JUDGMENT R. L, Khurana, J—The four appellants stand convicted vide judgment dated 29-8-1990 by the Special Judge (Forests), Shimla, for the offence under section 120-B, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of six months each and also to pay a line of Rs 500; In default of payment of fine, each of the four appellants has been directed to undergo imprisonment for a period of two months Appellant Mohinder Singh has further been convicted under section 420, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. IS 00 In default of payment of fine, he has been directed to undergo imprisonment for a further period of six months. Appellants S S Machhan and Parkash Chand have also been convicted for the offence under section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs 500 each. In default of payment of fine, each of them has been directed to undergo/imprisonment for a further period of two months The substantive sentence imposed on each of the four appellants was ordered to run concurrently. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution story may be stated thus. During the year 1983 in the apple belt of Jubbal and Rohru there has been a severe incidence of scab disease in the apple crop. The State Government, with a view to provide relief to the apple growers in order to compensate them for the loss suffered by them on account of scab disease, decided to purchase the scab affected apples, Necessary modalities in the form of guidelines were framed with regard to the procurement and destruction of such scab affected apples, For the implementation of the programme, procurement and destruction parties were constituted at different places in the areas of Jubbal and Rohru, one Gazetted Officer was made Incharge of each one of such parses Each party consisted of official and non-official members. The Pradhan/Up Pradhan or the member of local Panchayat were to be associated in turn for rendering necessary assistance for the purpose of identifying and certifying the genuineness of the orchardists and fruits offered and also to serve as liaison-man between he staff and the growers, Apart from such Pradhan/Up-Pradhan or member of the Panchayat, one more person of repute from the area could also be associated for the purpose As per the modalities, only those scab affected apples were to be purchased by the procurement and destruction parties, which had actually been grown in the orchard of the concerned person. No scab affected apples could be sold to such party which did not belong to the orchard of the concerned person. 3. About 30,000 tonnes of scab infected apples were procured and destroyed through 195 centres set up for the purpose and compensation at the rate of 50 paise per Kg was paid to the concerned growers 4. A number of complaints were received by the State Government regarding the bunglings in the procurement and destruction of the scab infected apples and the payment of compensation thereof. The then District and Sessions Judge, Shimla, was, therefore, appointed as one man Enquiry Commission under the Commission of Enquiry Act. The Commission, after carrying out a detailed enquiry submitted its report to the State Government. The Commission reported that some of the persons had received false payments by showing inflated quantity of scab infested apples and thereby had cheated the exchequer. It was also reported that there has been connivance of the members of the procurement and destruction parties. 5. The report of the Commission was accepted by the State Government and as a follow-up action, a case under sections 468, 420 read with section 120-B, Indian Penal Code and under section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, came to be registered with Police Station Enforcement, South Zone, Shimla. 6. During the investigation, it was revealed that the appellant Mohinder Singh had sold 595 Qtls of scab infested apples to the procurement and destruction party of which the appellant S, S Machhan, the then Veterinary Officer was the Incharge, The appellant Parkash Chand, the then Extension Officer, Industries, was one of the official member of the said party The appellant Nain Singh being the Panch of the concerned Panchayat was the non-official member thereof. A sum of Rs. A sum of Rs. 14,250 was paid to and received by the appellant Mohinder Singh as cost of scab infested apples offered by him to the procurement and destruction party vide cheque dated 2-4-1984. 7. The investigation revealed that appellant Mohinder Singh did not own any orchard. His father Sunder Singh owned an orchard in which there were 247 apple trees. According to the assessment made by Shri P. C Pan war. the then Horticulture Officer, Shimla, who was appointed as Local Commissioner during the course of enquiry by the Enquiry Commission, there could have been an optimum produce of 292 37 Qtls. of apples in the said orchard belonging to the father of appellant Mohinder Singh. As against this, the appellant Mohinder Singh had sold 595 Qtls. of scab infected apples to the procurement and destruction party It was revealed that the four appellants had conspired together to cheat the State exchequer and in furtherance of s-ach conspiracy an inflated quantity of scab infected apples was shown to have been sold by the appellant Mohinder Singh. Appellants S S. Machhan and Parkash Chand were found to have mis-used their official position in order to cause wrongful gain to the appellant Mohinder Singh. 8. The four appellants were accordingly arrested, challaned and sent-up for trial for the offences under sections 468, 420 read with section 120-B, Indian Penal Code, Appellants S S, Machhan and Parkash Chand were also sent up for trial for the offence under section 5 (2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 9. All the four appellants did not plead guilty to the charge and claimed trial. 