S. K. AGARWAL, J. This is an appeal preferred by appellant Jameel Ahmad against his conviction under Section 420/468 IPC and Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and consequent sentences of two years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 500 under the first count and three years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1,00/- under the last count. 2. The brief resume of the facts of the prosecution case is as under: Jameel Ahmad was employed as a driver in the U. P. State Electricity Board, Basti Sub-Division, in 1975- 76. He drew payment against 31 cash memos of M/s. Mahadev Prasad Ram Shankar situated in Mohalla Pandey Bazar, Basti. He also withdrew payment against 7 cash memos of Pandey Automobiles, Gandhi Nagar, Basti. The payment against these 38 cash memos drawn by the appellant was for Rs. 2,682/ -. The payment was drawn from the Department by him on fictitious vouchers. There were some complaints made from some quarter that the firm M/s. Mahadev Prasad Ram Shankar was not engaged in the sale/purchase of petrol, diesel, mobil or distilled water since long. The 7 cash memos belonging to Pandey Automobiles were also not issued from there. The matter was enquired into and it was found that the accused was alone the author of all these cash memos. He withdrew money against these cash memos from the Department for his personal gain. After the investigation a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant. The prosecution in support of its case examined PW 1 Chandra Prakash Pandey, a clerk in the Sales Tax Office. He proved that the firm M/s. Mahadev Prasad Ram Shankar was closed during the period for which the cash memos were produced. PW 2 Kanhaiya Lal is son of Mahadev Prasad, a partner of the firm M/s. Mahadev Prasad Ram Shanker. He also proved this fact and the fact that these cash memos were not signed either by him or his father. PW 3 Suresh Pratap Singh is an Executive Engineer in the Electricity Board, PW 4 Maqbool Ahmad Siddiqui is a retired Assistant Revenue Collector. He has also proved that the firm was not in existence. PW 5 Rajendra Singh Yadav, PW 6 Shiv Prasad Mishra, PW 7 Mahendra Pratap Singh and PW 9 Dr. Kanti Kumar are all document experts. PW 3 Suresh Pratap Singh is an Executive Engineer in the Electricity Board, PW 4 Maqbool Ahmad Siddiqui is a retired Assistant Revenue Collector. He has also proved that the firm was not in existence. PW 5 Rajendra Singh Yadav, PW 6 Shiv Prasad Mishra, PW 7 Mahendra Pratap Singh and PW 9 Dr. Kanti Kumar are all document experts. They have proved that the disputed cash memos were prepared by Jameel Ahmad on comparison with the admitted writings of his, PW 8 Ram Asre Singh is a clerk in the Power Transmission Division. He proved that the appellant was an employee of the Department and was running jeep of the Executive Engineer. PW 10 Ram Swaroop is Noter and Drafter, Power Distribution Division, Basti. He had also come for the said purpose, PW 11 Ram Sewak Pandey is owner of Pandey Automobiles. He proved that the cash memos, allegedly belonging to his firm, were not signed by any of his staff or he himself, PW 12 Abdul Basir Khan is the Investigating Officer in the case. 3. The appellant denied the charges levelled against him. His defence was that to save their own skin he was made an escape goat by his officers. He never bought petrol himself. Petrol was taken by the Engineer. On his direction he used to station the jeep at the paid petrol pump, M/s. Mahadev Prasad Ram Shankar. Petrol was taken from there. He only used to sign on back of the cash memos. He was driver of Jeep No. UPC-5088. He also denied that he had presented any of these cash memos for payment. He was implicated falsely. He did not adduce any evidence. 4. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that there is no evidence on record from which it would be proved that the appellant had swindled the money by submitting fake cash memos. The hand writing experts opinions are not final. As many as four handwriting experts were examined. All of them were police officers. At different stages these officers compared the same handwritings. It was strange that the department was not satisfied with the comparison of one or two and, therefore, the writings were repeatedly sent to different officers. The log book was deliberately withheld from the handwriting experts. As many as four handwriting experts were examined. All of them were police officers. At different stages these officers compared the same handwritings. It was strange that the department was not satisfied with the comparison of one or two and, therefore, the writings were repeatedly sent to different officers. The log book