Judgment O.N.Asthana, J. 1. These are the two criminal appeals filed by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 27th July, 1982 of the Special Judge, C.B.I. South, Patna in Special Case No. 23 of 1975 where the learned Special Judge held the accused-appellant A.B.P. Sinha and Bhola Nath Rawani guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 477-A and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 ; and held the accused-appellant Dhannulal guilty for the offences punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 5(i)(d) and 5(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The Special Judge awarded the sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment to each of these three accused-appellants A. B. P. Sinha, Bhola Nath Rawani and Dhannulal. 2. The co-accused S. K. Haldar, Trains Clerk/number taker had been acuitted by the Special Judge in this trial. He happened to join in Patratu Railway Yard on 20-1-1982. 3. Patratu is a big Railway Yard five kilometers long. Earlier the Yard Master was G. P. Ambastha. The accused-appellant A. B. P. Sinha took the charge as Yard Master Patratu on 8-8-1971. The accused-appellant Bhola Nath Rawani was working as Head Weigh Clerk and Dhannulal was working as Head Trains Clerk in this Patratu Railway Yard. 4. Sri A. Choudhury was Coal Area Sperintendent stationed at Dhanbad and Sri Choudhary was controlling this Patratu Railway Yard. Briefly the prosecution case is that all these accused persons including Sri A. Choudhury (who died during the trial on 14th May, 1976) were working as public servant in Indian Railway during the period between July, 1971 to May, 1972 conspired amongst themselves along with other unknown persons, and in the furtherance of that conspiracy showing favours to their private contractors disposed of fradulently and dishonestly 1108 tones of slack coal to 19 damaged box wagons declaring the same as Yard Sweeping Coal by abusing their official positions, and therby obtained pecuniary benefits for themselves and caused wrongful loss to raily administration. 5. This Patratu Yard started functioning from January, 1965. 5. This Patratu Yard started functioning from January, 1965. Sri A, Choudhuary, Coal Area Superintendent, Dhanbad, directed for the first time for survey regarding Yard Sweeping Coal and the report was finalised on 27-9-1970 showed that 660 tones of Yard Sweeping Coal was lying in the Yard and sixty tones of Yard Sweeping Coal was expected to be accumulated in the Yard every month. On 27-10-1970 Sri A. K. Choudhury issued order that Yard Sweeping Coal should be sold by auction after every six months. Accordingly, in public auction dated 19-2-1971 a private party M. L. Matalia purchased 474.03 tones of Yard Sweeping Coal at the rate of Rs. 65 per ton. 6. Yard Sweeping Coal is a mixture of all grades of coal/coke that split out from wagons in course of marshalling and humping, and also consists of foreign materials like earth and stone which sometimes split up by the labourers engaged in the sweeping operation. After one auction to M. L. Matalia on 19-2-1971 Sri A. Choudury changed the modus operandi and started disposing of Yard Sweepin Coal by making allotment at a very low price, and Sri A. Choudhury allotted this Yard Sweeping Coal to 16 private parties at a very low price of Rs. 30 to 25 per ton during the period from 4-10-1971 to 14-12-1971. 7. Under the orders of Sri A. Choudhury 15 damaged box wagons loaded with 159.07 tons of slack coal were dumped in the Yard by Sri Ambastha, Station Master, during the period from 16-5-1971 to 4-6-1971, and accused-appellant A. B. P. Sinha disposed of all that stocked slack coal declaring a Yard Sweeping Coal to private parties. 8. At Patratu Railway Yard the coal contained in damaged box wagons (which are found immobile on railway track by mechanical department of railways) are unloaded and that unloaded coal is loaded in other wagons for transmission for the onward destination. 9. After the joining of A. B. P. Sinha, as a Yard Master four damaged box wagons carrying 248.02 tons of slack coal for Kanpur, Dwarka, Hardwar «and New Delhi were unloaded at Patratu Yard during the period from 27-1-1972 to 11-2-1972; and A. B. P. Sinha in connivance with the other co-accused transhiped the slack coal of four damaged box wagons in nine other wagons to private parties declaring the same as Yard Sweeping Coal. In these transactions A. B. P. Sinha, himself issued three memos Ext. 10,10/1 and 10/2 in hi6 hand writing and signatures on 17-2-1972, 19-2-1972 and 20-2-1972 entering the contents as yard Sweeping Coal knowing well that the stuff was slack coal. Further it was known to A. B. P. Sinha that Yard Sweeping Coal was not in his stock, and such a report (Ext. 6/37) dated 6-2-1972 was already submitted to Coal Area Superintendent, Dhapbad. 