JUDGMENT - A.A. DESAI, J.:—The Government has set up a Milk Scheme at Nagpur to supply milk to retail consumers of the city through numerous distributing centres (milk booths). The In-charge of centres have to deposit the cash collection of daily sale proceeds to their respective Ward Cashier. The Ward Cashier has to make entries of cash collection in the prescribed 'posting form' with necessary particulars and to prepare a consolidated statement of recoveries, described as 'abstract' in two sets. With these documents, the Ward Cashier then used to deposit the amount with the Bank Duty Cashier in Accounts Section of the Head Officer of Milk Scheme. The Bank Duty Cashier, after due verification of cash and documents, is required to prepare his own abstract in duplicate (original for Compilation Section and second copy for Head Cashier). He has to make further necessary entries in the Cash Collection Register. The Bank Duty Cashier by preparing challans was then required to remit the amount to the Reserve Bank of India. These challans were to be countersigned by the Accounts Officer, who is head of the Accounts Section. 2. During 1-4-1979 to 31-3-1980, Accused No. 1 Balpande was the Bank Duty Cashier and Accused No. 2 Sirsat was the Accounts Officer. However, for a brief period of 26 days, i.e. from 13-1-1980 to 11-2-1980, Accused No. 3 Watak officiated in leave vacancy as an Accounts Officer. Undisputedly, Accounts Officer is responsible to supervise the work of Accounts Section including that of Bank Duty Cashier. P.W. 1 to 26 were the persons who deposited the amount of sale proceeds with Accused No. 1 Balpande. Amongst them, P.W. 1 to 15 worked as Ward Cashiers. 3. The accusation against Accused No. 1 is that in original abstract, he has shown the exact amount received from the Ward Cashiers whereas in duplicate, recorded less amount. He prepared a challan of less amount for remittance as shown in duplicate abstract. He himself signed on challans as Accounts Officer. According to prosecution, during the period in question, he had received total amount of Rs. 1,92,29,471.70 whereas he had actually remitted an amount of Rs. 1,70,89,846.95. Accused No. 1 Balpande, accordingly misappropriated an amount of Rs. 21,39,724.75. 4. Accused No. 4 Thakur and Accused No. 5 Zalte were working at the relevant time as servants of Accused No. 1 in his medical shop. 1,92,29,471.70 whereas he had actually remitted an amount of Rs. 1,70,89,846.95. Accused No. 1 Balpande, accordingly misappropriated an amount of Rs. 21,39,724.75. 4. Accused No. 4 Thakur and Accused No. 5 Zalte were working at the relevant time as servants of Accused No. 1 in his medical shop. These two accused persons assisted Accused No. 1 in preparing certain abstracts. Accused No. 1 subsequently removed and destroyed the relevant records, which are more particularly described in Annexure 'B', which is a part of the charge-sheet. It, amongst other, includes cash abstract register and cash receiving register. According to prosecution, Accused Nos. 2 and 3, in their capacity as Accounts Officers, did not exercise proper supervision and neglected to perform their duties and thereby facilitated Accused No. 1 to commit misappropriation of public money to the extent of more than Rs. 21 lakhs. Accused No. 1 Balpande was, therefore, charged for the offences punishable under section 409, 477-A, 467, 468, 465/471, 419, 201 and 204 of Indian Penal Code and sections 5(1)(c) and 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Accused Nos. 2 to 5 were impleaded with the aid of section 109 of Indian Penal Code being abettors. 5. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution has examined 45 witnesses and produced voluminous record, mostly pertaining to accounts. The learned Special Judge has elaborately dealt the facts leading to the prosecution with the record exhibit-wise and evidence of these witnesses. The learned Special Judge, by the impugned judgment, held that prosecution has succeeded to establish that Accused No. 1 Balpande, during the period in question as a public servant, in his capacity as a Bank Duty Cashier, committed misappropriation of public funds to the extent of Rs. 20,97,012.45, by criminal breach of trust, falsification of record and impersonation by representing himself as an Accounts Officer. It is also held that with an intention to escape liability of criminal act, Accused No. 1 removed and destroyed the relevant record specified in Annexure 'B', which would have been material to substantiate the charge against him. 4. The learned Special Judge held Accused No. 1 Balpande guilty of the offences punishable under sections 409, 477-A, 467, 468, 465/471, 419, 201 and 204 of Indian Penal Code and also under section 5(1)(c) read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. 