Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 324 (JK)

Ab. Aziz v. State Of J. &K.

2004-11-25

S.K.GUPTA

body2004
This appeal is directed against the order of conviction recorded by the Special Judge, Anti- Corruption, Jammu, in file No. 51/Anti-corruption dated 12/09/1997 vide which accused/appellant has been sentenced to suffer five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/- in proof of offence under section 5(1)(C) punishable under section 5(2) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 BK. The case of the prosecution, depicted in narration, is that accused Abdul Aziz while posted as Naib Courty in the R. S. Pura Court was entrusted with case property relating to a case under F.I.R.No. 60/1989 including Rs.2,100/- by P.W. Goverdhan Singh and the accused also issued receipt for the said property on the Rahdhari No. 28 dated 23/09/1989 at the time of production of challan in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, R. S. Pura, and instead entering Rs.2,100/- in the Register Malkhana, misappropriated the same. The accused, however, is stated to have entered the other articles of the case property in the Malkhana Register against Serial No. 77 of 1989 except an amount of Rs.2,100/-. Based on a preliminary inquiry conducted by the SDPO R. S. Pura, a case under section 5(2) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act and under section 409 RPC stood registered with the Vigilance Organisation. On the conclusion of investigation, challan was presented before the learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Jammu, who after framing the charge, recorded the evidence of the witnesses produced and after hearing the parties held the accused guilty and, accordingly, convicted and sentenced him vide order dated 12/09/1997, impugned in this appeal. Mr. Sakal Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, at the threshold submitted that the trial court has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective and in fact the accused has been convicted without there being any evidence connecting him of having been entrusted with an amount of Rs.2,100/- alongwith other case property in F.I.R. No. 60/1989 and the said amount has been misappropriated by him. Mr. Bhushan further submitted that in the absence of any evidence with regard to the existence of any property viz Rs.2,100/- alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the accused in case under F.I.R. No. 60/1989, the question of its entrustment to the appellant-Abdul Aziz and its consequent misappropriation by him dishonestly does not arise. Mr. Bhushan further submitted that in the absence of any evidence with regard to the existence of any property viz Rs.2,100/- alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the accused in case under F.I.R. No. 60/1989, the question of its entrustment to the appellant-Abdul Aziz and its consequent misappropriation by him dishonestly does not arise. He also contended that the prosecution evidence is much too fragile and fractured, and the conviction recorded by the trial court based on this evidence is legally unsustainable. Whereas, Mr. B. S. Salathia, learned Sr. Additional Advocate General appearing for the State, vehemently urged that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused under section 5(1)(C) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act by a convincing, reliable and positive evidence beyond any pale of doubt. He further submitted that order of conviction and consequent sentence of the accused, appealed against, does not suffer from any infirmity, legal or factual, to warrant interference in appeal. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, considered their rival contentions and perused the record of the file meticulously. The main thrust of the appellants counsel Mr. Sakal Bhushan is that the property viz. Rs.2,100/- alleged to have been recovered from the accused in F.I.R. No. 60/1989, in fact, never existed as no recovery memo has been produced in the case. His further submission is that even the copy of the challan No38 of F.I.R. No. 60/1989, Mark-IX, annexed with the case does not indicate in the details of the documents recorded under the foot of the said challan about the seizure memo pertaining to the recovery of Rs. 2,100/- from the accused. Even the application filed by the accused in F.I.R. No. 60/1989 for the release of Rs. 2,100/- before the learned Sessions Judge has not been placed on record to prove, if any such amount was ever claimed by him. According to Mr. Bhushan, inevitable proof that the property viz. Rs. 2,100/- which is stated to have been misappropriated by Abdul Aziz, never existed. He further stated that the prosecution examined Goverdhan Singh and Sat Pal Sharma as witnesses to prove the entrustment of the case property including Rs. 2,100/- to Abdul Aziz, out of which Rs. 2,100/- have not been reflected in the Malkhana register and misappropriated by him. Rs. 2,100/- which is stated to have been misappropriated by Abdul Aziz, never existed. He further