JUDGMENT - R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.:---Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State. 2. The revision application arises from the judgment and order dated 28-1-1992 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 1987 and by the impugned order, the Lower Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 6-7-1987 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First class, Shrirampur in Criminal Case No. 233 of 1984. By the said order, the Magistrate had convicted the petitioner under sections 468, 477-A and 418 read with section 511 of the Indian Penal Code and had sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 750/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 days. 3. The charge against the petitioner was that during the period between 13th and 19th September, 1984 while the petitioner was working as Muster clerk in relation to the work of Chari No. 35 under the Employment Guarantee Scheme at village Karegaon, with an intention to cause monetary loss to the government made some false entries in the Muster Roll No. 31808 by showing persons as labourers beyond the number of labourers who were actually employed at the site. It was the case of the prosecution that though actually 139 labourers were employed at the site, the petitioner had marked 244 labourers to be present and employed at the site in the said Muster Roll. It is further case of the prosecution that on a complaint in that regard being made by one Munde, the Tahsildar of Shrirampur, along with some other officers visited the site, seized the muster roll, verified the presence of the labourers and the discrepancies in the number of labourers present and those shown as present in the Muster Roll and after completing the investigation filed the complaint. The trial Court on the basis of evidence produced by the prosecution held the petitioner to be guilty of offence for which he was charged and in the appeal against the same the Lower Appellate Court refused to interfere in the order of conviction and the sentence imposed upon the petitioner. 4. The trial Court on the basis of evidence produced by the prosecution held the petitioner to be guilty of offence for which he was charged and in the appeal against the same the Lower Appellate Court refused to interfere in the order of conviction and the sentence imposed upon the petitioner. 4. The orders of conviction and sentence and the confirmation thereof by the Lower Appellate Court are sought to be challenged on the ground that the orders are totally contrary to the provisions of law as well as the evidence on record inasmuch as, there is absolutely no evidence to support the basic ingredients of offences punishable under sections 468, 477-A 418 read with section 511 of the Indian Penal Code. While assailing the impugned orders, the learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the prosecution has totally failed to establish the exact number of labourers present at the site and that there was difference between the number of labourers present at the site and those who were marked present by the petitioner in the muster roll in question. That apart from the seized material i.e. the Muster Roll has not been proved nor any panchas in relation to the seizure of the document have been examined nor the register is shown to have been seized in the manner it was required to be seized. The learned A.P.P. , on the other hand, has submitted that both the courts below on detail analysis of the evidence on record have arrived at the concurrent finding and, therefore, there is no case made out for interference in the revisional jurisdiction. 5. Upon hearing the learned Advocate and on perusal of the records it is seen that both the courts below have arrived at the concurrent finding that no panchas have been examined in relation to the panchanama of seizure of the Muster Roll in question. But the same makes no difference since the petitioner has admitted in his statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the trial Court that the muster roll was attached from him by the Tahsildar. Simultaneously, the courts have also observed that undisputedly the petitioner has stated in his 313 statement that the Muster Roll was attached from the Tahsil Office , Shrirampur and not at the site. Simultaneously, the courts have also observed that undisputedly the petitioner has stated in his 313 statement that the Muster Roll was attached from the Tahsil Office , Shrirampur and not at the site. Considering the testimony of the prosecution witnesses to the contrary, the contention of the petitioner that the Muster Roll was attached in the Tahsil office cannot be believed. The findings apparently disclose that there is serious lapse in complying with procedure by the prosecution which is sought to be condoned by both the courts resulting in miscarriage of justice and, therefore, warrants interference by this Court in the revisional jurisdiction. 