was deliberately withheld from the handwriting experts. That could have easily proved that the petrol for which money was withdrawn was taken by whom. PW 10 had admitted clearly that the jeep was always on run. It cannot run without petrol. The petrol must have been purchased. This is a clinching proof that the money was not embezzled but was used in purchasing petrol for the running of that jeep. None of the officers who signed the verifications and also ordered for the payment of money against these cash memos were produced in evidence purposively. Their withhodling from evidence lands assurance to the defence case that to save senior officers this appellant, a Class IV employee, was used as an escape goat. 5. Learned A. G. A. argued that the handwriting experts opinion is a conclusive proof of the fact that these memos were prepared by this appellant and the money was paid by the department to him against these cash memos. Therefore, his guilt is established. 6. In order to test the submissions made by both the parties, I have to examine closely the evidence. Ext. Ka-4 pertains to the examination of 13 cash memos. They were numbered as Q-2641 to Q- 2654. On comparison with the admitted writings, S-2655 to S-2695 they were found to be tallying in their pen pressure, curvature, writing features, muscular habit, skill etc. and the opinion finally drawn by the handwriting expert was that these memos were prepared by this appellant. This is a report submitted by PW 5. Ext. Ka-8 is another handwriting experts report. It pertains to 7 cash memos from Q-3215 to Q- 3222 on comparison with the admitted hand writings. PW 6 Shiv Prasad Mishra came to the conclusion that they tally with the admitted writings of the appellant. Ext Ka-47 is the experts opinion given by PW 7 Mahendra Pratap Singh. It pertains to 10 cash memos belonging to firm M/s. Mahadev Prasad Ram Shankar. PW 6 Shiv Prasad Mishra came to the conclusion that they tally with the admitted writings of the appellant. Ext Ka-47 is the experts opinion given by PW 7 Mahendra Pratap Singh. It pertains to 10 cash memos belonging to firm M/s. Mahadev Prasad Ram Shankar. He also compared 13 cash memos belonging to Pandey Automobiles with the admitted handwriting of the appellant and finally was of the opinion on the basis of the abovesaid peculiar features that they were prepared by the said appellant. 7. All these four witnesses were summoned by me because I was not convinced from the reports of these officers. Dr. Kranti Kumar was subjected to cross-examine as to whether he had also compared these writings on the basis of the photographs or negatives drawn by PW 6 Shiv Prasad Mishra. He denied that he had used the photographs and the negatives prepared by PW 6 Shiv Prasad Mishra. He denied that he had used the photo graphs and the negatives prepared by PW 6 Shiv Prasad Mishra with another handwriting expert. He claimed that he examined only 13 cash memos. They were different cash memos from the cash memos examined by PW 6 Shiv Prasad Mishra. He had admitted that he compared the signatures of the appellant which were already compared by other experts. He further admitted that he had agreed with the reasons and the basis on which the opinion of PW 6 Shiv Prasad Mishra and PW 5 Rajendra Singh Yadav were founded. He further admitted that he used the same negatives and photographs. Earlier he claimed that he examined them on his own after drawing fresh photographs and negatives. He admitted that advancement in age of any person may cause necessary changes in his writing pattern, but claimed that he only examined natural variations. According to him age does not change the pattern of writing all together. He admitted that he meant by the use of word unabbreviated in his report that the admitted writings were small in size, length and width both. The comparison was made by micro-lens between the admitted and disputed writings. When he was subjected to a question that will it not be safe to compare such writings by procuring enlarged photographs than visual examination alone through lenses, he made a wayward reply. The comparison was made by micro-lens between the admitted and disputed writings. When he was subjected to a question that will it not be safe to compare such writings by procuring enlarged photographs than visual examination alone through lenses, he made a wayward reply. His response was measuring the character through microscope alone than enlarged negatives is a safe procedure. He admitted that he was not stated in his report that the abbreviated execution were compared with a microscope. He clearly admitted that he had formed his opinion on the basis of comparison of abbreviated specimen writings with the abbreviated questionable writings. Thus, in my opinion, his report cannot be relied upon. He did not appear to have compared the writings in close at manner as an handwriting expert is required to do. He is also an officer of the police department. 