Judgment S.N.Pathak, J. 1. The aforesaid three revisions were heard analogous and so this common judgment is being passed. The revisionist was convicted for offences under Section 120B read with Section 420, 465 and 468 I.P.C. and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. He was, however, sentenced to remain in court custody till the rising of the court. 2. It was submitted by the revisionists lawyer that the revisionist was charged for entering into a conspiracy to cheat the Government of Rs. 75,643.20 by passing a bill for the aforesaid amount on account of supply of electric main switches to Gaya Sub-division of Bhagalpur Electric Works Division during the period April 1965 to April 1966. But, however, as Divisional Accountant posted at Bhagalpur, his business was only to verify and check the bills on the basis of measurement book and other certificates authenticated under the signature of concerned Engineers posted at Gaya where main switches had been supplied. So his official duty of checking and passing bills was based on the certificates issued by the concerned authority of Gaya and he was not required to make physical verification whether actual supply of the concerned electric materials was made. So there was no question of his being in league with other officials of the Electric Works Division or officials of Sub-division at Gaya or Dhanbad or anywhere else. So his conviction was based on insufficient evidence regarding conspiracy or regarding preparation of false bills or regarding cheating and defrauding the Government of its money and securing any benefit for himself on account of the alleged offence. The order of conviction was further assailed by the revisionists lawyer on the ground that in the first place, evidence adduced in one case was used in the other cases and sanction for prosecution was also accorded by the Accountant General, Bihar, even though the revisionist was an employee of Public Works Department. 3. I shall first examine the contentions of the revisionists lawyer regarding evidence of one case being used in the other case. In this connection, the judgment of the trial court dated 29th January 2000, is relevant for consideration. I find that four cases, i.e., Special Case Nos. 3. I shall first examine the contentions of the revisionists lawyer regarding evidence of one case being used in the other case. In this connection, the judgment of the trial court dated 29th January 2000, is relevant for consideration. I find that four cases, i.e., Special Case Nos. 6/75, 7/75, 8/75 and 9/75 were split up from one R. C. No. 6 of 1969 submitted by the C.B.I. So it is apparent that there was a common F.l.R. and a common charge-sheet was submitted from which four cases were split up. The judgment further shows that common evidence was adduced (oral and documentary) for all four cases as the offence was of the same kind and documents or oral evidence was also common. From the aforesaid facts, it is apparent that common evidence was led for all the four cases. So the argument that the evidence of one case was used in the other case does not appear to be tenable. When common evidence as led for all four cases which had been split up from a common F.I.R. I am of the opinion that it was not the case of evidence of one case being used in another case; rather the evidence led was common for all the cases. So the trial did not vitiate nor did it cause any prejudice to the accused- revisionist nor he was misled in his evidence. Section 465 Cr. P. C. can be taken in aid to meet this technical objection of the revisionists lawyer wherein it has been laid down as under: "........No judgment or other proceedings before or during trial of any enquiry or other proceedings under this Code......unless, in the opinion of the Court, failure of justice has, in fact, been occasioned thereby." Sub-section (2) of Section 465 Cr. P. C. has also laid down : "......Court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at an early stage in the proceedings". Apparently, no objection was raised at the initial stage when common evidence was being led for all these four cases and when those cases were split up. So it does not appear that any failure of justice was occasioned or any prejudice was caused to the accused revisionist in taking his defence when common evidence was being led or when case had been split up. So it does not appear that any failure of justice was occasioned or any prejudice was caused to the accused revisionist in taking his defence when common evidence was being led or when case had been split up. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the revisionist shall not succeed in this revision on the ground mentioned above. 