go away after physical accounting and A.G. III and weighment remained on the gate. 19. P.W. 5, Brahmanand Sinha, Assistant Manager, F.C.I. Patna has said that he had worked as Depot Incharge in casual vacancy. He says that the shed incharge is responsible for the shortages. The District Manager is the controlling authority of the whole district. A.G.I and Assistant Depot Supreintendent are responsible of accurate maintenance of account including O Form. Modhusudan Singh was A.G. III. P.W. 6 Mahendra Prasad Sinha, A.G. II, F.C.I. Digha, Patoa has said that the depot incharge maintains the. records of goods for going out the coming in P.W. 7 Satya Narain Mal, Assistant Manager, accounts, has also said that the position of the stock is found out from Form O which is prepared in duplicate. At times, three capies are prepared and copies are sent to different offices as said earlier. In Forms D and G, receipt is shown and in Forms M and N, issue is shown. P.W. 9 Shyam Bihari Lal, Assistant Manager, Mokama, F.C.I., has said that the depot incharge after collecting the figure and details of the daily operation, sent From O to the Regional Manager and the District Manager. He has also said about O Form being daily stock ledger showing the stock position of a particular date. Y shows daily statement of arrival of goods in the depot and M form is advice of despatch and G Form is daily statement of receipt with note of truck number and wagon number and one bag is standarised, and one stock is not transferred to another stock. Form O is everyday sector-wise, date-wise, stock-wise and in every shed there is stock-wise, register, stock ledger. The master ledger shows the stock position of depot. He had seized the stock-wise ledger of every Sectors A and B. Ledger of Sector B was incomplete. Form O is everyday sector-wise, date-wise, stock-wise and in every shed there is stock-wise, register, stock ledger. The master ledger shows the stock position of depot. He had seized the stock-wise ledger of every Sectors A and B. Ledger of Sector B was incomplete. Thus, from all this evidence, the procedure is given out that every sector is under the charge of the depot incharge and the stock register is maintained. O Form being the day to day entries about receipt and departure is the basis of all sectors forms to be filled in as seen earlier. 20. As regards the individual liability of the appellant, Ram Chandra Goswami, Depot Incharge of the F.S.D.F.C.I. Muzaffarpur was that of the incharge of the Depot. It has been come in evidence that he was in suspension from 23-3-1976 and was not in office as said by P.W. 15 Himmat Singh while on 17-4-1976 and 19-4-1976, the special physical verification of Sectors A and B had been done respectively. Learned Counsel on behalf of appellant Ram Chandra Goswami has urged that it was not the rule that is to decide the criminal liability of the accused but it is the act done by the accused which will be taken to hold him guilty for an offences A criminal liability is the personal liability. So the prosecution has to show the real act of the accused and not only being a head of the institution and further evidence shows that no document had been prepared by him and this appellant being the senior as A.G.I had his duties which he had been performing and nothing has come in the evidence to show his involvement in the crime As to these contentions, Ram Chandra Goswami, no doubt, was under suspension but the fact remains that he being over all incharge of two sectors of F.C.I. his responsibility cannot be denied. The special physical verification had been done on the basis of the stocks and the entiries made in the different forms and registers. He had issued a duty chart also Ext. 27 is the office order dated 15-10-1975 about the distribution of work from 16-10-1975 Shabir Ahmad was made A.G. I and also the overall incharge of both the sectors, Jagarnath Prasad Singh was attached to Sector A, Madhusudan Singh was attached to Sector B, Jagannath Singh was made incharge of maintenance and claim (Exts. 27 is the office order dated 15-10-1975 about the distribution of work from 16-10-1975 Shabir Ahmad was made A.G. I and also the overall incharge of both the sectors, Jagarnath Prasad Singh was attached to Sector A, Madhusudan Singh was attached to Sector B, Jagannath Singh was made incharge of maintenance and claim (Exts. A and B) are also the office orders. Ext. A is regarding appellant Narain Mahto, posted in Sector A dated 28-2-1976. Simply allotting the duties and becoming the head of office will not absolve a person from the liabilities of other persons working under him. The rules provide that the entire responsibility of the godown was of the appellant and so, in such a situation, the maintenance of accounts and the stocks in accordance with the said rule was his full responsibility. The special physical verification from 15-5-1976 to 13-8-1976 (Ext. 5 has given out a shortage of 25,64,00,000 qtls. as detailed above. This shortage cannot be of only one day. It is clear that a huge quantity of shortage was a continuing process. If O Form had been maintained under the rules, naturally such shortages could not have been there. The shortages in the godown have already been brought in the notice by Narain Mahto one of the appellants vide letter (Ext. B/2). Appellant Ram Chandra Goswami cannot wriggle out from the continuing pasts shortage by simply saying that he was under suspension from 23-2-1976 and that he was not personally incharge of the accounts and stock. He has a lame defence. P.W. 15 if had not