JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal arises out of the judgment of the Special Judge (for C.B.I. cases) Jaipur whereby Ramswrup (appellant) has been convicted for the offences of Sections 120-B, 468, 471, 420/511, IPC & 5(1) (d) r. w. Section 5(3) (A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. and sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment & to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- (in default, one months S.I.) under each count. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.Facts: 2. The respondent filed a charge sheet against Ramswarup Sharma who was Record keeper, Special Survey Circle III, Income Tax Department, Jaipur with the avernments that, Ramswarup-(Sharma appellant) & Dhanraj Dugger made a criminal conspiracy on or after June 1, 1979 to cheat Income Tax Department for evasion of tax & penalty thereby Dhanraj Dugger manoeuvred filing of wealth tax returns for assessment year 1978-79 in back date on his and his father (Chandanmal)s behalf with connivance of the appellant who dishonestly by abuse of his official position made an anti-dated entry at S. No. 766 dated 8.6.78 in the records of Special Survey Circle, Income Tax Department, Jaipur showing receipt of wealth tax return for assessment year 1978-79 of Dharaj Dugger and, therefore, altered entry No. 1540 dated 30.6 78 pertaining to the receipt of Income Tax return of one, Kumari Rashmi Bansal, and also made manipulations in the respective returns. Taking the aid of such insertions with regard to filing of ante-dated wealth tax returns, Dhanraj Duggar submitted his reply on 24.7.79 on his and his fatherss behalf (Karta of HUE concern-M/s Khelsidar Sadasukha Dugger, Jaipur, to notices dated 8.6.79 issued under Rule 112A(1) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 read with Section 132(5) of the Income-tax Act. 3. After usual investigation, challan was filed against the appellant & Dhanraj who expired during trial. The trial continued against the appellant. After recording the evidence of the prosecution side, the trial Court found the appellant guilty for the offences, indicated above in first para of this judgment. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. 3. After usual investigation, challan was filed against the appellant & Dhanraj who expired during trial. The trial continued against the appellant. After recording the evidence of the prosecution side, the trial Court found the appellant guilty for the offences, indicated above in first para of this judgment. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. Shri R. N. Khandelwal, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant could not have been convicted under Section (l)(d) read with Section 5(3) (A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act because, there was no evidence of taking illegal gratification against the appellant an the learned trial Court, itself, found that no such allegations are proved against him. According to him, unless the proof of taking illegal gratification is proved, the conviction under Section 5(1) (d) read with Section 5(3) (a) of Prevention of the Corruption Act cannot be held to be sustained because, for the aforesaid offences dishonest intention must be proved but, looking to the entire record, it is clear that the mistake of the appellant has crept in bonafidely and not knowingly with malice because, at the time of trial, a number of entries were shown in the receipt register wherein duplicate entry was mentioned. The finding arrived at by the trial Court is that no malafides are proved against the appellant. Taking the aid of these circumstances learned counsel for the appellant added that Section 420, IPC, is also not applicable because, no one has been cheated inasmuch as no wrongful loss or gain is involved in the present case, even if the prosecution case is assumed to be true. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant then added that Section 471, IPC is also rot applicable because, the entry has not been proved to have been used by the appellant and the conviction under that Section is only possible when the false entries are used by the accused for his own benefit. Moreover, the appellant has been convicted under Section 471, IPC that too is not sustainable. Shri Khandelwal further argued that the appellant could not have been convicted under Section 468, IPC because,the forged entry must be for the purposes of cheating whereas in the instant case, it is not proved and so, offence of Sec 468, IPC is not made out. Shri Khandelwal further argued that the appellant could not have been convicted under Section 468, IPC because,the forged entry must be for the purposes of cheating whereas in the instant case, it is not proved and so, offence of Sec 468, IPC is not made out. Lastly, Shri Khandelwal vociforcely urged that the prosecute n has completely failed to bring home the guilt to the appellant under each count. In the alternatively, Shri Khandelwal urged that if this Court upholds the conviction under all counts, then instead sending the appellant, he prayed or. his behalf, the appellant be granted benefit of probation because, according to him, otherwise, appellants services should be terminated in case offence of Section 5(1) (d), of the Prevention of Corruption Act is held to be proved. 