10. The appellant Mohinder Singh in his statement recorded under section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure has admitted the sale 595 Qtls. of scab infected apples to the procurement and destruction party and having received compensation therefor through cheque, it was stated that the apples so sold belong to his orchard. The assessment made by Shri P. C. Panwar was wrong and that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. of scab infected apples to the procurement and destruction party and having received compensation therefor through cheque, it was stated that the apples so sold belong to his orchard. The assessment made by Shri P. C. Panwar was wrong and that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The appellants S. S. Machhan, Parkash Chand and Nain Singh have stated that the assessment of crop made by Shri Panwar was wrong Payments were rightly approved by them according to the quantity of apples brought before them by the appellant Mohinder Singh and that there has been no connivance or conspiracy on their part, They have further stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case 11. The prosecution in support of its case has examined as many as 22 witnesses. Two witnesses were examined by the appellants in defence. 12. The learned Special Judge, upon consideration of the material placed before him, came to the conclusion that a case under section 120-B, Indian Penal Code stood proved against each of the four appellants. A case under section 420, Indian Penal Code was also found proved against the appellant Mohinder Singh. The Special Judge further came to the conclusion that an offence under section 5 (2), Prevention of Corruption Act also stood proved against the appellants S. S Machhan and Parkash Chand. No case under section 468, Indian Penal Code was found against any of the four appellants. While all the four appellants were acquitted of the offence under section 468, Indian Penal Code, each of the four appellants was convicted and sentenced for the offences charged against them, as aforesaid. 13. Feeling aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed upon them by the learned Special Judge, the four appellants have come up in appeal before this Court. 14. I have heard Shri T. R. Chandel, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the appellants and Ms. Shyama Dogra, the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State and have also gone through the record of the case. 15. All the four appellants stand convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 120-B, Indian Penal Code. 14. I have heard Shri T. R. Chandel, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the appellants and Ms. Shyama Dogra, the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State and have also gone through the record of the case. 15. All the four appellants stand convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 120-B, Indian Penal Code. Section 120-B, reads : "120-B Punishment of criminal conspiracy,—(i) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence. (2) Whoever is a party to criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine, or with both.” 16. It is well settled that for the purpose of conspiracy, there must be an agreement amongst the accused persons, either to commit an illegal act or to commit an act which is not illegal by illegal means. The agreement between the accused persons need not be express. The same can be implied. 17. It is equally well settled that there can hardly be any direct evidence with regard to the criminal conspiracy, since such conspiracies are hatched in secrecy. It is generally on the basis of circumstantial evidence that conspiracy is proved and established and for this purpose inferences may be drawn from the circumstances appearing on the facts of each case. 18. In E. G. Barsay v. State of Bombay, AIR 1961 SC 1762 it has been held : "The gist of the offence is an agreement to break the law. The parties to such an agreement will be guilty of criminal conspiracy, though the illegal act agreed to be done has not been done. 18. In E. G. Barsay v. State of Bombay, AIR 1961 SC 1762 it has been held : "The gist of the offence is an agreement to break the law. The parties to such an agreement will be guilty of criminal conspiracy, though the illegal act agreed to be done has not been done. So too, it is not an ingredient of the offence that all the parties should agree to do a single illegal act It may comprise the commission of a number of acts Under section 43 of the Indian Penal Code, an act would be illegal if it is an offence or if it is prohibited by law..........." Again, in Yash Pal Mital v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 2433, it has been held by the apex Court : "........ .. The very agreement, concert or league is the ingredient of the offence. It is not necessary that 11 the conspirators must know each and every detail of the conspiracy as long as they are co-participators in the main object of the conspiracy. There may be so many devices and techniques adopted to achieve the common goal of the conspiracy and there may be division of performances in the chain of actions with one object to achieve the real end of which every collaborator must be aware and in which each one of them must be interested. There must be unity of object or purpose but there may be plurality of means sometimes even unknown to one another, amongst the conspirators. In achieving the goal several offences may be committed by some of the conspirators even unknown to the others. The only relevant factor is that all means adopted and illegal acts done must be and purported to be in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy even though there may be sometimes mis-fire or over-shooting by some of the conspirators. Even if some steps are resorted to by one or two of the conspirators without the knowledge of the others it will not affect the culpability of those others when they are associated with the object of the conspiracy.