Judgment K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. ( 2 ) THE appellant Harishchandra Krishna Gadkar (original accused 3) was tried along with three others for offences punishable under Section 120-B read with Sections 409, 407 (sic 467), 471, 477-A, 218 Indian Penal Code and under Section 5 (2) read with Sections 5 (l) (c) and 5 (l) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The trial court acquitted A-l and A-4 and convicted A-2 (P. B. Dalvi) and the appellant. They preferred an appeal to the High Court. The High Court acquitted A-2 and confirmed the convictions of the appellant. Hence, the present appeal. ( 3 ) THE prosecution case is as follows. Accused 1 worked as Assistant Superintendent of stamps in the year 1969 and he was the Head of the Department of the Stamp office. As the Head, he was the Collector under the Bombay Stamps Act and indian Stamps Act and also under the Bombay Court Fees Act. He retired on 7-9-1971. His duty was to look after the general administration of the Stamp office. Accused 2 worked as Deputy Assistant Superintendent of Stamps, in-charge of Stores, accounts and Sales. He was suspended from service w. e. f. 1-7-1971 and he retired from service on 24-1-1974. Accused 3-the appellant herein was the stores Supervisor in the Stamp Office in 1969 and he was helping accused 2 in respect of Stores branch. He was suspended from service on 21-5-1971. Accused 4 was the Sales Supervisor and he was suspended from service on 18-8-1974. Public Witness 1 gave evidence on behalf of the prosecution in the capacity as superintendent of Stamps. In 1969, he was working as the Deputy Assistant Superintendent He had given the details of the procedure. According to his evidence stamps were received in wooden boxes from the Collector of Stamps, Nasik Road. Deputy assistant Superintendent of Stores-accused 2 with the help of his assistants used to bring the wooden stamp cases. He had to examine the cases of stamps in order to ascertain whether there was any pilferage. As and when accommodation in the wooden and iron bins became available he had to break open the boxes, compare the contents and enter the quantity in the registers. Accused 3 was in-charge of the Stores branch in 1969. He had to examine the cases of stamps in order to ascertain whether there was any pilferage. As and when accommodation in the wooden and iron bins became available he had to break open the boxes, compare the contents and enter the quantity in the registers. Accused 3 was in-charge of the Stores branch in 1969. There were two keys for double lock one key used to remain with accused 2 and the second key used to remain with accused 3. When the boxes were opened they used to be opened in the presence of A-2, who was a gazetted officer and A-3 used to take out the stamps, according to the evidence. In addition to the double lock registers, there was a single lock register. Whatever stocks which were to be issued to the Stamp vendors were not issued directly from the double lock. They used to be taken in the single lock and then they used to be issued to the Stamp Vendors. If the stock was found insufficient, the Stamp Vendor had to submit an emergent indent and in that case accused 3 used to issue stamps to the vendors after obtaining the sanction of accused 2. ( 4 ) IN the year 1969, the sale hours were from 10. 45 a. m. to 3. 00 p. m. and from 3. 30 p. m. to 5. 30 p. m. Public Witness 1 has proved entries in the single register No. 6 of Service Postage Stamps from 16-4-1969 till 22-9-1969 and the entries were marked as Exhibit 25 collectively. Public Witness 1 has also proved various other entries. According to Public Witness 1, on 12-8-1969, postage stamps of a total value of Rs 17,000 were issued from the single lock register and to that effect there were entries. Likewise, he has also deposed about the other entries. The sum and substance of the prosecution is that in respect of a sum of Rs 66,000 it was adjusted as pre-audited government cheques received towards service postage, and the amount of Rs 66,000 was received by the accused in cash by way of sale of public postage. On the basis of these, charges were framed and the accused pleaded not guilty. On the basis of these, charges were framed and the accused pleaded not guilty. The questions that arose for determination before the trial court were whether the accused 1-4, while working as public servants, caused wrongful loss to the Government to obtain pecuniary advantages to themselves and whether they have conspired to defraud the Government to a tune of Rs 66,000. In that context, one of the issues was whether accused 1-4 in pursuance of the conspiracy dated 17-4-1969 to 2-9-1969 being public servants, who were entrusted with the duty of preparation of records and in pursuance of their conspiracy with some unknown persons prepared the writings in the treasury challans etc. with a view to cause wrongful loss to the Government. Another issue regarding accused 2 and 3 was whether in pursuance of the said conspiracy and in furtherance of their common intention with some unknown persons they caused to be omitted entries of cheques received for public service postage stamps in the treasury challans and also whether accused 2 and 3 in pursuance of the conspiracy intentionally caused to be omitted entries of cheques received for service postage stamps in the treasury challans for service postage stamps and caused to be made false adjustments of cheques in the treasury challans meant for public postage stamps and thus falsified accounts in respect of a sum of Rs 66,000. The principal issue against accused 3 was whether in pursuance of conspiracy he committed any criminal breach of trust and whether he forged certain documents. ( 5 ) THE trial court after having examined the oral and documentary evidence reached the conclusion that no case was made out against