JUDGMENT 1. - Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction recorded under sections 409, 467, 470 & 477 of the IPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, the appellant-Rugha Ram has preferred this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. 2. The facts giving rise to the prosecution are stated briefly are that, on complaint made by PW 11 Giriraj Prasad Khandelwal the FIR Ex. P/27 was registered and investigation was started. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed only against the appellant though the FIR was against three persons probably on the grounds that the appellant was scraped the documents using which the misappropriation or criminal breach (51 trust was committed. 3. The learned Judge charge-sheeted the accused under sections 409, 470, 467 & 471 IPC and Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses and on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Judge came to the conclusion of guilt of appellant and convicted the appellant as aforesaid. It is this order of conviction which is impugned in this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the accused-appellant submitted that the only evidence which has been used by the learned trial Judge for convicting the accused is in the some of two vouchers on which, it is alleged that signatures of the persons were obtained showing receipt of certain sum of money due to them and the money was factually not paid. The prosecution case was that the appellant was stopped assistance in the Sheep and Wool Extension Center, Parabatsar. It was the superior voucher for payment of subsidy to the sheep owner and he in discharging of his duty, prepared the voucher and obtained the signatures of the sheep owner showing receipt but entirely did not pay the amount and has thus misappropriated a sum of Rs. 1,165/-. 5. The learned trial Judge found the appellant guilty. As according to the learned trial Judge, the documents were forged and the amounts were never paid by the appellant. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused submitted that one receipt in huge for holding the accused guilty is not duly proved as the signatory had died during the investigation and could not be examined. As according to the learned trial Judge, the documents were forged and the amounts were never paid by the appellant. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused submitted that one receipt in huge for holding the accused guilty is not duly proved as the signatory had died during the investigation and could not be examined. Reliance could not be placed, therefore on that receipt for convicting the appellant. The submission of the learned counsel in relation to the second voucher was that though the signature proved to be of sheep owner, the attesting witness has been examined by the defence and he has testified before the Court that the signature was made in his absence. According to the learned counsel, therefore, the documents could not form basis for conviction. The submission is well founded, the first receipt is not proved and second receipt proves no offence as there is evidence on record that the amount was recovered. There is nothing in the cross-examination that the testimony of both the documents, could not be relied upon and the same are rejected. The evidence on record for the appellant's conviction will be sustained. Consequently the appeal succeeds.In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stands cancelled.Appeal allowed. *******