-.........." The apex Court in Kehar Singh and others v. The State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1988 SC 1883, has further held : "Generally, a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it may be difficult to adduce direct evidence of the same. The prosecution will often rely on evidence of acts of various parties to infer that they were done in reference to their common intention. The prosecution will also more often rely upon circumstantial evidence. The conspiracy can be undoubtedly proved by such evidence direct or circumstantial. But the Court must enquire whether the two persons are independently pursuing the same end or they have come together to the pursuit of the unlawful object. The former does not render them conspirators, but the, latter does. It is however, essential that the offence of conspiracy required some kind of physical manifestation of agreement. The express agreement, however, need not be proved. Nor actual meeting of two persons is necessary Nor it is necessary to prove the actual words of communication. The evidence as to transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful design may be sufficient .......” 19. Examining the evidence in the present case, it can be safely concluded that there is not even an iota of evidence pointing out a conspiracy amongst the four appellants to commit an illegal act or an act which is not illegal in an illegal manner, There is nothing to show that they have been associating with each other to carry out the object of conspiracy. There is neither direct nor circumstantial evidence of conspiracy amongst the appellants. In the absence of evidence and/or circumstances against the appellants that they participated in a particular design to commit an illegal act, the appellants cannot be held guilty for the offence under section 120-B, Indian Penal Code. 20. The learned Special Judge his relied upon the circumstance that the receipts Ex PW 5/A and Ex. PW 5/B, which admittedly are in the hand of four appellants, were forged by them wherein an inflated quantity of apples was recorded against the actual quantity sold by the appellant Mohinder Singh. The mere fact that these two receipts are in the hand of the four appellants will not show the conspiracy amongst them. 21. Ex PW 12/A is the copy of Modalities for the procurement and destruction of highly scab affected apple produce framed by the State Government- Under these modalities each team constituted for procurement and destruction of scab affected apples to be procured by the State Government was to consist of : 1. Gazetted Officer One 2. Inspector/E. O. One 3. Other Class III officials Two 4. Gazetted Officer One 2. Inspector/E. O. One 3. Other Class III officials Two 4. Labourer Two The function of such team was : "The above team under the leadership of a Gazetted Officer will be a mobile team which will move from centre to centre and each team will be allotted 6 centres for this purpose. The Deputy Commissioners will ensure that each team is provided with a vehicle/jeep. Officers drawn from the various departments having jeeps will use their own jeeps In case of shortage the vehicle of other allied departments may be requisitioned. It may also be ensured that each party is given a compact area of operation so that the party does not have to cover longer distances, as in one day they will have to move from one centre to other centre. Procurement will be made only once a week at one centre (except Sunday) and the day fixed for procurement at each centre may be announced in advance so that the apple growers of the area covered under a centre may bring scab affected apple only on that day. The Gazetted Officer will be responsible for procurement and destruction of apple produce brought to his centre by the growers/producers. One Inspector/E O will be there to assist the Officer of the team and also to lend a helping hand to the record-keeper and weighman for maintenance of record etc One record-keeper and one weigh-man will be provided out of the Class III employees with the team. Two labourers will be provided with each team in case of rush of work one more labourer can be engaged by the Gazetted Officer concerned according to the spot situation. The receipts will be countersigned by the Gazetted Officer In-charge of the team and likewise he will initial each and every entry of the register also. The weighman will be responsible for weighing the produce brought by the growers to the centre, Weighmen can be done by weighing the crop by a standar scale like Ktlta’ or Drum. He will also be responsible for preparing the receipt in token of having received the fruit, A form of receipt and register would be as per Annexures A and B. A carbon copy of the receipt would be retained and required to be maintained for record. He will also be responsible for preparing the receipt in token of having received the fruit, A form of receipt and register would be as per Annexures A and B. A carbon copy of the receipt would be retained and required to be maintained for record. It will be the duty of the record-keeper to maintain the register and make entries, with regard to the name, address of person location of his orchard etc. Weight of the fruit procured, receipt number, signature of the record-keeper and the Incharge of the centre.” 22. It is significant to note that the original register, which was required to be maintained by the party under the modalities has not been produced and proved in evidence to show the quantity of apples sold by the appellant Mohinder Singh. Be it stated that is not the case of the prosecution that inflated quantity was also entered in such register The failure of the prosecution to produce the register, which was material piece of evidence, would lead to the inference that had the same been produced it would not have supported the case of the prosecution. 