refused to take charge of the F.C.I. and would not have insisted for physical verification then these irregularities which were being committed during the period of Ram Chandra Goswami, would not have come to light. Narain Mahtos letter to the Divisional Manager about shortages, is also a proof of the fact that the shortages were a continuing process for which appellant Ram Chandra Goswami, under Rule 26, is personally liable. Further the depot incharge has to keep the keys of the godown and open and close it daily and operation is to be carried out in his presence as required under Rule 26(b)(1). The shortages which have been detected, go to show that the filling of O Form was done on 23-2-1976 when the appellant Ram Chandra Goswami was suspended. So, he was a party to that also. The shortages which have been detected, go to show that the filling of O Form was done on 23-2-1976 when the appellant Ram Chandra Goswami was suspended. So, he was a party to that also. In these circumstances, he cannot out from the shortages. 21. As regards the responsibility of appellant Shabir Ahmad, he was incharge of the two sectors. Duties had been allotted to them, The rule has also provided for his personal responsibility for the maintenance of O Form and keeping of the accounts and also keeping of the stocks in order and he is also liable personally under the rules as Goswami was. He had gone away on leave on 22-3-1976 and came back on 8-4-1976 and then 0 Form was filled up. The evidence of the witnesses and the defence of appellants Jagaruuth Singh and Narain Mahto is that O Form had been filled up on his dictation and physical verification had been done on the basis of those forms. The evidence as dealt above, is clear to establish that he too had been responsible for the writing of entries in the above form and also for the shortages detected during the physical verification. These appellants had been assisted by the assistants in the discharge of their duties which does not mean that only the assistants are responsible, Both of them are fully responsible for the writing of entries, for deficit and shortages in the godown. If they would have maintained the daily accounts of receipt and departures and also the depot operations in accordance with rules, such shortages would not have been there and no discrepancies in the entries would have been there. 22. As regards the responsibility of appellant Narain Mahto it is clear that he had written O Form Nos. 4429 in half and 4430 and 4431 in full. He was attached to Sector A and had nothing to do with Sector B. But he wrote the form for Sector B also on the dictation of appellant Shabir Ahmad. He has said that when Jagannath Singh went away for easing then Shabir Ahmad gave him dictation. He claim that he took only dictation because Shabir Ahmad was the incharge of both the sectors and whatever irregularities had been committed in the writing of O Form, for that he is not responsible. He has said that when Jagannath Singh went away for easing then Shabir Ahmad gave him dictation. He claim that he took only dictation because Shabir Ahmad was the incharge of both the sectors and whatever irregularities had been committed in the writing of O Form, for that he is not responsible. Narain Mahto himself had written about the irregularities the stocks of B, B/1, B/2 and so, he was knowing it fully well that there were irregularities and malpractices which he ought to be pointed out. When he was taking dictation of O Form, atleast, he could have pointed out to Shabir Ahmad that whatever dictation, he has been giving, is not correct and that he will not be a party to all such irregularities in the situation in which he was. Further he has also said about the dictation of the writing entries which goes to show that he had got his hand is such activities. He was playing double rule of informing the authorities about such irregularities and secondly writing to the authorities so that whenever needed, he may have a defence. He cannot thus, have a defence of innocently writing of O Form. 23. As regards appellant Jagannath Singh, A.G. II from October 1975 to March 1976 at the said godown, is said to have filed up Form O for which he claims to knowledge and so, on the dictation of Shabir Ahmad much after March 1976 when the special physical verification was called for, prayed for make up the accounts up-to-date. This defence of this appellant about dictation being taken by him is not disputed by the prosecution. But the fact remains that this appellant was also responsible for making correct entries. Narain Mahto had already pointed out as he says about the irregularities in the accounts and not filling up of O Form. The irregularities and the laches in the maintenance of the registers, forms and accounts was something which was definitely known to all the appellants though the godown superintendent and the Depot Superintendent and the Shed Incharge are liable but as admitted by P.W.P.K. Pathak that O Form filling is the duty of A.G. II and III and Shed I charges duties are the shed ledger register. A.G. II are not only to take dictation but to fill up the forms also so, correct form should be filled and if there is a discrepancy in the account submitted in Form O and on the basis thereof any other register, then, definitely A.G. II cannot wroggle out. 24. As regards the liability of appellant Madhusudan Singh is concerned, he has not named in the first information report though other four persons have been named. He took as said to have been taken dictation. The duty of A.G. III is the weighment