10. The Yard Master, Patratu in addition of his duty was also the ex officio handling contractor of the collection, of loading and unloading pf Yard Sweeping Coal. 11. The accused B. N. Ramani, head weigh clerk, maintained the account of slack coal unloaded at Patratu from damaged box wagons, and he maintained the account of accumulation and despatch of Yard Sweeping Goal. B. N. Ramani weighed the wagons, and he also prepared forward ing notes, railway receipts and despatch relating Yard Sweeping Coal. On 17-2-1972, 19-2-1972 and 20-2-1972 B. N. Ramani, the head weigh clerk, conspired with Yard Master A. B. P. Sinha and the other co-accused and B. N. Ramani prepared forwarding notes, railway receipts and despatch of nine transhipment wagons to private parties. The forwarding notes prepared by Sri. B. N. Ramani are Ext. 19 to 19/8. 12. Earlier B. N. Ramani also in connivance with Yard Master and other co-accused despatched 859.07 tons of slak coal (of 15 damaged box of wagons) to the private parties declaring that stuff as Yard Sweeping Coal. 13. Thus B. N. Ramani and A. B.P. Sinha, cheated the railway administration, and prepared falsified memos, forwarding notes and false entries in the weighment register (Ext. 18). 14. Dhannulal head trains clerk, made false entries in transhipment register (Ext. 14/2) showing in writing in transhipment register tha seven wagons of Yard Sweeping coal were being despatched but as a fact slack coal was sent to cover up the earlier wrongs relating nine transhipment wagons. 15. The prosecution also broguht the fact in the report and on the record that Dwarka Cement recovered a sum of Rs. 1,592 from railway administration on 12-12-1972. 16. The Trial Judge found that the dumping of slack coal and the collected Yard Sweeping Coal was carried at the places situate hardly one hundred yards only in the Yard. 15. The prosecution also broguht the fact in the report and on the record that Dwarka Cement recovered a sum of Rs. 1,592 from railway administration on 12-12-1972. 16. The Trial Judge found that the dumping of slack coal and the collected Yard Sweeping Coal was carried at the places situate hardly one hundred yards only in the Yard. Thus it was likely that a dust of cover of a few days would have given the impression in the mind of the working labourers to treat slack coal as Yard Sweeping Coal. 17. The Trial Judge found that the 15 immobile box wagons of slack coal was dumped in the Yard during the tenure of Sri Ambastha, Yard Master, and his successor Yard Master Sri A. B. P. Sinha, had no personal knwledge relating this dumping. Further the Trial Judge found that the Yard Master worked on the advice of Assistant Yard Master, and 12 to 15 hundreds of wagons were being despatched through 9 to 10 originating coal trains from this Patratu Yard every day. It was impossible for the Yard Master A. B. P. Sinha to have the direct knowledge what was the quality of the dumped coal and what was the quality of the coal being despatched in the wagons. 18. Further the Trial Judge held that B. N. Rawani, Head Weigh Clerk, did not go into the Yard as he had no such duty to perform, and he simply maintaind the records at his seat too cannot be held liable for any charge relating the 15 wagons slack coal dumped in the Yard. 19. Thus the Trial Judge did not hold any of these accused-appellants guilty relating the dumping and despatch of the 15 damaged box wagons slack coal. 20. The Trial Judged held because this stock position NIL of Yard dumping coal was in the knowledge of Sri A. B. P. Sinha, Yard Master, and Sri Rawami, Head Weigh Clerk, and the Yard Master, Sri Sinha wrote and signed the despatch memos (Ext. 10 to 10/2) for yard dumping coal, and Rawani gave the certificate on those bills ,(Ext. 9/6 to 9/8) and Rawani prepared the forwarding notes (Ext. 19 to 19/8) and their corresponding railway receipts (Ext. 10 to 10/2) for yard dumping coal, and Rawani gave the certificate on those bills ,(Ext. 9/6 to 9/8) and Rawani prepared the forwarding notes (Ext. 19 to 19/8) and their corresponding railway receipts (Ext. 20 to 20/8) ; and in pursuance of it the slack coal was despatched to the private parties as Yard Sweeping Coal, Sri A. B. P. Sinha and B. N. Rawani held guilty for the charges ; though no direct evidence had been adduced by the prosecution that these accused-appellants obtained any gain yet the private parties were benfited by getting the slack coal in the garb of Yard Sweeping Coal and there was wrongful loss to railways. 