4. The learned Special Judge held Accused No. 1 Balpande guilty of the offences punishable under sections 409, 477-A, 467, 468, 465/471, 419, 201 and 204 of Indian Penal Code and also under section 5(1)(c) read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The learned Special Judge, however, recorded a finding of acquittal in favour of Accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under section 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. For these various offences, the learned Special Judge awarded the sentence and fine as under : — under section 409 of Indian Penal Code-rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 20,000/-; — under section 5(1)(c) read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act-rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 10,000/-; — under section 477-A of Indian Penal Code-rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 10,000/-; — under section 467 of Indian Penal Code-rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 10,000/-; — under section 468 of Indian Penal Code-rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 10,000/-; — under section 465/471 of Indian Penal Code-rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 10,000/-; — under section 419 of Indian Penal Code-rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 10,000/-; — under section 201 of Indian Penal Code-rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 10,000/-; — under section 204 of Indian Penal Code-rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 10,000/-. The learned Special Judge further directed substantive sentence to run concurrently. However, the learned Special Judge recorded the finding of acquittal in favour of original Accused Nos. 2 to 5. The State has not questioned the correctness of finding of acquittal in favour of Accused No. 1 Balpande for the offence punishable under section 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and also finding of acquittal in favour of original Accused Nos. 4 and 5. 7. Original Accused No. 1 Balpande, by Criminal Appeal No. 95 of 1987, has questioned the correctness of finding of conviction whereas the State, by Criminal Appeal No. 248 of 1987, questioned the legality and correctness of finding of acquittal recorded in favour of original Accused Nos. 2 and 3. The State has also, by Criminal Appeal No. 164 of 1987, claimed enhancement of sentence as awarded against Accused No. 1 Balpande. 2 and 3. The State has also, by Criminal Appeal No. 164 of 1987, claimed enhancement of sentence as awarded against Accused No. 1 Balpande. These three appeals since arising out of a common judgment, are heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment. 8. Shri Kishanlal Anand, the learned Counsel appearing for Accused No. 1 Balpande, at the outset levelled a criticism that Accused No. 1 Balpande has been held guilty for the offence punishable under section 409 of Indian Penal Code as well as under section 5(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Both these offences are arising out of common transaction and as such, there could not be separate sentence particularly when the accused in convicted and awarded sentence for the offence punishable under section 409 of Indian Penal Code. Shri Asghar Ali, the learned Special Prosecutor appearing for the State, successfully repelled the criticism. According to him, though prima facie these two sections incorporated in two different statutes appear to be identical, they are not of similar import. Relying on a decision in (Om Parkash Gupta v. State of U.P.)1, A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 458, he successfully canvassed before us that a separate sentence could be awarded for the offence punishable under section 5(1)(c) read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, even if there is conviction and sentence under section 409 of Indian Penal Code. 9. The main challenge posed by Shri Kishanlal is that in the absence of original record, which is relevant, the prosecution could not succeed to establish the entrustment. There has been nothing on record to indicate that Accused No. 1 received the amount as alleged by the prosecution. Even from the testimony of P.W. 1 to 26, who claimed to have tendered the amount to Accused No. 1, it is clear that they have not obtained any acknowledgment of Accused No. 1. The claim of prosecution for various offences, therefore, must fail. It appears that there was no practice to specifically acknowledge the amount received by the Bank Duty Cashier. He after due verification, simply used to make entries in the relevant record. At this stage, we may mention that express or specific acknowledgment of an amount is not the only mode to prove entrustment. The same could be proved by other circumstances. He after due verification, simply used to make entries in the relevant record. At this stage, we may mention that express or specific acknowledgment of an amount is not the only mode to prove entrustment. The same could be proved by other circumstances. The prosecution could bring on record only nine abstracts (original as well as duplicate), which are in the handwriting of Accused No. 1. The amount recorded in the duplicate abstract was admittedly less than the corresponding entries in the original. These abstracts are duly proved and exhibited. They definitely prove entrustment of part amount and out of which, misappropriation is to the extent of Rs. 1,40,158.65. This incriminating circumstance Accused No. 1 could not controvert in his examination under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code. Accused No. 1 made an attempt to set up a defence in reply to Question No. (719) that the excess amount shown in abstract was got written by P.W. 45 PSI Kothe. However, this defence is lame and defunct. It does not even create a probability in favour of Accused No. 1. Peculiar and adverse interest of Shri Kothe has not been exposed on record. 