4 The order of conviction was next attacked on the ground that sanction for prosecution of the revisionist was accorded by A. G., Bihar, whereas the revisionist was an employee of the Public Works Department. In this connection Ext-3 (a) has been cited as the proof of his initial appointment. This Annexure shows that the revisionist was appointed in the Public Works Department by the Superintending Engineer, East Bihar Circle. But Annexure-3(c) shows that the Senior Deputy Accountant General, Bihar, Sri K. P. Josef issued letter, O.O. No. WMI-6- 196 dated 12.3.1960, appointing the revisionist on the basis of his being qualified in the D. T. Examination held in 1960 as Sr. Accounts Clerk in the Darbhanga Waterways Division No. 2. So it appears, perhaps, the revisionist was appointed in the A. G.s Office on the basis of some Examination. In such a circumstance, the sanction accorded by the A. G., Bihar when the revisionist was working as Divisional Accountant in the Electric Works Division, Bhagatpur, was not illegal and/ or improper. Perhaps, initially being appointed in the Public Works Department, the revisionist was later absorbed as an employee of the A. G. Office and so he was working on lien in the Electricity Department of Bhagalpur Works Division. So the sanction for prosecution being granted by the A. G., Bihar was neither illegal nor improper. 5. Now so far the merit of the case is concerned, the submission of the revisionists lawyer that his job was only to verify and check the bills on the basis of certificates issued by the concerned Officials of the Department at Gaya or Dhanbad regarding the supply of the electric materials, it has to be seen that the charge-sheet (Annexure-2) has stated that the duty of the revisionist, Triveni Prasad Singh, as a Divisional Accountant of Bhagalpur was for making arrangement for checking the computed tenders, i.e. for seeing that satisfactory and efficient arrangement for checking, is made. He was also responsible for making test check of computed and checked tenders sufficient to satify himself reasonably that the checking work had been done properly. He was also responsible for maintaining account books, to check bills of the suppliers in accordance with the scheduled rates in the divisional office and to pass bills for payment to the suppliers. He was also to see and check that the supply orders have been offered to the lowest tenderers. The charge-sheet, therefore, did not suggest that the revisionist was simply a clerk to verify and check the entries of the Bills in a mechanical and technical fashion and to pass the same under his signature just to be put up before the higher official for bills to be finally passed and payments to be made. Of course, it was not possible for him nor it was his duty to verify physically whether the alleged materials were actually supplied by M/s. Aryavart Electrc Works, Exhibition Road, Patna. But for linking a person with a conspiracy hatched up by several officials of the Department in order to defraud the Government of its money and to give benefit to a supply Company, there cannot be a direct evidence. This is so because when several officials of a Department enter into a conspiracy, all shall keep their activities private to themselves and nothing will leak in order to expose their conspiracy. It will be the circumstances that wift point to the conspiratorial activities and they being in league with each other to indulge in corrupt practice in order to benefit themselves. During the checks, the C.B.I. had detected that no switch of the standard as mentioned in the tender of the concerned company was supplied to the Gaya Sub-division. In spite of that, the concerned officials made endorsement of actual supply and when bills were presented before the Bhagalpur Division and after due processing through various stages the same had passed through the Divisional Accountant who was Triveni Prasad Singh. It does not appear that the revisionist would be innocent and he will be unaware of all the dealing of his officials, including the Divisional Manager, Assistant Engineer of Gaya Sub-Division. So there was no question of any direct evidence forthcoming, so far conspiracy was concerned. It does not appear that the revisionist would be innocent and he will be unaware of all the dealing of his officials, including the Divisional Manager, Assistant Engineer of Gaya Sub-Division. So there was no question of any direct evidence forthcoming, so far conspiracy was concerned. In such a circumstance, I am of the opinion that the order of conviction recorded by the trial court on the basis of evidence available on the record does not call for any interference by this Court, so far merit of the case is concerned. Already the revisionist has received only token punishment in view of his old age and long litigation. The impugned judgment itself shows that the revisionist was not deprived of his post retiral pecuniary benefit, including pension. Perhaps, no further leniency can be shown from this Court just to set aside the order of conviction on sentimental ground. In this connection, it was submitted by the revisionists lawyer that the revisionist shall be carrying stigma of conviction during his life time. In this connection, I am of the opinion that the stigma is not heritable. So it will suffice to observe that this stigma of revisionist shall not be considered as a stigma upon the future career of the revisionists heirs or any of his relations. 6. In the result, these revisions are dismissed.