JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, J.—This appeal is directed against the decision of Special Judge, Shimala, in Sessions Trial No. U-S/7 of 1984, dated 26-11-1985 The accused was tried for offences under section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with sections 467, 468 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Briefly, the prosecution alleges that the accused was serving as Superintending Engineer, H. P. PWD., 4th Circle, Shimla, at the relevant time—4th and 11th August, 1981. He was incharge of the construction work in Himachal Bhawan at Delhi. The other staff consisted of Mohinder Pratap, S. E. 1 & PH, resident Engineer, Assistant Engineer and number of other junior officials posted there. 3. The accused had been visiting Delhi in connection with the supervision of the undergoing work over there quite often. He also visited Himachal Bhawan in the first week of August. 1981. 5hri M. L Bansal (PW l) had also gone to Delhi by Government Car No. HPS 3692 and returned to Shimla on 10th August, 1981. While returning from Delhi, he stayed at Parwanoo Government Rest House for the night since he reached thereat about 8p.m, 4. According to the prosecution, the accused travelled by Jeep No. HIL 3704 and stayed at Parwanoo Circuit House during the said night. He submitted travelling allowance bill for Rs. 87-50 for undertaking journey from Delhi to Kalka by night train during the intervening night of 10/11th August, 1981. This bill was submitted but when it came to the notice of Shri M. L Bansal (PW I) for his counter-signatures in the capacity of controlling authority for travelling allowance purposes, he detected that the accused had travelled by Government Jeep No. HIL 3704 on the relevant day and had met him in the morning of llth August, 1981 at Parwanoo where the accused had also stayed for the night. Accordingly, it was not countersigned and the present case was registered against the accused. In this way, the accused was sought to be prosecuted for the offences described in the preceding part of this judgment. 5. Ultimately, when the matter came before the Court, the prosecution cited number of witnesses in order to substantiate the case against the accused. Accordingly, it was not countersigned and the present case was registered against the accused. In this way, the accused was sought to be prosecuted for the offences described in the preceding part of this judgment. 5. Ultimately, when the matter came before the Court, the prosecution cited number of witnesses in order to substantiate the case against the accused. Let us look at the version of the accused given by him in his explanation under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the trend of his cross examination of the prosecution witnesses. His case is that he had travelled by Kalka train of 10th and 11th August, 1981. He had gone to Delhi to supervise the construction work of Himachal Bhawaa and he had been going there quite often. It is also his case that he visited Shri H.C. Malhaotra, Enginecr-in-Chief, on 6-8-1981 and came back on 10th August, 981 by train. Shn M.L. Bansal may have stayed at Rest House, Parwanoo, during 10th and 11th August, 1981, but he did not have any discussions with him, as alleged. He did not make any entry in the visitors book or in the log book. According to him, Shri M. L. Bansal was biased against him for the reason that the latter was changed from looking into certain deficiencies in the construction of Himachal Bhawan at the instance of the accused- However, a report was submitted in the case on 18-3-1982, although the order for his removal had been passed on 9-3-1982, The relations between the accused and Sbri M L. Bansal were strained on account of two groups in the department headed by Shn M. L, Bansal and Shri H. C. Maihotra, and the accused belonged to the tatters group. Then, it is also the case of the accused that Shri M.L. Baosal wanted a case of theft against one Shri. R. K. Sood, Junior Eogineer, to be dropped which he declined and in another case, Shn M. L. Bansal wanted the accused to place some departmental order for ACC. sheets to a particular firm, which was not obliged. In these circumstances, Shri M.L Bansal was inimical towards him. In defence, one witness, namely, Shri Madan Lal (DW-1) has been examined to prove certificate (Ex DW 1/1) touching the question that the accused had travelled in First Class by train. 6. sheets to a particular firm, which was not obliged. In these circumstances, Shri M.L Bansal was inimical towards him. In defence, one witness, namely, Shri Madan Lal (DW-1) has been examined to prove certificate (Ex DW 1/1) touching the question that the accused had travelled in First Class by train. 