10. The prosecution for remaining items placed reliance on the oral evidence of P.W. 1 to 26 and the cash abstracts maintained in the respective Wards. P.W. 1, P.W. 7, P.W. 11 and P.W. 25 giving necessary details specifically stated the amount deposited by each of them on 2-4-1979 with Accused No. 1. The total amount is Rs. 1,51,191.35. This was put to Accused No. 1 vide Question No. (33). In answer, he said 'it is false'. Undisputedly, part of the amount he has deposited in the Bank. He has not offered any explanation. As such, answer to Question No. (33) itself is a falsehood. As regards the same amount, Question No. (34) was put to Accused No. 1 as thus : "it has come in evidence that you verified the above cash with the help of the above documents, got yourself satisfied about the correctness of the cash and documents and took entry of the cash denomination-wise in the Cash Collection Register in presence of above PWs." To this Accused No. 1 has stated, "it is true". The entrustment of the said amount is not under dispute. This material further establishes the entrustment of the amount and also falsification of documents. The entrustment of the said amount is not under dispute. This material further establishes the entrustment of the amount and also falsification of documents. The Accused No. 1 in answer to Question No. (35), has admitted that he has deposited less amount than what he has accepted vide answer to Question No. (34). We may mention here that to same set of questions, the Accused No. 1 has given similar answers under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code. 11. It is thus explicit that as per the practice then in vogue, Accused No. 1 never used to tender any acknowledgment of the money having received, but after due verification, used to make entries in the relevant record. The ground of the learned Counsel that in absence of an express acknowledgment, the entrustment could not be proved, has hardly any merit. To substantiate the entrustment, prosecution has examined P.W. 1 to 26, who have deposited the amount of cash collection from time to time with Accused No. 1. They have also produced cash abstracts and posting forms maintained by them in the Wards in the ordinary course of the official business. These documents have been duly proved and exhibited. They have elaborately been dealt with by the learned Special Judge. These witnesses have specifically and in great detail, as per documents, asserted in their testimony the amount handed over to Accused No. 1 from time to time. In cross-examination of P.W. 1 to 26, the correctness of figures of amount which they have deposited with Accused No. 1 has not been questioned. Particularly P.W. 16 to 26 have not at all been cross-examined. Their claim about deposit made to the Accused No. 1 has completely gone unchallenged. With evidence of P.W. 1 to 26 coupled with the corresponding documents, the prosecution has satisfactorily established entrustment of amount to Accused No. 1. 12. Shri Kishanlal submitted that there never used to be signature of acknowledgment on cash abstract by the Accused No. 1. However, Accused No. 1 as Bank Duty Cashier and P.W. 1 to 15 as Ward Cashiers, during the period in question, had maintained diaries. In these diaries, they mutually used to acknowledge the amount tendered and received. These diaries, though seized, have not been produced. Suggestion in this regard was made to PWs. 1, 2, 4, 5, 9 and 10, which they have categorically denied. In these diaries, they mutually used to acknowledge the amount tendered and received. These diaries, though seized, have not been produced. Suggestion in this regard was made to PWs. 1, 2, 4, 5, 9 and 10, which they have categorically denied. P.W. 1 Ashtikar, in his cross-examination, has definitely asserted that Accused No. 1 never used to acknowledge the amount received by him by putting signature. This categorical statement has not been challenged. The cross-examination at this stage was completely abandoned. As such, there is no reason to doubt this statement as made. Further more, the story of maintaining diaries appears to be merely a brain-wave. 13. P.W. 39 Bhasin held preliminary enquiry before the trial. He was Officer of the Government Milk Scheme. In this enquiry, he had recorded statements of Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3. These statements have duly been proved by the witnesses. During the preliminary enquiry, Accused No. 1 has not set up any such plea or story of maintenance of diaries as canvassed. This story is certainly an afterthought. We may mention that in the enquiry, Accused No. 1 accepted liability of misappropriation to the extent of rupees eight lacs. Even otherwise, maintenance of diaries as suggested was not in accordance with the official procedure or system. It was completely unofficial. Shri Kishanlal urged that these diaries in possession of Accused No. 1 were seized by P.W. 45 PSI Kothe. He has admitted in cross-examination that certain documents were seized from the house of Accused No. 1. However, the defence has not made any further suggestion to this witness as regards seizure of any such diary. In view of this, defence as set up is completely crippled and cannot be accepted. 