stated that the prosecution examined Goverdhan Singh and Sat Pal Sharma as witnesses to prove the entrustment of the case property including Rs. 2,100/- to Abdul Aziz, out of which Rs. 2,100/- have not been reflected in the Malkhana register and misappropriated by him. The evidence provided by both these witnesses, according to learned counsel appearing for the appellant, is contradictory, conflicting and at variance in material particulars, and, therefore, cannot be accepted and relied upon. In order to prove the seizure of said amount, the prosecution has produced copy of the F.I.R.No. 60/1989 of Police Station Arnia and the police challan No. 38 dated 22/09/1989 `State Vrs. Bashir Ahmed for offence under sections 14 of the Foreigners Act and 3/6 of the Passport Act (has also been annexed) with the present case. These documents nowhere mention that any such amount was seized in this case. Neither search memo with regard to the personal search of accused in F.I.R.No. 60/1989 from whom Rs.2,100/- is stated to have been recovered nor seizure memo, if any, prepared in this behalf has been produced and proved in the Court so as to prove the seizure of this amount. In the aforesaid FIR, an application is also stated to have been made by the accused of FIR No. 60/1989 for the release of the articles, on which the Court had passed the release order and that application alongwith Court order was attached with the Malkhana register against an entry of the said articles but the same was detached and taken by the Chief Prosecuting Officer after encircling the entry in the Register with red ink. It, however, remained unexplained by the prosecution as to where the application alongwith court order and why it was removed from the register Malkhana. The said application having not been produced in the Court strengthens the plea of the accused-appellant that case property viz. Rs.2,100/- sought to have been misappropriated by the accused, Abdul Aziz when entrusted to him, never existed. It is also the prosecution case that the case property which was handed over to the accused under F.I.R. No. 60/1989 also consisted of Rs.210/- seized by the police which stands duly entered in the register Malkhana. Rs.2,100/- sought to have been misappropriated by the accused, Abdul Aziz when entrusted to him, never existed. It is also the prosecution case that the case property which was handed over to the accused under F.I.R. No. 60/1989 also consisted of Rs.210/- seized by the police which stands duly entered in the register Malkhana. If that be the position then the accused-appellant also could have misappropriated the said amount alongwith Rs.2,100/-. Mr. Sakal Bhushan, learned appellants counsel further butterest his argument in submitting that when the very existence of subject of entrustment of Rs.2,100/- has not been proved by the prosecution, the question of its entrustment to the accused and subsequently misappropriation by him does not arise. The prosecution in order to prove the seizure of the amount of Rs.2,100/- from one of the accused under F.I.R.No. 60/1989 has placed on record a copy of the F.I.R. and copy of the challan. It is nowhere indicated in either of the documents that an amount of Rs.2,100/- was seized from the personal search of the accused in the said case and seizure memo to its effect was prepared. The prosecution has neither brought on record the search memo nor the seizure memo in respect of the said amount, nor as such is shown in the copy of the challan No. 38/89 produced in the Court under F.I.R.No. 60/89. It was further case of the prosecution that an application for the release of the said seized articles was presented by the accused in the case F.I.R.No. 60/1989 in the Court of Sessions, on which the Court had passed the release order. The copy of the application made by the accused for the release of the atircle seized has not been brought on record so as to prove whether the accused had claimed the release of Rs.2,100/- alleged by the prosecution to have been seized from his personal search. Apart from that none of the witnesses produced by the prosecution, in their oral examination, deposed about the alleged amount of embezzlement seized in F.I.R.No. 60/1989. If that be the position, in either case, this stand goes against the prosecution and the strong legal presumption drawn against the very existence of the subject of entrustment and consequent alleged embezzlement by the accused/appellant. If that be the position, in either case, this stand goes against the prosecution and the strong legal presumption drawn against the very existence of the subject of entrustment and consequent alleged embezzlement by the accused/appellant. The next question that falls for consideration is as to whether the accused was ever handed over an amount of Rs.2,100/- alongwith other seized articles on 23/09/1989 by PW Goverdhan Singh in the presence of PW Sat Pal. According to the prosecution, PW Goverdhan Singh alongwith other PWs Ranjit Singh, and Ram Pal had gone to present the challan No. 38/1989 against