accused 1 and 4. So far as accused 2 and 3 are concerned, the trial court gave a finding that they were entrusted with the stamp boxes and their entries and the receipt made by accused 3 amounted to forgery and, accordingly, convicted both of them. In the appeal, the High Court having re-examined the evidence acquitted accused 2 holding that evidence against him is insufficient for the purpose of conviction. Therefore, the High Court was not prepared to place any reliance on the evidence which, to a great extent, was common both against accused 2 and 3. Having given such a finding the High Court proceeded to consider the case against A-3 the appellant herein. Therefore, the High Court was not prepared to place any reliance on the evidence which, to a great extent, was common both against accused 2 and 3. Having given such a finding the High Court proceeded to consider the case against A-3 the appellant herein. The only incriminating circumstance found by the High Court was that in the receipt dated 12-8-1969 (Ex-95), he made some alterations making as Ex-21. These entries show that originally receipt was issued in favour of B. P. and Co. and that has been scored off and the words "assistant Commissioner of Income Tax" are written. According to the prosecution these alterations were done by the appellant and the same was in his handwriting. It is on this basis that the High Court reached the conclusion that the appellant must have been a necessary party to the conspiracy, and, therefore, his conviction must be upheld. ( 6 ) SHRI P. H. Parekh, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had denied that he made the alterations and in the absence of any concrete evidence that it was his handwriting he cannot be connected with the so-called conspiracy and the alleged offence said to have been committed in pursuance to the conspiracy. His further submission is that the High Court has mainly relied on the handwriting expert which is a weak evidence. ( 7 ) WE are unable to agree with the learned counsel. Apart from the evidence of handwriting expert, there is evidence of Public Witness 6 the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Mr Deshmukh) who deposed that the alterations were made by a-3. According to him, the payment of Rs 20,000 has been made by cheque received from the Office of the Income Tax Commissioner and he refused to sign the receipt as it was in the name of B. P. and Co. Thereupon, accused 3 scored off the words "b. P. and Co. " on the receipt and wrote the words "assistant commissioner of Income Tax" and thereby made the alterations. In order to substantiate this aspect, certain specimen signatures were also secured and those were sent to handwriting expert and the evidence establishes that handwriting tallies with that of accused 3. ( 8 ) BUT the next question is whether that alterations could, even otherwise, in any manner, establish the guilt of the appellant. In order to substantiate this aspect, certain specimen signatures were also secured and those were sent to handwriting expert and the evidence establishes that handwriting tallies with that of accused 3. ( 8 ) BUT the next question is whether that alterations could, even otherwise, in any manner, establish the guilt of the appellant. The High Court having accepted the evidence of handwriting expert as well as the evidence of Public Witness 6, reached the conclusion that the part played by accused 3 shows that he must have been a member of the conspiracy. Having given such a finding, again, the High Court categorically held thus: "it is impossible on this evidence to hold that accused 3 must have enriched himself with this amount or a large part thereof. Having made this observation the High Court also commented that police investigation came at a much later stage and if proper investigation had been done, the truth might have come out. ( 9 ) HAVING given our earnest consideration we think it is highly unsafe to convict the appellant on this sole incriminating circumstance for the offence for which he was charged with i. e. for being a member of the so-called conspiracy and for which offence the appellant is still convicted as well as for the other offences punishable under Section 467 read with Section 471 Indian Penal Code and as well as under Sections 5 (2) read with 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of corruption Act. First of all, when four accused were charged to be members of the conspiracy and three are acquitted, then the question of singling out a particular person being the member of the conspiracy is not sustainable. At any rate, a grave doubt arises about the participation of accused 3 in the criminal act. ( 10 ) WE, however, agree with the High Court as well as the trial court that it was the appellant who made the alterations for which he has no satisfactory explanation and to that extent he has committed grave irregularity. But, only on that point, it cannot be said that he committed the offences for which he was charged with. ( 11 ) WE are of the view that a responsible public servant like the appellant ought not to have made such alterations. However, we admonish him for the same. But, only on that point, it cannot be said that he committed the offences for which he was charged with. ( 11 ) WE are of the view that a responsible public servant like the appellant ought not to have made such alterations. However, we admonish him for the same. He cannot be taken back in his service nor is he entitled for any back wages from the date of suspension till the date of his retirement. But that should not come in the way of his getting pensionary benefits and other retiral benefits which he has earned up to the date of suspension. With these modifications, the appeal is disposed of. The appellant may be paid whatever pensionary and other benefits which he has earned up to the date of suspension.