23. It is worthwhile to mention here that the four appellants have been acquitted of the offence under section 468, Indian Penal Code, They have been found not to have prepared any false document. Such acquittal has not been challenged by the State-respondent. If the appellants were not found to have prepared false documents, the very case of conspiracy falls to the ground, 24. The appellant Mohinder Singh has also been convicted and sentenced for offence under section 420, Indian Penal Code for having cheated the State exchequer by showing an inflated quantity of scab infected apples having been sold to the procurement and destruction party and that he was not a grower of apples inasmuch as he did not own an orchard. The explanation put forth by the appellant Mohinder Singh is that he is living with his father jointly and that the orchard jointly belong to them. 25. The trial Court has heavily relied upon the statement of PW -I Shri P. C Panwar, the then District Horticulture Officer, This witness was appointed as Local Commissioner by the Enquiry Commission. He had inspected the orchard of the father of the appellant Mohinder Singh. There were 247 apple trees in the said orchard. 25. The trial Court has heavily relied upon the statement of PW -I Shri P. C Panwar, the then District Horticulture Officer, This witness was appointed as Local Commissioner by the Enquiry Commission. He had inspected the orchard of the father of the appellant Mohinder Singh. There were 247 apple trees in the said orchard. According to his assessment the optimum produce of apples in the orchard could have been 292.37 Qtls Against this maximum optimum produce of 292 37 Qtls., the appellant Mohinder Singh had sold 595 Qtls of apples Co the procurement and destruction party. PW 1 was examined as an expert. 26. There is no denying that the evidence of an expert is admissible in evidence under section 45 of the Evidence Act, 27. The Allahabad High Court in Ram Dass v Secretary of State, AIR 1930 All 587, has held that in law and as appled to a witness, the term expert has a special significance and no witness is permitted to express his opinion unless he is an expert within the terms of section 45 of the Evidence Act Again in United States Shipping Board v, The Ship "St Albans” AIR 1931 PC 189, it has been held that to be an expert, the witness must have made a special study of the subject or acquired a special experience therein, He must be skilled and have adequate knowledge of the subject. 28. In Chambers Dictionary expert has been defined as meaning a person, who is skilled in any art or science 29. Therefore, an expert witness is one, who has made the subject matter of enquiry the object of particular attention or study, and hence is competent to give an opinion It has first to be shown that the witness is a skill-ful or scientific man, or atleast has superior skill or scientific knowledge in relation to the question involved. Mere opportunity for observation would not be sufficient. 30. The learned trial Court has treated PW 1 Shri Panwar as an expert’ and relied upon his opinion. 31. The question which thus arises for consideration is whether PW 14 is an expert so as to make his opinion admissible in evidence under section 45, Evidence Act. PW -1 Shri P. C. Panwar, has deposed in the following terms with regard to his experience and knowledge : "I passed B.Sc. 31. The question which thus arises for consideration is whether PW 14 is an expert so as to make his opinion admissible in evidence under section 45, Evidence Act. PW -1 Shri P. C. Panwar, has deposed in the following terms with regard to his experience and knowledge : "I passed B.Sc. Agriculture honours in 1959 and joined Agriculture department in 1959. At present I am posted as Deputy Director Horticulture, Since 1971, I am in the Horticulture Department. Previously this department was a part of Agriculture Department. I am M.Sc. Horticulture, and I am right from the beginning posted in Horticulture Department, In 1986, I received three months specialised training in advanced apple technology from Tasmania University." 32. There is nothing on record to suggest as to what was the particular branch of Agriculture and/or Horticulture which was the subject of study by PW-1 either in B.Sc. or MSc. There is also nothing on the record to show as to whether he was dealing with the apple crop during his employment, as Research Assistant and/or Horticulture Development Officer, Agriculture Department. The mere fact that a special training in apple technology for a period of three months was taken by him in 19H6 without there being any further evidence that he remained in touch with the subject thereafter thereby be acquired superior skill and/or scientific knowledge on the subject of apple technology, will not make him an expert’ on the subject within the meaning of section 45, Evidence Act It is in the statement of PW-1 that the assignment given to him with respect to the present case was his first and last assignment of the nature. Admittedly, PW-1 himself is not an orchardist No other evidence is forthcoming on behalf of the prosecution to show that PW 1 is an expert on the subject of apple technology. Therefore, the irresistible conclusion is that PW 1 cannot be termed as an expert within the meaning of section 45, Evidence Act His opinion, as such, is not admissible in evidence. The trial Court has, thus, erred in placing reliance on his opinion in basing conviction of the appellant Mohinder Singh under section 420, Indian Penal Code. 33. There is yet another reason for PW 1 not being treated as an expert. The trial Court has, thus, erred in placing reliance on his opinion in basing conviction of the appellant Mohinder Singh under section 420, Indian Penal Code. 33. There is yet another reason for PW 1 not being treated as an expert. It is in the statement of PW 1 that he undergone three months course in apple technology from the University of Tasmania in the year 1986. In the present case, the orchard was inspected by him in April 1985 for the purpose of assessment of the crop, that is, before he had undergone training in apple technology 34. Assuming for the sake of arguments that PW 1 is an expert within the meaning of section 45. Evidence Act, even then his opinion Ex PA cannot be relied upon inasmuch as while arriving at his opinion, no reasons therefor have been assigned by him. His opinion with regard to the possible optimum apple yield from the orchard is based on conjectures and surmises. 