8. PW 5 Rajendra Singh Yadav gave the report on the basis of cumulative effect of writing characteristics of two writings, admitted and questionable. His opinion was based not only on the similarity of pattern of these writings but also no the basis of movement, skill, muscular habit, relative proportion, relative space etc. He further claimed that he had taken into consideration the individual writing characteristics, curvature, terminal, initial alignment and junction etc. as well. He formed his opinion on the basis of above taken cumulatively. Different words were compared in the two writings and that is how he gave his opinion. He admitted in his statement in the trial Court that cumulative similarity is not possible in the writings. Earlier he had said in the examination-in-chief that his opinion is based on cumulative effect of these writings. When he was asked to reconcile the conflict in the two statements, his response was that he made thest two statements before the trial Court with an intention that these two different writings cannot be wholly similar in their writing features. There is always some possibility of variations. He admitted that writings of the same persons on different occasions may have natural variations. He defined that the reasons for such variations are physical weakness, writing surface over which writing is made, psychological behaviour of the writer, writing instruments and other circumstances. He admitted that age also has a role to play in natural variations. He said five years gap may make some variation or may not. He defined that the reasons for such variations are physical weakness, writing surface over which writing is made, psychological behaviour of the writer, writing instruments and other circumstances. He admitted that age also has a role to play in natural variations. He said five years gap may make some variation or may not. He admitted that he had not noticed any such variation due to age in the natural pattern of his writing and that is why he did not ask for any sample pertaining to the period when these disputed writings were written. As a matter of fact if the writings would have been compared with the writings available in the department of that period, it would have furnished a clinching evidence. The statement of this witness that two different writings cannot be wholly similar in their writing feature has a grain of truth. There is always a possibility of some variation. Some of the admitted writings were abbreviated executions. Unless their enlarged photographs are not obtained, it would not be feasible for these experts to compare prospectively questionable writings with the abbreviated writings. 9. PW 7 Mahendra Pratap Singh was also examined further by this Court. He admitted that he examined 9 cash memos or receipts. According to him, natural variations are the genuine variations that occur in different writings of one and the same person. According to him, he had given his opinion on the basis of two writings, admitted and disputed, on a combined study of similarity and variations. He admitted that he had not stated in his report that his opinion is based upon normal similarities and natural variations, as earlier stated by him. He admitted that deviations are natural in two writings of the same by man, but still similarity remain despite such deviations. He denied that letters Ja, La, Aa, Ha, and Ma were differently written in different signatures of the appellant, but reading his report it appears that he had expressed such an opinion. 10. PW 6 Shiv Prasad Mishra had admitted that the writings compared by him were already compared by some other experts before him, but he was not provided with previous reports. He claimed that there are only two definite points of identification. They are natural variations and similarity in the pattern of writing. He defined variation as a natural phenomena. 