14. The only criticism levelled by Shri Kishanlal against P.W. 1 to 26 is that they are not trustworthy since interested and partisan. According to the learned Counsel, these witnesses were employees of the Government Milk Scheme. They were also subjected to departmental enquiry being persons considered to be responsible for defalcation. They were under the influence of departmental Authorities as well of Investigating Agency. The documents produced on which reliance is placed, are concocted and prepared by them at the dictate of Investigating Agency and Officers of the Milk Scheme so as to drag Accused No. 1 in this prosecution. They were under the influence of departmental Authorities as well of Investigating Agency. The documents produced on which reliance is placed, are concocted and prepared by them at the dictate of Investigating Agency and Officers of the Milk Scheme so as to drag Accused No. 1 in this prosecution. It is further urged that in fact, these persons have committed defalcation and to shift the responsibility, the cash abstracts as produced by them have been prepared. As such, these witnesses being interested and documents being tainted, no reliance can be placed to record the finding of conviction against Accused No. 1. We find it difficult to accept this submission. The argument as advanced definitely suggests a mighty conspiracy of several persons. No doubt, there was a suggestion on this line to P.W. 1 to 15, who were the Ward Cashiers. However, these witnesses have definitely denied the suggestion. 15. To hatch a conspiracy on this mighty scale, there should be definite planning and central force which could bring all these 26 persons together and influence them to prepare fabricated documents as canvassed by the learned Counsel. Such force or authority, even as per the argument, could be the high officials of Department and Investigating Agency. P.W. 33 Pohankar, at the relevant time, was General Manager of Government Milk Scheme. The defence has, however, not made any suggestion on him to this line. Besides this, P.W. 42 Sirjoshi, Assistant Commissioner of Anti-Corruption Department, was in-charge of the Investigating Agency. Even to him, there was no such suggestion. The ground as taken to discredit the testimony of P.W. 1 to 26 is lame and defunct. 16. The Accused No. 1, during the trial, disputed certain documents. These documents were referred to handwriting expert P.W. 41 Kotwal. He opined that the writing and signature on the disputed documents were of Accused No. 1 Balpande. This circumstance was also put to Accused No. 1 in his examination under section 313 of the Code vide Question Nos. 705 to 718. Excepting one or two, Accused No. 1 has admitted his signature and writing on the disputed documents. 17. The prosecution has further produced and proved the total 318 challans of remittance, which were prepared by Accused No. 1 for depositing the amount in the Reserve Bank of India. There is no challenge or dispute that the amount shown therein is less by Rs. 17. The prosecution has further produced and proved the total 318 challans of remittance, which were prepared by Accused No. 1 for depositing the amount in the Reserve Bank of India. There is no challenge or dispute that the amount shown therein is less by Rs. 20,97,012.45 than the amount entrusted to the Accused No. 1. 18. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties, we have perused the impugned judgment. The learned Special Judge has dealt with question of entrustment and embezzlement of amount in paras (55) to (115) of the impugned judgment elaborately. After going through the finding as recorded on the basis of material as produced, we are completely in agreement with the same. 19. Undisputedly, Accused No. 1 Balpande has signed total 347 challans for remittance as an Accounts Officer. During the period in question, he undisputedly was not officiating in a capacity of Accounts Officer. This is definitely an impersonation, which is punishable under section 419 of Indian Penal Code. Accused No. 1 in his statement under section 313 of the Code in reply to Question No. (720) tried to explain that Dairy Manager issued an order authorising him to sign as an Accounts Officer. This authorisation was exclusively within the special knowledge of Accused No. 1. He has not produced or directed the Department to produce the same. To P.W. 33 Pohankar, General Manager of the Milk Scheme, no question or suggestion in this regard was made. The defence as set up by Accused No. 1 suffers from fallacy. The learned Special Judge has dealt with this aspect in paras (151) to (155) of the impugned judgment. On going through the same, we are in agreement with the finding that the prosecution has established the charge under section 419 of Indian Penal Code against Accused No. 1. 