three Afghan Nationals who had crossed the border. PW Goverdhan Singh was posted as Moharer Head Constable in Police Station, Arnia, in September 1989. He presented the challan in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, R. S. Pura. It is also in his evidence that at the time of presentation of challan, all articles recovered from the personal search as per list were deposited by PW Sat Pal. It is also in his evidence that the articles, as per Fard Rahdhari EXPW-US-4 and memos EXPW-US-2 and EXPW-US-3, were handed over to the accused by PW Sat Pal. This witness also made it clear in his cross-examination that these articles were given to the accused by PW Sat Pal not in his presence. Whereas the statement of PW Sat Pal is to the effect that the challan was produced in the Court alongwith accused in custody. He further stated that the seized articles were handed over to Naib Courty, Abdul Aziz/accused, and secured his signatures. He also stated that many articles were seized from the accused and, accordingly, separate entries were made. It is also stated that Rs.2,100/- were seized from Bashir Ahmed, and the articles and amount were handed over to the accused and the later after accepting the same had put his signatures on the receipt in his presence. He further stated that the accused had signed at three places on the Rahdhari register EXPW-US-2, EXPW-US-3 & EXPW-US-4. Further submission of this witness is that on the Rahdhari register, PW Goverdhan Singh had put his signatures on these items. The witness further stated that the articles contain Rs.2,100/- in respect of Bashir Ahmed/accused and Rs.210/- in respect of Tafseel Ahmed/accused. However, he does not remember the details of other articles. Further submission of this witness is that on the Rahdhari register, PW Goverdhan Singh had put his signatures on these items. The witness further stated that the articles contain Rs.2,100/- in respect of Bashir Ahmed/accused and Rs.210/- in respect of Tafseel Ahmed/accused. However, he does not remember the details of other articles. The other two witnesses namely Ram Lal and Ranjit Singh have not been examined by the prosecution. The evidence produced by PWs Goverdhan Singh and Sat Pal contradict each other with regard to the handing over the articles including the alleged embezzled amount of Rs.2,100/- to the accused at the time of presentation of challan. None of these witnesses have been declared hostile by the prosecution. PW Goverdhan Singh, however, denied to have handed over the case property to the accused at the time of presentation of the challan. According to this witness, case property of challan No. 38/1989 under F.I.R. No. 60/1989 was handed over by PW Sat Pal to the accused. He also denied that the other articles were given to the accused in his presence. Whereas PW Sat Pal on the other hand stated that the articles including the embezzlement of Rs.2,100/- , in fact, were deposited with the accused by PW Goverdhan Singh and obtained signatures on the Rahdhari register at three places EXPW-US-2, EXPW-US-3 & EXPW-US-4. Both the witnesses, therefore, had made conflicting statements with regard to the handing over of the articles including the subject of embezzlement to the accused and obtaining signatures on the Rahdhari register and memos EXPW-US-2, EXPW-US-3 & EXPW-US-4. The statement of PW Sat Pal is that the challan was presented by PW Goverdhan Singh and the seized articles were handed over to the accused Abdul Aziz which were entered in the Malkhana register by the later. In view of the contradicting statements made by PWs Goverdhan Singh and Sat Pal regarding handing over of the subject of embezzlement to the accused alongwith other articles and secured his signatures on the register Rahdhari at three places, the prosecution case is rendered highly doubtful. Rahdhari register was produced by the prosecution but its entries with regard to the handing over of the articles including the alleged embezzled amount to the accused and thereafter obtaining signatures on the register Rahdhari have not been proved either by PW Goverdhan Singh or PW Sat Pal. Rahdhari register was produced by the prosecution but its entries with regard to the handing over of the articles including the alleged embezzled amount to the accused and thereafter obtaining signatures on the register Rahdhari have not been proved either by PW Goverdhan Singh or PW Sat Pal. The prosecution instead of putting these entries to PWs Goverdhan Singh and Sat Pal in proof of the handing over of the articles including the subject of embezzlement, examined PW Ujjal Singh stated to be acquainted with the handwriting of the accused for having worked with him for a year. But in his cross-examintion, he emphatically denied that the accused had received Rs.2,100/- as per Rahdhari register in his presence. The evidene provided by PW Goverdhan Singh is materially different from the evidence of PW Sat Pal with regard to the handing over of the articles including Rs.2,100/- to the accused at the time of production of challan in