10. PW 6 Shiv Prasad Mishra had admitted that the writings compared by him were already compared by some other experts before him, but he was not provided with previous reports. He claimed that there are only two definite points of identification. They are natural variations and similarity in the pattern of writing. He defined variation as a natural phenomena. It will occur on account of various factors, such as surface on which writing is made, climate, and psychological state of mind, which according to him also plays a role in the form of variations. These variations are a must. If these factors do not occur in the writing then such writing can certainly be pronounced as fake. He had stated in his statement in the trial Court that writings of two persons can never be similar. He explained that writings of two different persons differ not only in their characteristic but also in their entire specification on account of nature and individual habits. Thus, from the discussions of these statement, as made by them in this Court and during the trial, it can safely to gathered that their reports cannot be conclusive. There is always a possibility of mistake in comparing the writings. They are compared only by micro-lenses. Variations in characteristics and similarities is a very vague term. It is true that in this case all the four experts have given a common opinion but it is beyond comprehension why writings compared by one expert were again sent to another expert. It shows that the department was not confident of their opinions. In order to make itself doubly sure, as many as four experts were used by the department. All of them are police personnel. By nature they are prone to co-operate with the department. 11. So far as the testimony of PWs 4 and 3, Maqbool Ahmad and Suresh Pratap Singh, are concerned Suresh Pratap is the officer who had granted sanction for the prosecution of the appellant. Maqbool Ahmad is the Revenue Assistant in the Collectorate. He on the basis of the record had given a report that M/s. Mahadev Prasad Ram Shankar, a petrol pump, did not possess any registration for the sale of petrol and diesel during the period of the cash memos. There was no R. C. with them. Maqbool Ahmad is the Revenue Assistant in the Collectorate. He on the basis of the record had given a report that M/s. Mahadev Prasad Ram Shankar, a petrol pump, did not possess any registration for the sale of petrol and diesel during the period of the cash memos. There was no R. C. with them. He admitted clearly in his cross-examination that his report was not based upon any physical verification. It was only given on the basis of the entries in the register. PW 1 Chandra Prakash Pandey is a clerk in the Sales Tax Office, Basti. His statement is that he had also given a report on the basis of the record that the firm Mahadev Prasad Ram Shankar was closed since 1965. Kanhaiya Lal and Hriday Narain were partners in this firm. He had proved the application given by the Vigilance Inspector, Ext. Ka-1, in this connection. He gave his report on the basis of the entry in the register. It was written there that the firm is closed. He also did not make any spot verification in proof of it. 12. PW 2 is Kanhaiya Lal, one of the parties of the firm. He claimed that the petrol pump was closed in 1964 due to personal bickening between the parties. No dealing was made since then. He denied that any jeep or vehicle belonging to the Electricity Department was sold any petrol or diesel by his firm since the closure. On seeing the 31 disputed documents his evidence was that they are fake because the signatures do not tally to any of his employees of his father and Hriday Narain. He further stated that in the year 1975-76 his petrol pump was closed. These documents were marked as material Exts. 1 to 31. He admitted in cross-examination that these cash memos, material Exts. 1 to 31, belong to his firm. He further stated that Jameel Ahmad was an employee of his firm. He further stated that it is possible that on the closure of the firm he may have removed some of the records of his firm. The appellant was an employee since 1961 till the closure of the firm. Who wrote these cash memos he did not identify. Who signed them also he was not able to vouchsafe. He further stated that it is possible that on the closure of the firm he may have removed some of the records of his firm. The appellant was an employee since 1961 till the closure of the firm. Who wrote these cash memos he did not identify. Who signed them also he was not able to vouchsafe. He had the opportunity of seeing the writings of Jameel Ahmad because he admitted that Jameel Ahmad and Sheo Pujan were his salesmen. Cash Book was prepared by Jameel Ahmad and the Account Book was prepared by one Sarju Prasad. Thus, prima facie, he would have been the best witness to vouchsafe on a visual examination itself that the writings shown to him were in the hand of Jameel Ahmad. Cash memos were also prepared by Jameel Ahmad when he was an employee of this witness. He had the opportunity of seeing the cash memos and other writings. His failure to identify the writings on these memos, therefore, is material to discredit the handwritings experts opinion. 