of bags. A.G. III is also called Godown Assistant In paragraph 4-A of the first information report referes to the transaction of the appellant being 1552 bags having weight of 1465.88 qtls. On 12-11-1976 as per O Form (stock register), stock ledger No. 1215 (Ext. 6/1), On 13-11-1976,vide O Form No. 1216, quantity of 1552 bags was recorded as 1446.98 qtls. As the opening balance. So, there was misappropriation of 90 qtls of wheat. Though in the first information report, the actual shortage in the stock has not been mentioned but the shortages in weighment have been mentioned. Appellants learned Counsel has urged that the first information report has been based on the basis of the physical verification but the fact remains that in the latter, these 90 qutls. of wheat valued at Rs. 2375 in respect of the appellant have been mentioned. Even if the first information report does not given out the details of shortages but when the evidence came then appellant was found responsible for maintaining proper account by filling up the Form O on the basis of the weighment, and so definitely, if the weighment is found to be less and shortages were there then appellant cannot get out. 25. As regards appellant Jagarnath Prasad Singh, A.G. II, from October, 1975 to 23-2-1976, attached to Sector A, he was concerned with the entries dated 15-11-1976 in the stock ledger in which shortage of 90 qtls. of wheat valued at Rs. 2,375 had been found. His defence is that he is not responsible for maintaining the Form O nor incharge of the godown and he had been transferred from Muzaffarpur on 23-2-1976. But this will not absolve him of the liability. Form O clearly gives out the wrong entries and irregularities and the malpractices if they are compared with the ledger. The ledger (Ext. His defence is that he is not responsible for maintaining the Form O nor incharge of the godown and he had been transferred from Muzaffarpur on 23-2-1976. But this will not absolve him of the liability. Form O clearly gives out the wrong entries and irregularities and the malpractices if they are compared with the ledger. The ledger (Ext. 7) is said to be based on O form but the entries are quite different. In the issue column of 15-11-1975, the stock of 849,94,04 qtls. on wheat has been shown to have been transferred to stock No. 1/11 but in the ledger, the weight of the wheat issued is different. The ledger is not a copy of Form O. The entries are not simply innocent entries on the basis of Form O but there are falsification of the accounts and incorrect entries. All these, therefore, shows that he too did not make the entries innocently. 26. Thus considering the individual liabilities of all the appellants, Ram Chandra Goswami and Shabir Ahmad are found directly responsible and while the other appellants namely, Jagannath Singh, Narain Mahto. Madhusudan Singh and Jagarnath Prasad Singh being A.G. 11 and III, were also responsible for not maintaining the proper account according to the rules in actual measurement and weight, so, it becomes clear that the appellants were in conspiracy to commit offence charged by the prosecution. Their actual participation in the criminal offences are made out from their position, working and details found about eleven items enumerated above. In the case of Noor Mohammad Mohd. Yusuf Momin V/s. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1985 the Supreme Court has observed at page 889 in para 7 as follows: A conspiracy from its every nature is generally hatched in secret. It is, therefore, extremely rare that direct evidence in proof of conspiracy can be forthcoming from wholly disinterested quarters of form utter strangers. But like other offences, Criminal conspiracy can be proved by circumstantial evidence. Indeed in most cases proof of conspiracy is largely inferential though the inference must be founded on solid facts. Surrounding circumstances and antecedent and subsequent conduct, among other factors, constitute relevant material. But like other offences, Criminal conspiracy can be proved by circumstantial evidence. Indeed in most cases proof of conspiracy is largely inferential though the inference must be founded on solid facts. Surrounding circumstances and antecedent and subsequent conduct, among other factors, constitute relevant material. la fact because of the difficulties in having direct evidence of criminal conspiracy, once reasonable ground is shown for believing that two or more persons have conspired to commit an offence then anything done by anyone of them in reference to their common intention after the same is entertained becomes, according to the law of evidence, relevant for proving both conspiracy and the offences committed pursuant thereto. In the case of State (Delhi Administration) V/s. V.C. Shukla and Anr. reported in -- the Supreme Court has observed at page 1390 in para 8 as follows: It is well settled that in order to prove a criminal conspiracy which is punishable under Sec. 