the Court at R.S. Pura and the Court is, thus, required to act with utmost care and circumspection in scrutinizing the evidence. The inconsistencies found in the testimony of the aforesaid two witnesses with regard to the material fact of entrustment goes to the root of the matter and pertains to the significant aspect thereof. The onus is always on the prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt that money was entrusted to the accused in his capacity as a public servant and that the accused dishonestly misappropriated the money in violation of the express or implied contract which he had made touching the discharge of such trust. The prosecution must prove by reliable and acceptable evidence that the amount so entrusted which ought to have been remitted or paid into the accounts of the government for the purpose indicated therein has not been done so by the accused and misappropriated the same in violation of such entrustment. Both the material witnesses namely PWs Goverdhan Singh and Sat Pal having contradicted with regard to the entrustment of subject of embezzlement viz. handing over of the case property including Rs.2,100/- to the accused at the time of presentation of the challan particularly when two witnesses accompanying them including Ram Pal and Ranjit Singh were not examined, it cannot be said with circumspection that the prosecution has discharged the burden of proving entrustment by cogent, positive and acceptable evidence. handing over of the case property including Rs.2,100/- to the accused at the time of presentation of the challan particularly when two witnesses accompanying them including Ram Pal and Ranjit Singh were not examined, it cannot be said with circumspection that the prosecution has discharged the burden of proving entrustment by cogent, positive and acceptable evidence. This fact further strengthened when the Rahdhari register and entries made therein on which the signatures are stated to have been obtained from the accused after handing over the articles alongwith an amount of Rs.2,100/- allegedly seized from personal search of Bashir Ahmed and Rs.210/- from Tafsil Ahmed, have not been sent for comparison to the handwriting expert alongwith other documents. The trial court seems to have relied on the evidence of PWs Ujjal Singh and Bushan Kumar to be acquainted with the signatures of the accused for having worked with him for a year and held the entrustment of the alleged amount of Rs.2,100/- proved against the accused. But this evidence can not in any manner relied upon and believed in view of the contradictory, conflicting and discrepant evidence provided by PWs Goverdhan Singh and Sat Pal who in fact are stated to have carried the articles from Police Station Arnia to be deposited in the Malkhana at the time of presentation of the challan, in respect of the handing over of the alleged embezzled amount alongwith other articles to the accused and secured his signatures on Rahdhari register at three places. The evidence of Ujjal Singh and Bushan Kumar further cannot be relied upon when they denied that the articles including an amount of Rs.2,100/- were ever given to the accused in their presence. Their evidence further stands whittled down and does not inspire confidence in the Court particularly when the evidence provided by the handwriting expert does not support its case. The prosecution has, thus, miserably failed by consistent, convincing and reliable evidence that the signatures of the accused existed on the entries in the Radhari register vide which, according to the prosecution, the case property including Rs.2,100/- was handed by PW Goverdhan Singh to the accused at the time of production of challan. As regards the report of the handwriting expert, it is settled propositon of law that mere proving of handwriting of a document would not tantamount to prove all the contents or facts stated in the document. As regards the report of the handwriting expert, it is settled propositon of law that mere proving of handwriting of a document would not tantamount to prove all the contents or facts stated in the document. The contents so stated in the document have to be proved by admissible evidence. Since PW Goverdhan Singh has not supported the prosecution case of having handed over Rs.2,100/- alongwith other articles to the accused, it cannot be said that the entries in the Rahdhari register stood proved. Similarly, the statement of PW Sat Pal with regard to the handing over of Rs.2,100/- alongwith other articles by PW Goverdhan Singh cannot be believed and relied upon when PW Goverdhan Singh has denied about this fact in his evidence emphatically. So the evidence of the star witnesses namely PWs Goverdhan Singh and Sat Pal is neither trustworthy nor convincing nor reliable to prove the entrustment of the subject of embezzlement to the accused alongwith other articles at the time of production of challan. The prosecution has failed to establish that the accused was entrusted with an amount of Rs.2,100/- which he had not reflected in the Malkhana register