13. PW 8 Ram Asre Singh was a clerk in the Electricity Distribution Division I. He admitted that Ram Nath Singh was the Divisional Accountant there. Ram Kripal Sahi was Assistant Clerk before him. He is acquainted with their writings. B. D. Singh and R. P. Dubey were Executive Engineers at that time. He is acquainted with their writings and signatures also. From 1974 to June, 1977 Sri Manohar was S. D. O. He is acquainted with his handwritings and signatures also. He claimed that the jeep (UPC 5088) was in this division. Appellant Jameel Ahmad was its driver. T. I. For Rs. 1,000/- or Rs. 500/- was opened in the department. Petrol for this jeep was purchased from this T. I. Account. He further claimed that the cash memos for the purchase of petrol were collected at one place every month and thereafter they were forwarded after being certified by the S. D. O. to the Divisional Office, Gorakhpur. These cash memos were checked by him and Ram Nath Singh, Divisional Accountant. Before him R. K. Sahi was doing this job. After checking the Executive Engineer used to allow adjustments from T. I. He admitted that R. K. Sahi has signed for verification on the cash memo dated 16-2-1975. R. N. Singh had also signed it. These cash memos were checked by him and Ram Nath Singh, Divisional Accountant. Before him R. K. Sahi was doing this job. After checking the Executive Engineer used to allow adjustments from T. I. He admitted that R. K. Sahi has signed for verification on the cash memo dated 16-2-1975. R. N. Singh had also signed it. Cash memo of 26-2-1975 was also signed by the above said two officers. These cash memos are Exts. 10 to 13. The cash memos pertaining to different dates Exts. Ka-14 to Ka-29, were also signed by R. N. Singh and R. K. Sahi. He admitted that on the four cash memos dated 21-6-1975 he put his signatures and it also was signed by R. N. Singh. They were marked as Exts. Ka-30 to Ka-33. Cash memos dated 6-7-1975, 4-10-1975, 1-12-1975, 25- 6-1976 and 26-6-1976 were signed by him and also by R. N. Singh. These cash memos were marked as Exts. Ka-34 to Ka-38. All these cash memos were also signed by S. D. O. Sri Mandhar. Similarly, cash memos Exts. Ka-39 to Ka-45 were signed by him and R. N. Singh. Similarly cash memo dated 15-6-1976, Ext. Ka-46, also bears his signature and that of R. N. Singh. All these cash memos were certified and forwarded by Sri Mandhar S. D. O. He has not stated a word against the appellant in his statement. He must be acquainted with his writing. This facture to be set as very material. 14. The evidence of Ram Swaroop is more important in this regard. This witness was an employee in the Transmission Division, Basti Manohar Lal was at that time S. D. O. and Bhubneshwar Kumar was A. S. K. He was acquainted with their signatures and handwritings. B. D. Singh and R. P. Dubey were Executive. Engineers at the relevant time. He is acquainted with their signatures and handwritings. Ram N. S. was Divisional Accountant and Ram Asre Singh was Accounts Clerk. He is acquainted with their signatures and wirings also. He admitted that Jeep No. UPC 5088 was used in his department. The appellant was its driver. Cash Memos, Exts. Ka-1 to Ka-46 and Exts. Ka-50 to Ka-51 were signed by him after comparing them from the Log Book. He further admitted that on cash memos material Exts. 3 and 27 his sigantures are there. They were marked as Exts. Ka-50 and Ka-51. The appellant was its driver. Cash Memos, Exts. Ka-1 to Ka-46 and Exts. Ka-50 to Ka-51 were signed by him after comparing them from the Log Book. He further admitted that on cash memos material Exts. 3 and 27 his sigantures are there. They were marked as Exts. Ka-50 and Ka-51. He stated that three Log Books are before him. He had examined their entries. They were marked as Ext Ka-52 to Ka-54. He further admitted that the payment for the petrol was made through T. Is. T I. was known as temporary impressed. The money was deposited in the name of Assistant Engineer who was known as S. D. O. The money was paid by him to the Junior Engineer to Incharge of the vehicle. He admitted that on cash memos, Ext Ka-10 to Ka-46, signatures show that the payment was made to Jameel Ahmad. Log Books were filled by S. K. Assistant Engineer to Junior Engineers. The payments were made from the Division after verification of the documents. No vehicle can run without petrol. It is admitted by him that the jeep was in operation continuously as is borne out from the Log Book. He had further admitted where from the petrol was brought or purchased is not known to him. Thus, from his evidence it is clear that the petrol was purchased and the jeep was continuously in operation, so if the payment was made on these cash memos the petrol must have been bought from somewhere. It is not