20. The learned Special Judge has held Accused No. 1 guilty for the offences punishable under sections 201 and 204 of Indian Penal Code for destruction of documents specified in Annexure 'B'. This aspect has been dealt with by the learned Special Judge in paras (156) to (159) of the impugned judgment. The learned Special Judge has observed that the original cash abstract used to be with the Compilation Section. Accused No. 1 could not have access to these documents. This aspect has been dealt with by the learned Special Judge in paras (156) to (159) of the impugned judgment. The learned Special Judge has observed that the original cash abstract used to be with the Compilation Section. Accused No. 1 could not have access to these documents. In para (159), it is observed that cash receipt register and cash abstract register referred to at Serial Nos. (163) and (164) of Annexure 'B' used to be maintained by Accused No. 1 and they used to remain in his custody. This position as revealed from the prosecution evidence has not been disputed before him during trial by the defence. The learned Special Judge has referred to Question No. (728) put to Accused No. 1 under section 313 of the Code. Accused No. 1 Balpande has stated that these documents used to be in a safe (almirah) of the office and the key of the safe used to remain with him. It is further explained that when he handed over the charge, he had shown these registers to the person who took over the charge. 21. P.W. 12 Brahmapurikar took over the charge from Accused No. 1 Balpande. However, when this witness was cross-examined, no such suggestion was made. Undisputedly, these documents are material and also relevant to substantiate the charge of criminal breach of trust leading to misappropriation. The Accused No. 1 since committed misappropriation, was definitely interested in escaping from the criminal responsibility. It is, therefore, safe to draw an inference that being a person interested, Accused No. 1 removed and destroyed the documents referred to in Annexure 'B' before handing over charge to his successor, namely, P.W. 12 Brahmapurikar. The learned Special Judge has, therefore, rightly held him guilty for the offences punishable under sections 201 and 204 of Indian Penal Code. 22. Shri Kishanlal lastly and faintly argued that the sanction as accorded for prosecution of Accused No. 1 was without application of mind. According to the learned Counsel, P.W. 37 Gangurde, who accorded sanction, has not personally verified the record and as such, sanction as accorded is completely vitiated. The learned Counsel invited our attention to Exh. 7596 (page No. 3758 of paper book-Volume VI). With the assistance of the learned Counsel, we have perused the order of sanction. The first three paragraphs of the said order refer to factual aspect. The learned Counsel invited our attention to Exh. 7596 (page No. 3758 of paper book-Volume VI). With the assistance of the learned Counsel, we have perused the order of sanction. The first three paragraphs of the said order refer to factual aspect. Correctness thereof is not disputed before us. The fourth paragraph refers to perusal of record of investigation received from Investigation Bureau, Nagpur. This paragraph also refers to various offences for which Accused No. 1 was charged vide Crime No. 401 of 1980. The Sanctioning Authority says that after going through the said record, he is of the opinion that Sharadchandra Motiram Balpande (Accused No. 1) should be prosecuted for the offences constituted by the facts and punishable as mentioned above. 23. We are unable to agree with the submission of Shri Kishanlal that the Sanctioning Authority was under obligation to peruse and verify each document to ascertain genuineness and correctness of accusation. The provision for sanction is made with a view to prevent unnecessary and unwarranted harassment or hardship to the public servant. It is only the subjective satisfaction of the Sanctioning Authority as to whether there is any prima facie case against the public servant in regard to discharge of his public functions. The order of sanction as passed does not suffer from the criticism as levelled. The learned Special Judge has dealt with this aspect and evidence of witnesses in paragraphs (43) to (54) of the impugned judgment. We agree with the conclusion as recorded by the learned Special Judge. In view of our above discussion, Criminal Appeal No. 95 of 1987 presented by Accused No. 1 Balpande is liable to be dismissed. 24. The State, by Criminal Appeal No. 248 of 1987, has questioned the correctness of finding of acquittal in favour of original Accused Nos. 2 and 3. As discussed, during the period in question, Accused Nos. 2 and 3 officiated as Accounts Officer. Shri Asghar Ali, the learned Special Public Prosecutor, vehemently urged that there is a voluminous evidence, which definitely suggests that these two accused persons in their capacity as Accounts Officer deliberately and intentionally omitted to perform their duties in that capacity and thereby they have facilitated Accused No. 1 to commit misappropriation of a huge amount. With the assistance of the learned Special Public Prosecutor, we have perused the evidence on record. With the assistance of the learned Special Public Prosecutor, we have perused the evidence on record. We have also heard Shri S.B. Wahane, the learned Counsel for Accused No. 2, and Shri A.P. Deshpande, the learned Counsel for Accused No. 3. 