35. This court in Lachhmi Ram v. State of H. P., SLJ 1971 HP 329, while dealing with the question of appreciation of evidence of an expert has held: "Courts should subject expert opinion evidence to close scrutiny to fine out its exact basis ft is only where its foundations have been tested and found to be firm that it can be safely accepted and acted upon It should never be forgotten that it is, after all, opinion evidence There are, however, cases in which opinion evidence of really competent and honest experts can be very safely relied upon as correct after testing in the manner indicated above ...." 36. In Haji Mohd, Ekramul Haq v. The State of West Bengal, AIR 1959 SC 488, the apex Court, while dealing with an opinion of an expert unsupported by reasons had refused to place any reliance upon it. 37. A Division Bench of this Court in Ram Gopal and others v. State o/H. P. 1983 Cr LJ (NOC) 10, has held: "Expert opinion must always be received with great caution. It is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration Expert evidence cannot be conclusive because it is, after all, opinion evidence. Expert evidence being opinion evidence before acting on such evidence, it is desirable to consider whether it is corroborate either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. It is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration Expert evidence cannot be conclusive because it is, after all, opinion evidence. Expert evidence being opinion evidence before acting on such evidence, it is desirable to consider whether it is corroborate either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. It is necessary that reasons for the opinion must be carefully probed into and examined." 38. In the present case, the opinion of PW l as stated above, is not supported by any reasons, data or basis. Besides, there is no other corroborative evidence, either direct or circumstantial in support of such opinion. 39. Another allegation against the appellant Mohinder Singh is that though he was not a grower/orchardist, he mis-represented himself as a grower and offered apples to the tune of 595 Qtls. to the procurement and destruction party and thereby cheated the State exchequer to the extent of Rs. 14,250. 40. The appellant Mohinder Singh, in his statement under section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure has stated that he is living jointly with his father and the orchard belong jointly to them. There is nothing on record to show that apart from the appellant Mohinder Singh, his father had also sold scab infected apples to the procurement, and destruction party. Nor there is any evidence to show that the apples offered by the appellant Mohinder Singh were either purchased by him from someone else or had produced the said apples by way of re cycling the scab infected apples which had already been sold to the procurement and destruction party by some other orchardists. In the absence of such evidence, it cannot be said that the apples offered by the appellant Mohinder Singh did not belong to the orchard which he owns jointly with his father and that he has cheated the State exchequer by mis representation, 41. In the absence of such evidence, it cannot be said that the apples offered by the appellant Mohinder Singh did not belong to the orchard which he owns jointly with his father and that he has cheated the State exchequer by mis representation, 41. Insofar as the offence under section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, against the appellants S. S. Machhan and Parkash Chand is concerned, suffice to say that since the offence under section 120-B Indian Penal Code does not stand proved against the four appellants, it cannot be said that the appellants S. S. Machhan and Parkash Chand are guilty of criminal misconduct by having abused their position as public servants and have either obtained for themselves or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. 42. It is not the case of the prosecution that these two appellants had accepted or obtained any gratification as a motive for approving the inflated quantity of apples having been offered to the procurement and destruction party. There is also no evidence to show that they are either related to the appellant Mohinder Singh or that they were in any manner interested in him. 43. The abuse of position in order to come within the mischief of section 5 (l)(d), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, must necessarily be dishonest so that it may be proved that the accused caused deliberate loss to the department. It is for the prosecution to prove affirmately that the accused by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position obtained any pecuniary advantage for himself or for some other person. (See : S. P Bhatnagar and another v. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 826. 44. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case in its totality I am satisfied that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the offences against the four appellants, 45. As a result, the present appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the four appellants by the learned Special Judge are set aside and they are acquitted of the offences. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled and discharged. The amount of fine, if already deposited shall be refunded to the appellants, as per law. Appeal allowed.