JUDGMENT 1. - Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 9.11.1984 passed by learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption Cases, Udaipur in A.C.D. Case No. 4/1979 convicting the accused for the offence under sections 5(1)(D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 120(B) I.P.C. and 468/420 I.P.C., this appeal is preferred on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal as also canvassed verbally before me. 2. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the accused-appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor, I have scrutinised the record and reappreciated the evidence on record. 3. During the pendency of this appeal, appellant No. 2 Devaki Nandan Sharma has died but his legal representative has been substituted. 4. On reappreciation of the evidence, prosecution story stated briefly is that one Banwari Lal, Secretary, Dungarpur Distt. Thekedar Sangh, Dungarpur had filed a written complaint on 2.2.1971 in the Anti Corruption Bureau, Udaipur to the effect that Mohan Singh Rathore, Assistant Engineer has committed fraud in relation to 1500 bags of cement. On the basis of this report, investigation was made and accused persons were prosecuted under section 5(1)(D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1974, under Section 120(B) and 468/420 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution is that factually the Assistant Engineer did not purchase 1500 bags of cement and forged receipts with the assistance of accused appellant Nos. 3 and 4 Gehri Lal and Anit Kumar have been given in the department thereby, causing wrongful gain to the accused persons. The receipts were forged documents intended to be used for the purposes of agitating the Government and hence, the Government servants were prosecuted under section 5(1)(D) and all the persons were prosecuted under the various provisions of the Indian Penal Code as aforesaid. 5. Even if the entire prosecution evidence is accepted, no case of conviction under section 5(1)(D) and 120(B) I.P.C. is made out. There is no proof of any illegal gain to the accused persons by the prosecution as is alleged to have taken place by the various witnesses. The essential requirement of conviction under section 5(1)(D) is illegal gain to the Government servants which amounts to misconduct in the absence of any evidence to this effect. The conviction is unsustainable. 6. Similarly, there is no evidence of gain being caused to any person, the offence under section 420/468 are also not made out. 7. The essential requirement of conviction under section 5(1)(D) is illegal gain to the Government servants which amounts to misconduct in the absence of any evidence to this effect. The conviction is unsustainable. 6. Similarly, there is no evidence of gain being caused to any person, the offence under section 420/468 are also not made out. 7. In the result, therefore, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order of conviction is set-aside. Bail bonds are cancelled.Appeal allowed. *******