25. No doubt, it is true that as Accounts Officers, in-charge of Accounts Section, Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were under obligation to supervise the working of persons subordinate to them and also to exercise effective vigilance so as to check any pilferage of the public amount. The nature of evidence as produced by prosecution is that they have omitted to perform their duties, which has facilitated Accused No. 1 to commit misappropriation. There is a debate for quite sometime as to whether Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were responsible to check the challans to be submitted to Reserve Bank of India for remittance. We need not detain ourselves on this aspect. We may observe that there might be a gross negligence on their part. They might be callous in performing their duties, but that by itself would not constitute an abetment, unless it is established that omitting to perform duty or negligence in discharging duty on the part of Accused Nos. 2 and 3 was with a design to aid and facilitate Accused No. 1 to commit a crime. According to us, nothing is brought on record to suggest that the activities of Accused No. 1 were within the knowledge of Accused Nos. 2 and 3 or they had in any manner a reason to believe that Accused No. 1 was indulging in such activities. It might be true that Accused No. 1 had taken advantage of callous and negligent attitude of Accused Nos. 2 and 3, but we cannot reach to a definite conclusion that Accused Nos. 2 and 3 neglected to perform their duties of supervision and vigilance to render assistance or aid to Accused No. 1. As such, we are in agreement with the reasoning and finding as recorded by the learned Special Judge in paragraphs (164) to (180) of the impugned judgment. The appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 26. In Criminal Appeal No. 164 of 1987 presented by State for enhancement of sentence, Shri Asghar Ali, the learned Special Public Prosecutor, has submitted that taking the stock of situation, sentence and fine as awarded by the learned Special Judge is too lenient. The appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 26. In Criminal Appeal No. 164 of 1987 presented by State for enhancement of sentence, Shri Asghar Ali, the learned Special Public Prosecutor, has submitted that taking the stock of situation, sentence and fine as awarded by the learned Special Judge is too lenient. He has further urged that the submission in this regard as advanced before the learned Special Judge has not been dealt with in correct perspective. We have perused the relevant paragraphs (199) to (204) of the impugned judgment. It was urged before the learned Special Judge that by amendment to section 409 of Indian Penal Code, sentence has been enhanced to life imprisonment. Coupled with previous conviction at the credit of Accused No. 1 Balpande, he was liable to suffer the maximum punishment as prescribed. Shri Asghar Ali has reiterated the same before us. According to him, the sentence as awarded by the learned Special Judge does not commensurate with the gravity of crime. Shri Kishanlal resisted the claim. According to him, the conviction as recorded previously is not subsisting and Accused No. 1 is acquitted. As such, the view taken by the learned Special Judge is just and proper. 27. The learned Special Judge has observed that as regards previous conviction of Accused No. 1 that since appeal is pending, there is no finality to the conviction. Taking into consideration the nature of offence, the learned Special Judge has observed in para (201) of the impugned judgment that for dishonest breach of obligation, Accused No. 1 Balpande is liable for severe punishment. However, deferring from the argument as advanced by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, the learned Special Judge has further observed in para (203) that Accused No. 1 Balpande is not liable for a deterrent punishment. We have carefully perused the reasoning of the learned Special Judge. 28. The acquittal of Accused No. 1 Balpande from earlier conviction is not disputed. However, Shri Asghar Ali strenuously urged that nowadays public money in the hands of custodians is not safe and looking to this perturbing feature, the claim of State for enhancement of sentence deserves to be upheld. This submission, according to us, has its own merit. Apart from the acquittal of Accused No. 1 by this Court in earlier conviction, the pertinent aspect to which we are adverting to is thus: 29. This submission, according to us, has its own merit. Apart from the acquittal of Accused No. 1 by this Court in earlier conviction, the pertinent aspect to which we are adverting to is thus: 29. The amount involved in this embezzlement by Accused No. 1 Balpande is quite huge, running to more than rupees twenty lakhs. Besides this, the modus operandi adopted by Accused No. 1 is with a criminal and ingenious design. In his device, he has shown a skill. In every item of defalcation, he reduced the amount entrusted, keeping the last number of figure as it is. This method appears to have been adopted so as to escape the attention. The misappropriation in the instant case is coupled with impersonation, falsification and destruction of documents with a definite design to escape the criminal liability under law. The Accused No. 1 to accomplish a criminal