6. Undisputedly, it is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was found having made entries in the muster roll disclosing the presence of the labourers in excess to the number of the labourers who were actually present at the site. The first thing which was required to prove the said allegation was that the petitioner having disclosed presence of particular number of labourers at the site on the relevant day by making necessary entries in the register in question. For that purpose, it was necessary for the prosecution to establish by way of panchanama and examination of the panchas that those panchas at the relevant time had noticed in the muster register that particular number of entries were made disclosing presence of particular number of labourers on the relevant day and that such entries were made in the Muster Roll in custody of the petitioner. Neither the trial Court nor the Lower Appellate Court has applied its mind to this basic aspect of the case and have proceeded on certain presumptions and assumptions which in fact do not arise form the materials placed on record. It was then necessary for the prosecution to establish by cogent evidence as to how many labourers were actually present at the site. This was certainly expected from the prosecution by way of physical verification of the labourers present at site and on proper recording of panchanama in that respect in the presence of two panchas and thereafter to establish the same before the Court. There is absolutely no exercise in that regard by the prosecution and the courts below have not considered this serious lapse on the part of the prosecution while deciding the matter. There is absolutely no exercise in that regard by the prosecution and the courts below have not considered this serious lapse on the part of the prosecution while deciding the matter. Thirdly, it is also seen that the prosecution has not established that the Muster Roll was seized in the manner it was required to be seized. Undisputedly the Muster Roll was all the time available for all sorts of interpolation by the investigating agency. There is nothing on record to show that the muster roll at the time of its seizure, the same was also sealed by the authorities. There is nothing on record to show that the pages of the muster roll which are relevant for the decision were identified and signed by the panchas and the Investigating Officer. It would have been much better if the signature of the accused was also obtained on those relevant pages. All these lapses clearly show that the investigation was made in totally haphazard manner, without any application of mind and without following the procedure prescribed by law. The prosecution has, in fact, thoroughly failed to establish the charges against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. 7. The courts below have given undue importance to the so called admission by the petitioner in his 313 statement. No doubt the statement of the accused under section 313 of the Cri.P.C. is relevant for analysis of the materials on record and can be relied upon in certain cases when such statement lends support to the evidence on record . However, no person can be convicted solely on the basis of a statement of the accused under section 313. Besides, it is well established principle of law that any statement of a person cannot be accepted in a distorted form. It is seen that the petitioner herein had stated that the muster roll was attached by the Tahsildar in the office. From the said statement of the accused, a conclusion is sought to be drawn by the Courts below that the muster roll was attached from the accused himself, totally ignoring that the fact of attachment of muster roll from the office is different fact than the fact of attachment of the same from the accused himself. 8. From the said statement of the accused, a conclusion is sought to be drawn by the Courts below that the muster roll was attached from the accused himself, totally ignoring that the fact of attachment of muster roll from the office is different fact than the fact of attachment of the same from the accused himself. 8. The prosecution having not established the basic ingredients of the charge for which the petitioner was tried i.e. neither there is cogent evidence of actual number of labourers who were present at the site during the period from 13-9-1984 and 19-9-1984 or even on 18-9-1984 nor there is any evidence to establish that the accused had made any false entry in the muster roll relating to the presence of the labourers during the said period or on any of the day during the said period. 9. The testimony of the Tahsildar and other witnesses regarding number of labourers at the site also sufficiently create doubt about the actual number of labourers who were present on the day when the Tahsildar had inspected the site. One witness namely Madhukar Mane has stated that there were about 139 labourers present whereas the other witness Laxman Khatri has stated that there were about 180 labourers present on the site. Added to this, as already observed above, there is no panchanama drawn regarding the actual verification of the number of labourers present at the site. Considering the evidence on record, the petitioner is certainly justified in contending that the prosecution has utterly failed in establishing the charge against him. 10. In the circumstances, therefore, the petition succeeds. The conviction of the petitioner cannot be sustained and hence the impugned order of the Lower Appellate Court as well as that of the trial Court are hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the offences for which he was tried in Regular Criminal Case No. 233/1984 before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shrirampur. Fine amount, if paid, be refunded. Bail bonds stand cancelled. Rule is made absolute in above terms. Petition succeed. -----