6. We proceed to examine the case on merits. The prosecution case that the accused had travelled by Jeep HIL 3704, has not been proved satisfactorily. The best evidence on the point could have been the entry in the log book of the vehicle recorded by the accused in his hand, but this has not happened Although the prosecution has tried to show that the accused was asked to do so, but he stated that the entry be got done through Shri R.C. Sharma, Junior Engineer. The entry was accordingly made by the Junior Engineer, Simply because the entry was made by the Junior Engineer, it does not mean that the accused had travelled by this vehicle since, as a matter of fact, the vehicle came to Chandigarh for the purpose of massive repairs In these circumstances, in addition to the above fact, the witnesses on this point may have been influenced by the fact that they were not going to depose against what had been stated by their head of department, namely, Shri M.L. Bansal, a key prosecution witness, cannot be ruled out. The doubt on this point is further strengthened from the cuttings made in the log book of the vehicle where the date has been changed from 11-8-1981 to 10-8-1981. The case of the accused that he travelled from Delhi to Kalka by train after 10 p.m., obviously, shows that he could not have come to Parwanoo during the night. 7. We now turn to the second aspect of the prosecution case. It is alleged that Shri M.L. Bansal stayed at Government Rest House, Parwanoo, where the accused also stayed for the night and had discussions with the former on the morning of 11th August, 1981. Here, the prosecution case is all the more prone to serious doubts. The entry in the visitors book of the Rest House is sought to be proved through Shri M L. Bansal (PW 1) only. The accused has denied having stayed there and made the entries in the register. Here, the prosecution case is all the more prone to serious doubts. The entry in the visitors book of the Rest House is sought to be proved through Shri M L. Bansal (PW 1) only. The accused has denied having stayed there and made the entries in the register. In such a situation, the best evidence could be obtained through handwriting expert. This has not been done in the present case, therefore, much reliance cannot be placed on the version of Shri M. L. Bansal on account of his inimical relations with the accused. It is undeniable that Shri M. L. Bansal (PW 1) was Engineer-in-Chief at the relevant time. This is the highest post in the Public Works Department. It is reasonable to presume, as submitted by Ms Bandana Lakhanpal and Shri B. N- Gupta, defence Counsel, that these witnesses are bound to be influenced by the highest officer of the department and not by the officer at the lower rung. Further, there is one additional factor to doubt this version of the prosecution, it is admitted by Shri M.L. Bansal (PW 1) that he had discussions with the accused at Delhi on 10th August, 1981. When they had discussed the matter at Delhi, it cannot be expected that they could have discussions at Parwanoo also. They had not decided at Delhi to discuss any matter at Parwanoo nor there was any agenda for that nor any evidence, in the shape of tour notes, is produced highlighting this point, more particularly when they had discussed the matter regarding the construction at Delhi. In these circumstances, the explanation of the accused appears to be more plausible and appealing when he says that he came by train and did not ai all stay at Parwanoo nor met Shri M. L. Bansal nor had any discussions with him, as alleged. His travelling by train has been proved by Madan Lal (PW 1) by production of travelling certificate (DW 1/1). The authenticity of this document could not be challenged In face of this document, the evidence of other railway employees does not appear to be convincing and dependable. Shri Madan Lai (DW 1) was Ticket Collector at Parwanoo at the relevant time Certificate (Ex. DW 1/1) was issued by him on the application preferred by the accused who had given the ticket number in his application. Shri Madan Lai (DW 1) was Ticket Collector at Parwanoo at the relevant time Certificate (Ex. DW 1/1) was issued by him on the application preferred by the accused who had given the ticket number in his application. It is not possible to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the State that the certificate is not satisfactory mode to prove the fact in face of other witnesses of the railways on the point. 8. The trial Court judgment has also been examined. It cannot be said that the reasons recorded for the acquittal of the accused are absurd or without any basis. The accused is holding quite a high post in the department. It cannot be accepted that he would have gone to the exteat of claiming a false travelling allowance for a meagre amount of Rs, 87.50 paise. It is also relevant to notice that this is an appeal against acquittal. Unless the order is palpably and grossly erroneous, interference by the appellate court is not called for. Moreover, this incident had happened on 10-8-1981 and a period of more than 11 years has passed. The sum-total of our examination of the case is that there is no substance in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.