21. Further the Trial Judge held that Dhannulal, Head Trains Clerk, working under the supervision of Yard Master A. B. P. Sinha hurriedly despatched other wagons of the slack coal to the rightful parties of Kanpur, Dwarika, Harduaganj and New Delhi (to cover up the fradulent dispatch of the nine transhiped wagons as yard sweeping coal) show that this Dhannulal was a party to the conspiracy with Yard Master A. B. P. Sinha in the dispatch of transhipment of the nine wagons to the private parties in the garb of Yard Sweeping Coal. Accordingly, the Trial Judge hold Dhannulal guilty. 22. None of the consignees (private parties) complained either to railway administration or to any other authority. The Ext. 30 shows that Dwarika Cement claimed a loss of Rs. 1,618 on the basis of the shortage in the weighment at the delivery point ; and this shortage was was due to long delay in transit and that coal consignment was loaded and unloaded at two intermediate points before the arrival at DwarikaV The railway administration paid this claim of Rs. 1618 fiding shortage in the weight or consignment. 23. On 10-3-1972 a complaint (Ext. B/1) (probably from some railway employee posted at some other station)-Ext. B/l was received in vigilance section of railways, and on its basis vigilance section of railways started preliminary enquiry, and later filed a F.I.R. 24. The advocate for the respondent urged that the Supreme Court has observed often no direct evidence of conspiracy becomes available, and thus Courts are free to infer from the writings and conduct if the accused are guilty of conspiracy for a criminal offence. 25. The advocate for the respondent urged that the Supreme Court has observed often no direct evidence of conspiracy becomes available, and thus Courts are free to infer from the writings and conduct if the accused are guilty of conspiracy for a criminal offence. 25. The Trial Judge accepted the prosecution version on the premise that there was no Yard Sweeping Coal in the Patrau Yard. The statement Ext. 12 sent to Area Superintendent, Dhanbad, on 3-2-1972 shows that 1819.07 tons of slack coal was in his store up to 9-1-1972, and 1526 tons of Yard Sweeping Coal was sold away under the directions of the Area Superintendent; and prevailing practice 293.07 tons of Yard Sweeping Coal was shown by way of loss in handling. Thus in the Yard this 293 tons of Yard Sweeping Coal plus 120 tons collected sweeping coal from the Yard area in the months of January and February were there in the store in the Yard. 26. Undisputedly the rate for making payment by the individual parties were fixed and notified by Area Superintendent, Dhanbad. Further undisputedly the allotment orders were issued by Area Superintendent, Dhanbad, in the names of the private parties to take away the Yard Sweeping Coal after making payments at the rate (sic) fixed by the Area Superintendent, Dhanbad. Obviously, Yard Master and officials of Patratu Yard were simply to despatch the Yard Sweeping Coal to the allottees nomed by the Area Superintendent, Dhanbad. 27. As none of the consignees made any complaint relating the quality of the coal, and prosecution agency too did not make any actual verification of the coal from the consignees, it can not be said with certainty if slack coal or yard sweeping coal was sent to the private parties. The railway administration noted in the records that yard sweeping coal was sent to consignees private parties. As discussed above a stock of the yard sweeping coal was also there in the Yard. 28. The Trial Judge has rightly found that the prosecution has failed to prove if the rate of slack coal was higher than the rate of yard sweeping coal in the market. On the other hand the Trial Court inferred from certain documents that the slack coal was being priced at Rs. 33 per ton and yard sweeping coal was being priced at Rs. 30-35 per ton. On the other hand the Trial Court inferred from certain documents that the slack coal was being priced at Rs. 33 per ton and yard sweeping coal was being priced at Rs. 30-35 per ton. The price of the coal varied from time to time with the demand in the market, and thus the race at which M. L. Matalia, purchased the coal in 1971 could not be a yardstick for the coal price in 1972. The yard sweeping coal contains a mixture of different grades of coal, and the purchaser parties get that coal separated and sell at different higher rates to individuals who need rhe same for their purposes. 