7. Shri S. P. Tyagi, learned Special Public Prosecutor (for C. B I. cases), contended that the trial court was justified in convicting the appellant for the offences stated in the impugned judgment. 8. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the entire record with the help of the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the trial court has illegally convicted the appellant under Section 5(1)(a) r. w. Sec.(3)(A), Prevention of Corruption Act because, the prosecution could not bring evidence on record that any money was paid to the appellant by co-accused raj Duggar inasmuch as no dishonest indention on the part of the appellant has been proved by the prosecution in its evidence and that being so, no conviction he aforesaid Sections is sustainable being not made out against him. That apart, learned trial Court committed an error while convicting the appellant under Section 120-B, IPC, for which there is no iota of evidence of hiving met be accused persons nor is there any evidence to establish that the appellant was found talking with other co-accused. So as to received any illegal gratification. A regards forgery, the trial Court failed to appreciate material evidence on record and moreover, with regard to the omission of initials of the record keeper in the register. So as to received any illegal gratification. A regards forgery, the trial Court failed to appreciate material evidence on record and moreover, with regard to the omission of initials of the record keeper in the register. I may state that several instance were shown appearing in the register where such initials of the record keeper were not there,as regards double numberings.such several numberings in the disputed register & other registers were shown and it makes clear that due to rush of work such thing used to happen, as has been admitted by the prosecution witnesses in their evidence. Therefore, in my view, double numberings & omission of initials in the matter of receipts of the returns by the record keeper were not intentional but such a bonafide mistake had crept and used to creep in on account of rush of work Learned trial Court erred in not considering that signatures of M. L. Pareek though were denied by him on the disputed returns but according to the testimony of other witnesses, they are alleged to have be.-n in the hand writing of M. L. Pareek, inasmuch as, finger print expert declined 10 give his opinion on those initials. In these circumstances there had been no reasons for the trial Court to have placed reliance on the evidence of other witnesses who have merely stated that those initials/signatures were of M. L. Pareek whereas M. L. Pareek denied of him. In this view of the matter, learned trial Court was not justified in convicting the appellant on the basis of those witnesses who appeared in the witness box to establish the signatures of M. L. Pareek when direct evidence was available about those initials and that of M. L. Pareek who himself denied them and proved it to be of his own. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant in the presence of such a state of proof can easily be held to be unfounded and without any cogent reason. In this view of the matter, I am also of the opinion that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt to the appellant so as to convict him under Section 420, IPC, also because looking to the entire evidence, it is abundantly clear that no one appears to have been cheated nor received any wrongful loss or gain. Thus, conviction under Section 420 IPC is also not sustained. Thus, conviction under Section 420 IPC is also not sustained. Similarly, offence under Section 468, IPC is also not made out against the appellant because, the documents allegedly forged must have been proved for having been used for the purposes of cheating but when it is held that case of cheating is not made out against the appellant, offence under Section 468, IPC stands unfounded. In this view of the matter, offence of Section 465, IPC is not proved against the appellant because when forgery is not proved on record then definitely one of the significant ingredients stands lacking in order to establish the charge under Section 465, IPC completely. 9. For the reasons given above, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has utterly failed to bring home the guilt to the appellant under any of the counts under which the trial Court convicted him. The impugned conviction against the appellant is not sustainable. The appellant deserves to be acquitted of all the charges. 10. In the result, this appeal is allowed. I set aside the impugned judgment in addition to the conviction & sentence awarded by the trial Court under various counts, referred to in first para of this judgment. The appellant is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him and for which he had been convicted. He is on bail. He need not surrender. The record be sent back forth with.Appeal allowed. *******