JUDGMENT 1. - These two appeals are to be decided together as they arise out of the same judgment of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand dated 17.9.1984 by which he acquitted Ganesh Lal but convicted Chatar Mai and passed meagre sentence according to the prosecution. 2. In appeal No. 32/85 it has been prayed that the sentence passed against Chatar Mai may be increased while in appeal No. 358/85 it has been prayed that acquittal of Ganesh Lal be converted into conviction. The most interesting thing in this case is found that Chatar Mai had filed appeal against his conviction by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate before Sessions Judge, Rajsamand who allowed the appeal and set aside conviction and sentence of Chatar Lal in Cr. Appeal No. 56/84, decided on 13.6.1985 but he prosecution ignorant of this fact, has not caused to file any appeal against this acquittal. Therefore, appeal to enhance sentence has become infructuous. I am concerned only with the case of Ganesh Lal. 3. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the accused respondents. 4. Himmat Lal filed a complaint before Magistrate which has forwarded to the concerned police station for investigation. According to it he was the President of Kankaroli Co-operative Society from 1963-64 to October, 1966. Chatar Lal was the Manager during this period and was also looking after the work of the accountant. He used to keep account book with him. He even after expiry of the time did not hand over papers relating to account till April 1969 though he was directed to give charge to Chhagan Lal immediately, as well as to give the account to him. He ultimately handed over papers on 25.4.1967 to an Administrator who was appointed by Co-operative Department. The complainant received a notice from the Administrator that a sum of Rs. 21,980/-was due against him and when he saw the papers he found that Chatar Lal had prepared forged receipts and had also forged the account books. 5. Ganesh Lal was the Head Master of Jawahar Bal Mandir, Kankroli when complainant Himmat Lal was the President of the society. The Education Department as well as Social Welfare Board were in contract with this institution. Ganesh Lal had obtained signatures of Himmat Lal complainant on some letter heads of the institution. 5. Ganesh Lal was the Head Master of Jawahar Bal Mandir, Kankroli when complainant Himmat Lal was the President of the society. The Education Department as well as Social Welfare Board were in contract with this institution. Ganesh Lal had obtained signatures of Himmat Lal complainant on some letter heads of the institution. These papers were lying with Ganesh Lal so that in case signature of Himmat Lal President were urgently required in his absence, the papers may be used. Chatar Lal and Ganesh Lal conspired and some receipts were prepared on these documents which had signatures of Himmat Lal. Four receipts detailed in complaint Ex.P/10 have ben mentioned which according to the complainant were forged. He had not received the sum of Rs. 20,645.66 under these receipts. It was also mentioned in the complaint that the complainant demanded back such other papers from the accused respondents but they were not returned on the basis of this report case under sections 408, 467, 477-A IPC was registered. After investigation challan was submitted but ultimately after trial accused Ganesh Lal who faced trial under Section 120-B IPC was acquitted. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that acquittal of Ganesh Lal may be set aside as he helped the main accused Chatar Lal in forging the documents. The case of accused Ganesh Lal is that the complainant had never put signatures on the letter heads of the institution and never handed over to him. He left his job because Himmat Lal did not pay full pay to the teachers of the school but used to obtain receipt of full pay from them. According to him Himmat Lal was an inimical terms with him because he established another independent institution. 7. Learned counsel for accused respondent Ganesh Lal submitted that when Chatar Lal has been acquitted by learned Additional Sessions Judge and there is no appeal against his acquittal, it means that this accused respondent Ganesh Lal has not taken part in any conspiracy as no charge of conspiracy is proved even against Chatar Lal. Learned Public Prosecutor carried me through the evidence. 8. Bhanwar Lal PW 1-A was the auditor who conducted auidit of Jawahar Bal Mandir. Learned Public Prosecutor carried me through the evidence. 8. Bhanwar Lal PW 1-A was the auditor who conducted auidit of Jawahar Bal Mandir. He stated that he did see some blank letter heads of the institution bearing signatures of Himmat Lal and asked accused respondent Ganesh Lal as to how the signatures were obtained and then he had explained that they were for the emergency purposes. It is strange as to how he has conducting the audit as he was not authorised Chartered Accountant. No audit report has been exhibited and even otherwise he appears to be an interested witness because an auditor has no business to see such blank letter heads. Statements of Himmat Lal, Manohar Lal, Mangilal, Girraj, Sualal, Ravindra Nath, Kayam Singh, Bhagwati Lal, Ram Sukh, Phool Chand, Maula Baksh, Pratap Narain and Ratan Lal have been appreciated by the trial court in order to come to the conclusion that this accused respondent Ganesh Lal was not involved in the matter and on the basis of their evidence the finding of the court below is that there is no evidence of conspiracy at all. 9. The evidence of Himmat Lal PW-1, Girraj PW-4 and Bhagwati Lal PW-8 has been relied by the prosecution and the torn letter pads recovered from the house of accused respondent Ganesh Lal. PW8 Himmat Lal has not stated at all that he ever demanded back the blank letter heads much so on 5.11.1963 as alleged in the complaint. This non-demand itself goes to show that no such documents ever existed. Girraj and Bhagwati Lal are the other two witnesses who have admitted that they were the employees of Himmat Lal. Bhagwati Lal is a relation of Himmat Lal, therefore, both of them are interested. Learned trial court went through their evidence with great caution and has come to the conclusion that they were competing each other during their statements in order to tell lies. The trial court has discussed their statements in details and has rightly disbelieved them. 10. So far as recovery of pieces of torn letter heads is concerned, it is the case of the prosecution that a pad Was found behind a board of the school while four torn pieces of papers were found at an open place behind the house of the accused respondent. Such a recovery from such open place is of no help to the prosecution. Such a recovery from such open place is of no help to the prosecution. Investigating Officer Ibrahim Mohd. has admitted that there was a public Bawri and there was a way leading to it on the western side. The torn papers were recovered from there. Therefore, they were recovered from the exclusive possession of the accused respondent. I agree with the finding of learned Magistrate thattthe prosecution was not able to prove the conspiracy at all. In State of U.P. v. Nahar Singh (dead) & Ors. JT 1998(2) SC page 41 , it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while reassessing the evidence in appeals against acquittal the appellate court should take the view which supports acquittal. I find that in this case there is no evidence to connect this accused respondent Ganesh Lal with the crime and no interference is required in the judgment of acquittal.In view of above discussion, both the appeals are hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******