29. The prosecution witnesses Gaur Shankar PW 4 (Para 72), S. K. Chatterjee PW 6 (Para 62) and Gokul PW 3 (Para 46) have statd that the Yara Master of this big Yard performs supervisory duties, and does not check the stored coal and its quality, unloading and shipment of coal in wagons. Sri A. B. P. Sinha in his statement under nection 313 of the Cr.P.C. told the trial Court that the incharge labour who got loaded the coal came along with Assistant Yard Master and told about the loading of yard sweeping coal in the wagons and thus he prepared the despatch bills ; and he did not verify the contents and quality of coal loaded in the wagons. 30. The prosecution witnesses S. K. Chatterjee PW 6 (Para 46) has stated that B. N. Rawani, the head trains clerk, was performing table duty, and it was not his business to go at the spot in the Yard and to see what coal was going to be loaded. 31. Accordingly, the trial Judge has fastened the criminal liability of this accused-appellant on the basis of the documents writing and signed by them. 32. The yard sweeping coal was also there in the Yard. Thus it cannot be said that accused-appellant had any deliberate intention to pass on slack coal to the allottees (private party allottees whom the allotment of yard sweeping coal was made by Area Superintendent, Dhanbad), and to practice deception and thus to deceive railways. 33. The entries Ext. 32. The yard sweeping coal was also there in the Yard. Thus it cannot be said that accused-appellant had any deliberate intention to pass on slack coal to the allottees (private party allottees whom the allotment of yard sweeping coal was made by Area Superintendent, Dhanbad), and to practice deception and thus to deceive railways. 33. The entries Ext. 10 to 10/2 prepared by Yard Master, Sri Sinha and the giving of certificate by Sri Rawani and the preparation of forwarding notes and railway receipts by Sri Rawani cannot be said to be wilful act done deliberately with the intent to defraud railway administration. It appears that these entries were thereby inadvertence showing incorrect quality of coal on transit. Neither the accused-appellants were being benefited nor the private parties were being benefited with this slack coal in transit. There is nothing from the side of the prosecution to show as well if any wrongful loss was being caused to railway anministration. 34. The accused-appellant Dhannulal was working under the supervision of the Yard Master. As the mistake of sending slack coal was detected by railway officers and was brought to the notice of the Yard Master within two days of the despatch the wireless messages were sent on 23-2-1972 (Ext. C-1/1). The record of this wireless message was also found in railway records by the investigating officer R. B. Srivastava (PW 34). Further it has been proved by the defence witness Sitaram Prasad, Trains Clerk, (DW 1). The prosecution witness Sudhanshu Kr. Chatterjee (PW 6) has also stated that such wireless message were sent within two days to the higher authorities that there was mistake in despatch of slack coal to the private allottees. The vigilance enquiry started on a later date. 35. Thus it is envident from the wireless message sent soon that these accused-appellants had no criminal intent to cheat railway administration, and to forge the railway records and either to make any gain personally or to cause a wrongful loss to railway administration or to benefit the private parties. 36. Dhannulal simply performed his duty to despatch the slack coal to the destinations, namely, Kanpur, Dwarika, Harduaganj and New Delhi. There could be no criminal intent of any kind on the part of the accused-appellant Dhannulal. 37. Accordingly, it is found that none of the charges are established against any of the accused-appellants. 38. 36. Dhannulal simply performed his duty to despatch the slack coal to the destinations, namely, Kanpur, Dwarika, Harduaganj and New Delhi. There could be no criminal intent of any kind on the part of the accused-appellant Dhannulal. 37. Accordingly, it is found that none of the charges are established against any of the accused-appellants. 38. The judgment and order of the trial Court holding accused-appellants guilty and awarding them the sentence is set aside. Both the criminal appeals are allowed. The bail bonds of the accused-appellants stand discharged.