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, there must be direct or circumstantial evidence to show that there was an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence. This Cleary envisages that there must be a meeting of minds resulting in an ultimate decision taken by the conspirators regarding the commission of an offence. It is true that in most cases it will be difficult to get direct evidence of an agreement to conspire but a conspiracy can be inferred even from circumstances giving rise to a conclusive or irresistible inference of an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence. In the case of Mohammad Usman Mohammad Hussain Maniyar and Anr. V/s. The Stale of Maharashtra AIR 1981 SC 1061 it has been observed at page 1067 in para 17 as follows: It is true that there is no evidence of any express agreement between the appellants to do or cause to be done the illegal act. For an offence under Sec. 120-B the prosecution need not neeessarily prove that the prepetators expressly agreed to do or cause to be done the illegal act: the agreement may be proved by necessary implication. For an offence under Sec. 120-B the prosecution need not neeessarily prove that the prepetators expressly agreed to do or cause to be done the illegal act: the agreement may be proved by necessary implication. In this case, the fact that the appellants were possessing and selling explosive substances without a valid licence for a pretty long time leads to the inference that they agreed to do and/ or cause to be done the said illegal act, for without such an agreement the act could not have been done for such a long time. In the case of Kehar Singh V/s. State (Delhi Administration) reported in -- the Supreme Court has observed at page 1950 in para 257 and page 1954 in paras 271 and 272 as follows: Put very briefly, the distinction between the offence of abetment under the second clause of Sec. 107 and that of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-A is this. In the former offence a mere combination of persons or agreement between them is not enough. An act or illegal omission must take place in pursuauce of the conspiracy and in order to the doing of the thing conspired for, in the latter offence the mere agreement is enough, if the agreement is to commit an offence. So far as abetment by sonspiracy is concerned, that a better will be liable to punishment under varying circumstances in detailed Secs. 106 to 117. It is unnecessary to datail those circumstances for the present case. For the offence of criminal consipracy it is punishable under Sec. 120-B. 271: It will be thus seen that the most important ingredient of the offence of conspiracy is the agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act. The illegal act may or may not be done in pursuance of agreement, but the very agreement is an offence and is punishable. Reference to Secs. 120-A and 120-B, IPC. would make these aspects clear beyond doubt. Entering into an agreement two or more persons to do an illegal act or legal act by illegal means is the very quintessence of the offence of conspiracy. 272: Generally, a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it may be difficult to adduce direct evidence of the same. The prosecution will of ten rely on evidence of acts of various parties to infer that they were done in reference to their common intention. 272: Generally, a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it may be difficult to adduce direct evidence of the same. The prosecution will of ten rely on evidence of acts of various parties to infer that they were done in reference to their common intention. The prosecution will also more often rely upon circumstantial evidence. The conspiracy can be undoubtedly proved by such evidence direct or circumstantial. But the court must enquire whether the two persons are independently pursuing the same end or they have come together to the pursuit of the unlawful object. The former does not render them conspirators, but the latter does. It is, however, essential that the offence of coaspiracy required some kind of physical manifestation of agreement. The express agreement, however, need not be proved. Nor actual meeting of two persons is necessary. Nor it is necessary to prove the actual words of communication. The evidence as to transmission of thought sharing the unlawful design may be sufficient. 27. Learned Counsel for appellants Ram Chandra Goswami and Shabir Ahmad has urged that no offence under Sec. 409 of the Indian Penal Code has been made out against the appellants. As to this cannot, Ram Chandra Goswami and Shabir Ahmad being the Depot Superintendent and the Shed Incharge, cannot get out from the responsibility and cannot say that no instrument of the good-grains was there. Definitely, these articles were entrusted to them as a public servants. The accounts have been received and despatched for which O Form had to be maintained and which/when prepared have been found to be not giving full account and which also show that the articles have been misappropriated. In the case of the Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, W.B. V/s. S.K. Roy reported in -- , it has been observed at page 797 in paragraph 10 as follows: The law does not authorise any public servant or for that matter, anybody else to commit a criminal breach of trust. There are, however, two distinct parts involved in the commission of the offence of criminal breach of trust. The first consists of the creation of an abligation in relation to the property over which dominion or control is acquired by the accused. The second is a misappropriation or dealing with the property dishonestly and contrary to the terms of the obligation created. The first consists of the creation of an abligation in relation to the property over which dominion or control is acquired by the accused. The second is a misappropriation or dealing with the property dishonestly and contrary to the terms of the obligation created. In the case of an offence by a public servant punishable under Sec. 409, Indian Penal Code the acquisition of dominion or control over the property must also be in the capacity of a public