design, exhibited enormous courage and also ruthless behaviour. Such menace is on increase. This has posed a very potential threat to the public fund. To deter the person of such design and curb the menace, the punishment as warranted needs essentially to be maximum. After hearing the parties at length, we pass the following order : Criminal Appeal No. 95 of 1987 presented by original Accused No. 1 Balpande is hereby dismissed. Criminal Appeal No. 248 of 1987 presented by State against acquittal of Accused Nos. 2 and 3 is also hereby dismissed. After hearing the parties at length, we pass the following order : Criminal Appeal No. 95 of 1987 presented by original Accused No. 1 Balpande is hereby dismissed. Criminal Appeal No. 248 of 1987 presented by State against acquittal of Accused Nos. 2 and 3 is also hereby dismissed. Criminal Appeal No. 164 of 1987 presented by State for enhancement of sentence of Accused No. 1 Balpande is hereby allowed and we award the sentence as under : — for offence punishable under section 409 of Indian Penal Code, we direct the Accused No. 1 Balpande to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of rupees fifty thousand, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years; — for offence punishable under section 5(1)(c) read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, we maintain the substantive sentence and enhance the fine to rupees twenty-five thousand, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for two years; — for offence punishable under section 477-A of Indian Penal Code, we maintain the substantive sentence as awarded and enhance the fine to rupees twenty-five thousand, in case of default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for two years; — for offence punishable under section 467 of Indian Penal Code, we direct Accused No. 1 Balpande to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of rupees fifty thousand, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three years; — for offence punishable under section 468 of Indian Penal Code, we award sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years and enhance the fine to rupees twenty-five thousand, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for two years; — for offence punishable under section 465/471 of Indian Penal Code, we maintain the substantive sentence as awarded and enhance the fine to rupees twenty-five thousand, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months; — for offence punishable under section 419 of Indian Penal Code, we maintain the substantive sentence and enhance the fine to rupees twenty-five thousand, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for nine months; — for offences punishable under sections 201 and 204 of Indian Penal Code, we maintain the substantive sentence and enhance the fine to rupees twenty-five thousand on each count, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. We direct the substantive sentences, as awarded by us, to run concurrently. Instant case involved voluminous records and documents. The tremendous work, energy and skill engaged to unfold the prosecution case need no over stating. We record our appreciation for the performance of Shri B.K. Sarjoshi and Shri D.N. Kothe, Investigating Officers. Trial was certainly mighty and time consuming. Shri S.M. Limaye and Shri K.J. Rohee, learned Special Judges, took pains to deal with the entire material and the questions cropped up. Shri Durge presented the prosecution case with best of his ability. They, therefore, deserve compliments. In this appeal, Shri Asghar Ali, learned Special Public Prosecutor assisted by Miss Muley, Advocate appeared for the State. Their performance has been valuable. In dealing with the mighty volumes of paper book and record the skill they have shown, is exemplary. With their thorough preparation, they could considerably reduce the time and burden of this Court. Shri Asghar Ali and Miss Muley have been appointed for this case by the Government notification. Looking to the nature and volume of work and numerous intricacies of accounts, they deserve remuneration at an enhanced rate which, we hope, Government will consider favourably. Shri Kishanlal, Advocate was initially working for Accused No. 1 Balpande. Subsequently, he withdrew his power. He appeared in the trial Court for Accused No. 1 Balpande. Subsequently, on the application of Accused No. 1 Balpande, he is engaged for Accused No. 1 Balpande at the cost of Government. His services are valuable. With his long standing experience at the bar, he prepared the brief with extra-ordinary zeal. His submissions were apt and precise. Considering the nature and volume of work coupled with various documents, we quantify his legal remuneration at rupees five thousand. We also appreciate the services of Shri S.B. Wahane, the learned Counsel for original Accused No. 2, and Shri A.P. Deshpande, the learned Counsel for original Accused No. 3, who argued the matter very ably and assisted us in disposing of this matter. Shri Bhaurao Dukre and Khushalrao Kshirsagar Head Constables, Anti-Corruption Bureau, ably assisted the Special Public Prosecutor in maintaining and pointing the huge record and documents. They performed their job with desired skill and labour. Order accordingly. *****