and misappropriated the same to his own use. As regards the report of the handwriting expert, the same having not been proved by the prosecution, according to Mr. Sakal Bhushan, cannot be relied without examining its author. Mr. Bhushan further stated that even the report reveals that the questioned signatures marked Q1 to Q3 could not be connected with the writer of the admitted signatures marked A1 to A5 which pertain to the documents of questionaire issued to Abdul Aziz and affidavit of the accused. Mr. Bhushan also stated that only 2-3 signatures tallied whereas in case of other signatures the report of the handwriting expert is negative and, therefore, the opinion of the expert is doubtful pertaining to the authenticity of the signatures of the accused on the documents. Mr. Bhushan further stated that the report of the handwriting expert under section 510 Cr.P.C. cannot be used in evidence without examining the author of the report. According to Mr. Bhushan, section 510 Cr.P.C. only contemplates the report of Director of Finger-print Bureau that may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceedings in this Code. Mr. Bhushan further stated that the report of the handwriting expert under section 510 Cr.P.C. cannot be used in evidence without examining the author of the report. According to Mr. Bhushan, section 510 Cr.P.C. only contemplates the report of Director of Finger-print Bureau that may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceedings in this Code. The report in this case having been given by the Assistant Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, cannot be used in evidence without examining him as witness and prove the report in his evidence. The argument advanced by Mr. Bhushan is manifestly convincing and has substance. Apart from that it is settled proposition of law that expert opinion cannot be used against the accused unless it was put to him in his statement under section 340 Cr.P.C. and asked to explain it. Further, it may be pointed out that even assuming expert opinion is credible and can be relied upon, the judgment should not be based merely on opinion of handwriting expert without corrobortion and reliance is placed on a decision in case of Magan Vrs. State, AIR 1977 SC 1091. In other words, the expert opinion is only a piece of evidence, it has to be considered alongwith other pieces of evidence. The value of expert evidence depends largely upon the cogency of the reasons on which it is based. In general, it cannot be the basis of conviction unless it is corroborated by other evidence. The opinion of an expert by itself may not be relevant but would carry little weigh with the Court unless it is supported by a clear statement what he noticed and on what he based his opinion. The Trial Court has, thus, not correctly appreciaed the evidence in its proper perspective in holding that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the entrustment of Rs.2,100/- alongwith other case property against the accused beyond hilt. Where the prosecution has failed to prove the entrustment of money to the accused, a government servant, question of mis-appropriation of the same does not arise. Hence no offence is made out. Where the prosecution has failed to prove the entrustment of money to the accused, a government servant, question of mis-appropriation of the same does not arise. Hence no offence is made out. When the prosecution was not able to prove the first ingredient of the offence that the accused while working as Naib Courty was entrusted with an amount of Rs.2,100/- also alongwith other articles in case F.I.R.No. 60/1989, the second ingredient of the offence namely that the accused has dishonestly misappropriated and converted to his own the said amount, was not proved. The offence of criminal breach of trust involves entrustment of property or of dominion of property and dishonest misappropriation. It is not possible to find these elements unless one can form an opinion as to what the property is and whether such property was in existence in respect of which the entrustment is alleged. Therefore, there must be a definite finding of a defined property or a sum of money existing at the time of entrustment and traced to the accused in order to form the basis of his conviction. Mis-appropriation of the money is to be presumed but is to be proved by prosecution by leading cogent and reliable evidence. Burden of proof of establishing all ingredients of the offence such as existence of the property, alleged subject of entrustment and its mis-appropriation dis-honeslty, is on the prosecution. It, thus, makes it evident that there should be a property regarding which the offence of misappropriation has been committed and the accused charged. Evidence merely raising suspicion against the accused as in the instant case is not sufficient for his conviction. Where the evidence produced creates a doubt about the accused being guilty of offence, is entitled to the benefit of doubt. When the evidence produced by the prosecution, qualitatively and quantitatively