servant. This is not the same thing as having the authority, as a public servant to get the control or dominion over property annexed with an obligation. The gragamen of the offence is the dishonest misappropriation of the money or property which comes into the possession or under the control of a public servant who has the ostensible authority to receive it even though, technically speaking, from the point of view of the distribution of departmental duties under internal rules of an office, it may not be within the scope of his authority or duty to accept the money. The fact that a public servant acts fraudulently in the exercise of his duties as a public servant to get dominion or control over some property will be an aggravating and not an exculpating circumstance. "The entrustment" results from what the person handing over money or property is made to think, understand, and believe about the purpose for which he hands over money or property to a public servant. If this takes place because of and due to the exercise of the official authority the requirements of Sec. 409. Indian Penal Code are satisfied. 28. In an offence of criminal breach of trust, the prosecution is not required to prove under what specialized manner, the articles had been appropriated but has to be shown that they were actuated by dishonest intention and this dishonest intention can be proved from the surrounding circumstances. The Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Kumar V/s. Union of India reported in -- has observed at page 1393 in para 9 as follows: It is not necessary or possible in every case to prove in what precise manner the accused person has dealt with or appropriated the goods of his master. The Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Kumar V/s. Union of India reported in -- has observed at page 1393 in para 9 as follows: It is not necessary or possible in every case to prove in what precise manner the accused person has dealt with or appropriated the goods of his master. The question is one of intention and not a matter of direct proof but giving a false account of what he has done with the goods received by him may be treated a strong circumstance against the accused person. In the case of a servant charged with misappropriating the goods of his master the elements of criminal offence of misappropriation will be established if the prosecution proves that the servant received the goods, that he was under a duty to account to his master and had not done so, if the failure to account was due to an accidental loss then the facts being within the servants knowledge, it is for him to explain the loss. It is not the law of this country that the prosecution has to eliminate all possible defences or circumstances which may exonerate him. If these facts are within the knowledge of the accused then he has to prove them. Of course the prosecution has to establish a prima facie case in the first instance. It is not enough to establish facts which give rise to a suspicion and then by reason of Sec. 106 of the Evidence Act to throw the onus on him to prove his innocence. Thus, bot the appellants, Ram Chandra Goswami and Shabir Ahmad cannot escape the liabilities under the provisions of Sec. 409 of the Indian Penal Code. 29 As regards the contention that no offence under Sec. 477-A of the Indian Penal Code is made out, the evidence of the witnesses of the prosecution clearly establish that O Form and on the basis thereof other forms and registers had been falsely prepared and entries made are false and on physical verification, shortages were found as detailed above. All that is clear to establish that the appellants had falsified the accounts, not only Ram Chandra Goswami and Shabir Ahmad but A.G. II and III by writing the forms. So, the offence under Section 477-A of the Indian irenal Code is made out. All that is clear to establish that the appellants had falsified the accounts, not only Ram Chandra Goswami and Shabir Ahmad but A.G. II and III by writing the forms. So, the offence under Section 477-A of the Indian irenal Code is made out. The appellants definitely accepted filling of the forms and they have not been able to accounts for the amount as seen earlier a huge quantity has not been accounted for on the basis of the entries in the O Form or the ledgers. There is no other conclusion but to hold that the accounts have been falsified wilfully and with intent to defraud. It was not only one item in which by mistake or slip one account is false but the whole accounts submitted are false. 30. The appellants have also been convicted under the proisions of Corruption Act. Their misconduct as a public servant in the performance of their official duties, is well made out by the evidence of the witnesses scrutinized above. Learned Counsel for the appellants has urged that the offence under Sec. 409 of the IPC and also the Corruption Act were not maintainable but the Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash Gupta V/s. State of U.P. reported in -- has observed at page 464 in para 28 as follows: There can, therefore, be no doubt whatever that Sec. 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act creates a new offence called "Criminal Misconduct" and cannot by implication displace the offence under Sec. 405, Penal Code. Again in the case of Som Nath Pari V/s. State of Rajasthan reported in -- , the Supreme Court has observed at page 1494 in paragraph II as follows: His subsequent conduct in falsifying the counterfoils and fraudulently misappropriating the amounts would make him guilty of criminal breach of trust punishable under Sec. 409, IPC as also under Sec. 