JUDGMENT : The appellant at the relevant time was Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad. He was described as A-1 at the trial. The prosecution alleges that he entered into a criminal conspiracy with his co-accused, one of whom turned approver, being P. W. 1, in order to acquire a sizeable plot of land in Survey No. 129/55 at Banjara Hills, Hyderabad belonging to one Syed Shah Abdul Khadir, father of P. W. 2, by illegal means, in bringing into existence initially a forged document of title dated 16-10-1951 in favour of one Agamaiah, ostensibly an unregistered sale deed of Syed Shah Abdul Khadir in favour of Agmaiah, and on the basis of that document of title in getting a sale deed by Agamaiah in favour of A-2 which is Ex. P-28 and then a portion of the land therefrom in his favour from A-2 by sale document P-29. Ostensibly the dealing appeared to be clean and straight. There was a buffer built up by the appellant inasmuch as there was a sale deed intervening being Ex. P-28, on the strength of which the appellant claimed to have become a bonafide purchaser, and that the defect in title, if any, if ever detected could be traced to document P- 28, which was the concern of A-2 and that of Agamaiah. The crime would not have been unearthed, but for a complaint against the appellant made that he was having in his possession assets disproportionate to his known sources of income and while investigation thereto was in progress, the deal aforementioned came to light, and because the approver P.W. 1, who has himself a subordinate of the appellant, came forward to disclose the details. 2. It is significant that the approver P.W. 1 came forward to support the prosecution after being tendered pardon and was corroborated on material particulars with regard to his version to the effect that a criminal conspiracy was hatched to grab the land of an absentee owner through its care-taker, making him ostensibly a title-holder of the property as a base. Both the Courts below have accepted the testimony of the approver. Still at the instance of Mr. Lalit, learned counsel we have gone through the evidence and we find no reason to disbelieve him, more so when intrinsically his evidence is trustworthy. 3. Both the Courts below have accepted the testimony of the approver. Still at the instance of Mr. Lalit, learned counsel we have gone through the evidence and we find no reason to disbelieve him, more so when intrinsically his evidence is trustworthy. 3. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the approver was not a reliable witness, because Agamaiah had been disposing of the property since the year 1961, much before the two sale deeds Ex. P-28, which was executed on 25-10-1965 in favour of A-2 and Ex. P-29 which was executed in favour of the appellant. From that it is sought to be urged that Agamaiah had always proclaimed himself to be the title-holder, going about effecting sales, which were presumed to have taken place on the strength of the sale document dated 16-10-1951, photostat copy of which is P-37. No original sale deed has been put on record to Show that Agamaiah had employed the forged document dated 16-10-1951 on several occasions in sale deeds executed by him. Had it been so, the approver would have been belied and declared to be untrustworthy witness. The charge of conspiracy would have failed, and so would have the charges under Section 467 and Section 471, Indian Penal Code No such occasion arose, because the Courts below who have found the document dated 16-10-1951, the alleged sale deed by Syed Shah Abdul Khadir in favour of Agamaiah to be not a genuine document, and its photostat copy a document barely but falsely to prove the existence of the original at one point of time. The sale documents mentioned at P-28 and P-29 make mention of the original and not to the photostat. The appellant, thus, cannot escape from the responsibility of having been instrumental by means of conspiracy to have brought about the document dated 16-10-1951, which is the source of the subsequent documents where under the conspiracy fructified by depriving the true owner its property. In this view of the matter, we concur with the view expressed by the High Court and also that of Special Judge in convicting the appellant of the charges. As is evident, the High Court released the appellant by means of imposing a science of imprisonment till rising of the Court. Inevitably that sentence cannot further be lowered down. In this view of the matter, we concur with the view expressed by the High Court and also that of Special Judge in convicting the appellant of the charges. As is evident, the High Court released the appellant by means of imposing a science of imprisonment till rising of the Court. Inevitably that sentence cannot further be lowered down. The appeal, therefore, has to be dismissed in toto, which is accordingly done hereby. Appeal dismissed.