the case that the money was taken without the petrol being purchased. The prosecution, therefore, has failed to establish clinchingly against the appellant that he had mis-appropriated the money by producing fake document. What is clear to me is that the appellant being the driver was given the money as per his claim that the petrol was purchased by the Executive Engineer on whose instruction he used to carry the jeep to the alleged petrol pump. Payments were made by him. His signatures were obtained on the same. From the testimony of this witness this fact is clinchingly clear that his signature are there against the payments only. Thus, the charge that he embezzled the money is not established at all. As a matter of fact any money was embezzled has not been proved at all. Payments were made by him. His signatures were obtained on the same. From the testimony of this witness this fact is clinchingly clear that his signature are there against the payments only. Thus, the charge that he embezzled the money is not established at all. As a matter of fact any money was embezzled has not been proved at all. In this regard the statement of PW 11 Ram Sewak Pandey is of some consequence. He is the proprietor of Pandey Automobile. He was shown 7 cash memos belonging to his firm as material Exts. Ka-39 to Ka-45. His response was that these cash memos did not bear his signature or signature of his four salesmen, though the cash memos belong to Pandey Automobiles. He admitted that he recognised the signature of his salesmen. He admitted that the Electricity Department used to buy petrol from his petrol pump also. He claimed that he knew Jameel Ahmad. He also used to buy petrol from his firm. He admitted that the cash memos may be of his firm, but it did not bear signature of any of his salesmen. The man who filled the tanks of the vehicles is called filling man. They are also known as salesmen. 4-5 years ago he himself was sitting on the pump but not now Salesmen used to issue receipts. He conceded that he cannot know if any salesmen gets the receipt issued from some other person. According to him, salesman used to issue receipts. Thus the probability that these receipts belong to Pandey Automobiles may have been prepared by Jameel Ahmad and signed by his salesman cannot be ruled out. Petrol pumps generally always have a rush if they are in a busy market area. Pandey Bazar is a busy market area admittedly. Merely because from the Revenue Department and the Sales Tax Department a report was obtained that petrol pump Mahadev Prasad Ram Shankar was closed on record since 1964. It cannot be assumed unless it is negatived by a spot verification that they were not dealing in the petrol, diesel or mobile. Many petrol pump dealers are doing business unauthorisedly. They are issuing cash memos also sometimes on blank sheets and sometimes on their regular memos. Hence it cannot be said positively that the cash memos produced on record do not belong to the said firm. Many petrol pump dealers are doing business unauthorisedly. They are issuing cash memos also sometimes on blank sheets and sometimes on their regular memos. Hence it cannot be said positively that the cash memos produced on record do not belong to the said firm. The I. O. has also admitted that he did not make any physical verification of the two petrol pumps, especially Mahadev Prasad Ram Shankar whether they are selling petrol or not. When he had received the reports from the two departments, Sales Tax and Revenue, contrary to their operation and the cash memos clearly show that they were running, it was his duty to have made a physical verification of the said petrol pump to find out whether they are doing business or not. Failure to do so goes in favour of the appellant. No witness from the locality of this firm was examined to prove this fact. This also lends credence to the case of the appellant. Thus, in my opinion, the prosecution has failed miserably to establish the charge against the appellant. As discussed above, the appellant may have signed the vouchers in receipt of the money and the money may have gone to the Executive Engineer, who according to him used to make the payments of petrol. It is not disputed that the vehicle was continuously in operation. The petrol must have been purchased. The department and the prosecution both have failed to prove any other source of purchase of petrol. This clearly rules out any embezzlement. 15. In view of these facts and circumstances, the appeal is allowed. The appellant is acquitted of the charges for which he was convicted and sentenced. He is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bond is cancelled and sureties are hereby discharged. Appeal allowed. .