insufficient, highly discrepent in material particulars and could not be relied upon, the charge against the accused could not be held as proved. Another leg of argument advanced by Mr. Bhushan is that the investigation in this case has been conducted without valid legal authority by Bundail Singh Jamwal, Investigating Officer. In this context the evidence of PW Bundail Singh Jamwal is to the effect that the investigation of the case under F.I.R.No. 29/90 was entrusted to him by Mr. Kewal Krishan Gupta, Dy.SP on behalf of S.P. Vigilance. Bhushan is that the investigation in this case has been conducted without valid legal authority by Bundail Singh Jamwal, Investigating Officer. In this context the evidence of PW Bundail Singh Jamwal is to the effect that the investigation of the case under F.I.R.No. 29/90 was entrusted to him by Mr. Kewal Krishan Gupta, Dy.SP on behalf of S.P. Vigilance. He recorded the statements of the witnesses, collected the incriminating evidence and on the conclusion of the investigation, challan was presented in the Court. According to his investigtion, PW Goverdhan Singh had handed over Rs.2,100/- to the accused in presence of PW Sat Pal and receipt for the same had been got attested by the PW Goverdhan Singh from the Prosecuting Officer. The embezzlement of the subject of entrustment was established from his investigation against the accused. For facility of reference, authorisation slip for investigation of F.I.R.No. 29/90 to the investigating officer issued by the vigilance organistion, Jammu, is reproduced and reads as under:- "VIGILANCE ORGANISATION, JAMMU. Order for investigation of case FIR No. 29/90. P/S Vigilance Organisation, Jammu. In exercise of powers vested in me vide section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006, I, P. N. Raina, Dy. Suptd. Of Police, Vigilance Organisation, Jammu authorize Shri Bundial Singh, Inspector, of this organization to investigate the above case. He is also authorized to seize/Search for relevant record pertaining to the above case, if any. Sd/- Superintendent of Police Vigilance Organisation, Jammu. Copy to: Shri Bundial Singh, Inspector, Vigilance Organisation, Jammu for information and necessary action." A plain reading of the aforesaid document reveals that the investigating officer was authorised to conduct the investigation of the case by Mr. P. N. Raina, Dy.SP and not by Mr. Kewel Krishan Gupta, Dy.SP as is found in the evidence of Bundial Singh recorded in the Court. Document mark-I was never put to Mr. P. N. Raina, DY.SP, examined as witness in the Court to authenticate the authorisation for investigation of the case under F.I.R.No. 29/90 to Mr. Bundial Singh, Inspector. This further goes to prove that the investigation in the case has been taken without valid and legal authorisation. According to Mr. Bundial Singh, he was authorised by Mr. Kewel Krishan Gupta, Dy.SP and relied upon document mark-I which shows the authorisation by Mr. P. N. Raina, Dy.SP and not by Mr. Kewel Krishan Gupta. Bundial Singh, Inspector. This further goes to prove that the investigation in the case has been taken without valid and legal authorisation. According to Mr. Bundial Singh, he was authorised by Mr. Kewel Krishan Gupta, Dy.SP and relied upon document mark-I which shows the authorisation by Mr. P. N. Raina, Dy.SP and not by Mr. Kewel Krishan Gupta. The document mark-I having not been put to Mr. P. N. Raina, Dy.SP in his evidence to prove the authorisation, leaves a serious doubt about the investigation having been authorised to be conducted by Mr. Bundial Singh by any competent officer in terms of Section 3 of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act. Mr. B. S. Salathia, learned Sr. Addl. AG appearing for the State, when taken through the record and the material discrepancies found in the prosecution witnesses with regard to the existence of subject of entrustment and the subsequent misappropriation by the accused, he in his endeavour could not improve the position emerging from the aforesaid evidence from which it is not forthcoming whether Rs.2,100/- alleged to have been recovered from the personal search of Bashir Ahmed and were seized in challan No. 38/89 were ever carried to the Court from Police Station, Arnia, to be handed over alongwith the challan as case property when particularly entries in the Rahdhari register, who made has not been proved. After taking conspectus of the aforesaid facts and circumstances in its cumulative, the inevitable conclusion reached is that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring the offence home to the accused by convincing, reliable, trustworthy, dependable and credible testimony. Consequently, I allow the appeal and set aside the order of conviction and consequent sentence recorded against the accused in proof of offence under section 5(1)(C) punishable under section 5(2) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 BK. The accused, I understand, is on bail. His bail bond shall stand cancelled. Record shall be remitted back to the Trial Court.