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(D) of the Act. In the decision, in the case of S. Natrajan V/s. State of Mysore [Special Police Establishment) reported in AIR 1980 SC 639 , wherein the appellant had been convicted under Sec. 409, Penal Code and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and under Sec. 5(1)(c) read with Sec. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, six months R.O The Supreme Court had reduced the sentences of the appellant under Sec. 409, Penal Code to the period already undergone and as regards the sentence under Sec. 5(1)(c) read with Sec. 5(2) of the PC. Act sustained the sentence under Sec. 360, Cr. PC and maintained the sentence of fine as it was a case of mere temporary detention of a money and the accused had already lost his service. Thus, the order of conviction of the appellants in this case under Sec. 5(1)(c) read with Sec. 5(2) of the PC. Act on the basis of the evidence considered in detail above, is well maintainable. 31 As regards the contention that sanction has not been obtained properly, the sanctioning authority, accorded sanction after full considering the facts and circumstances of the case of the prosecution. He has not to hold a mini trial for that purpose and he is not to hold a mini trial for that purpose and he is not to judge the truth of the allegations but on the basis of the material, the sanctioning authority has to consider as to whether a prima facie case is made out or not. When the sanctioning authority says that after fully and carefully examining the material before him, he has accorded sanction, it becomes apparent that he had applied his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Raj Singh V/s. Delhi Administration reported in -- , has observed at page 1421 in para 3: "getting order of the D.I.G. in that case, after fully and carefully examining the material before him in regard to the aforesaid allegations" in the case, conciders that a prima facie case is made out against the appellant. It is manifest that the decision of the Judicial Committee has no application to the present case, for the order of sanction in that case was such more cryptic and materially different. It is manifest that the decision of the Judicial Committee has no application to the present case, for the order of sanction in that case was such more cryptic and materially different. We are satisfied that the order of sanction in the present case fulfils the requirements of Sec. 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 32. Thus, if the document itself gives out that sanctioning authority has applied his mind to the facts of the case, then the order of sanction does not suffer from any infirmity. Ext. 1 is the sanction order of the Regional Manager who was the competent authority to grant the same. P.W. 2 has said that Regional Manager has authority to accord sanction in respect of A.G.I. II, III, P.W. 2 has proved the Ext. 2, sanction order saying that the Regional Manager had accorded sanction by giving him dictation after seeing the documents and had signed the same. He has also said that the Regional Manager was seized of the facts and he had reported the matter to the S.P.C.B.I. The appellants had not put any question to this witness. In his cross-examination about non-application of mind by the sanctioning authority this witness has also not been questioned by the appellants. As such, according of the sanction by the Regional Manager, is legal and in accordance with law. Thus, from all these, it appears that the prosecution has been able to make out a case against the appellants and the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under the various sections enumerated above, does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. 33. As regards the sentences of the appellants, their sentences are only for one year under each court but they have been ordered to run consecutively. The trial court should have ordered the sentences to run concurrently and not consecutively. It is a fact that the appellants are suffering the ordeal of criminal prosecution since 1975. It is also true that they have been in jail for some times. So, the interest of justice will be served if the sentences of all the appellants are reduced by the period already undergone by them with a fine of Rs. 1,000 (One thousand) on appellants Ram Chandra Goswami and Shabir Ahmad and Rs. 500 (five hundred) on Narain Mahto, Jagannath Singh, Jagarnath Prasad Singh and Madhusudan Singh. So, the interest of justice will be served if the sentences of all the appellants are reduced by the period already undergone by them with a fine of Rs. 1,000 (One thousand) on appellants Ram Chandra Goswami and Shabir Ahmad and Rs. 500 (five hundred) on Narain Mahto, Jagannath Singh, Jagarnath Prasad Singh and Madhusudan Singh. The fines must be paid within a period of six months from today. As the appellants are on bail, their bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months from today. In case, the fines are realised within the time prescribed, the appellants will be discharged from the liability of their bail bonds but in case, the amounts of fines are not paid within six months from today, their bail bonds will stand cancelled automatically and they will have to be taken in custody to serve out the sentence of one years rigorous imprisonment under each of the counts. 34. In the result, with the above modification in the sentences of the appellants, all the appeals are dismissed.