JUDGEMENT Rajiv Sharma, Judge(Oral) : This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 17.09.20 10 of learned Special Judge, Chamba, whereby respondents Attar Singh and Tarsem Lal Chandla, both of whom were working as Junior Engineers in Pangi area of Chamba District, during the years 1993-1994, have been acquitted of charge, under Sections 409, 420, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2.Respondent Attar Singh took over the charge of Junior Engineer, Stores at Pangi, sometime in the year 1993. The other respondent, Tarsem Lal Chandla, was Field Junior Engineer in Pangi during those days. He was assigned various works, including construction of a school building for which stores used to be issued from the store, of which Attar Singh was posted as In charge in 1993. An indent Ex. PW-3/A was prepared by respondent Tarsem Lal Chandla and submitted to respondent Attar Singh for supply of 50 bags of cement in connection with the construction of the aforesaid school building. Stock in the store, under the charge of respondent Attar Singh used to be maintained on bin cards. Bin Card Ex. PW-3/B pertains to cement. An entry was made in this bin card with regard to indent Ex. PW-3/A and 50 bags of cement were shown to have been issued against the said indent. On the indent Ex. PW-3/A, Tarsem Lal Chandla, put his signature Q-1, in token of his having received the consignment of 50 bags of cement. However, there was no corresponding entry in the register, maintained by respondent Tarsem Lal Chandla, regarding receipt of the aforesaid consignment of 50 bags of cement. 3.A complaint Ex. PW-2/A was made by PW-1 Devi Singh, Chowkidar of the store in the year 2001 that 50 bags of cement, indented vide indent Ex. PW-3/A and shown to have been issued vide entry mark Q-4 in the bin card Ex. PW-3/B, had in fact not been issued and that the aforesaid quantity of cement had been mis-appropriated by the two respondents in connivance with each other. On the basis of this complaint, case was formally registered vide F.I.R. Ex. PW-1 1/C with Anti Corruption Zone, Chamba. 4.During the course of investigation, aforesaid indent Ex. PW-3/A and bin card Ex. PW-3/B were taken into possession. Standard writings and signatures of the two respondents were collected. On the basis of this complaint, case was formally registered vide F.I.R. Ex. PW-1 1/C with Anti Corruption Zone, Chamba. 4.During the course of investigation, aforesaid indent Ex. PW-3/A and bin card Ex. PW-3/B were taken into possession. Standard writings and signatures of the two respondents were collected. Specimen signatures and writings of respondent Attar Singh are S-26 to S-43 on Ex. PW-13/A-20 to Ex. PW-13/A-31, while his admitted writings and signatures are A-7 to A-13 on Ex. PW-2/A and Ex. PW-2/B. Specimen signatures and writings of respondent Tarsem Lal Chandla are marked S-1 to S-19 on Ex. PW-13/A-1 to Ex. PW-13/A-19 and his admitted signatures and writings are A-1 to A-6 on Ex. PW­2/C and Ex. PW-2/D. 5.Questioned signatures of respondent Tarsem Lal Chandla marked Q-1 and Q-2 on Ex. PW-3/A were sent for comparison with that of his standard and admitted signatures, to the hand writing expert. Standard and admitted writings and signatures of respondent Attar Singh were also sent to the hand writing expert for comparison with entry and signatures marked Q-4 on bin card Ex. PW-3/B. Handwriting Expert, PW-13 Dr. Visheshwar Sharma, vide his opinion Ex. PW-13/A-33, opined that signatures Q-1 and Q-2 on the indent Ex. PW-3/A, tallied with the aforesaid standard and admitted writings/signatures of respondent Tarsem Lal Chandla and entry marked Q-4 on bin card Ex. PW-3/B, matched with the aforesaid standard specimen and admitted writings and signatures of respondent Attar Singh. 6.On completion of investigation, sanctions for prosecuting the two accused were obtained from their appointing authority and they were challaned. Learned Special Judge charged both the respondents with the offence of conspiracy, under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. They pleaded not guilty to the charge and were, therefore, tried. 7.Prosecution examined Chowkidar of the Store, who lodged the complaint Ex. PW- 1/A, namely PW- 1 Devi Singh, the then Assistant Engineer, under whom the two respondents were working, namely PW-3 Nek Chand, the then Executive Engineer of the concerned Division, namely PW-4 Dev Raj Chaudhary, the handwriting Expert, PW-13 Dr. Visheshwar Sharma, the investigating officer and some other formal witnesses. 8.Respondents took no specific plea but denied that they had entered into any conspiracy. It was admitted that indent Ex. Visheshwar Sharma, the investigating officer and some other formal witnesses. 8.Respondents took no specific plea but denied that they had entered into any conspiracy. It was admitted that indent Ex. PW-3/A had been prepared by respondent Tarsem Lal Chandla, but it was denied that cement was issued against the said indent. Both the respondents took the plea that cement had not been issued from the store and that, in fact, it was Chowkidar of the store, namely PW- 1 Devi Singh, who had mis­appropriated the cement and lodged a false complaint against them, to justify the disappearance of cement from the store, of which he was the Watchman. 9.Learned Trial Court concluded that the evidence adduced by the prosecution on record did not prove the case and consequently acquitted both the respondents. 10. We have heard learned Assistant Advocate General, as also counsel for the respondents and carefully gone through the record. 11. It is not in dispute that indent Ex. PW-3/A was prepared and submitted by respondent Tarsem Lal Chandla to respondent Attar Singh for supply of 50 bags of cement. Also, it is not in dispute that the cement was indented in connection with the construction of school building, construction of which was being supervised by respondent Tarsem Lal Chandla. Also, it is nobody’s case that the construction of the building of the school was in progress when the indent was submitted. 12. There is an entry in the bin card Ex. PW-3/B, which is marked Q-1. As per this entry, 50 bags of cement were issued against indent Ex. PW-3/A. Entry marked Q-4 has been opined to be in the hand of respondent Attar Singh by PW-13 Dr. Visheshwar Sharma, vide opinion Ex. PW-13/A-33. Respondent Attar Singh does not in his examination, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, deny that standard signatures and writings marked S-26 to S-43 on Ex. PW-13/A-20 to Ex. PW-13/A-31 are in his hand. Hand writing expert, who appeared as PW-13, very categorically stated that entry mark Q-4 on Ex. PW-3/B and the aforesaid standard writings and signatures marked S-26 to S-43 and A-7 to A-13 are in the hand of one and the same person. No cross-examination was directed on behalf of the respondents and therefore, there should be no reason to disbelieve his opinion evidence. 13. PW-3/B and the aforesaid standard writings and signatures marked S-26 to S-43 and A-7 to A-13 are in the hand of one and the same person. No cross-examination was directed on behalf of the respondents and therefore, there should be no reason to disbelieve his opinion evidence. 13. Above stated position apart, respondent Attar Singh was in charge of the store and the fact is not denied by him. Therefore, the bin card Ex. PW-3/B was supposed to be in his custody. So the presumption should be that the entry marked Q-4 in the bin card Ex. PW-3/B is in his hand. Of course, he denies in his statement, under Section 313, Cr. P.C. that the entry is in his hand, but when the bin card was in his custody, it was for him to explain how could anybody else have made an entry in the bin card, which was with him. In any case, the unchallenged opinion evidence of the expert proves that the entry is in his hand. Making of entry in bin card Ex. PW-1/B by respondent Attar Singh showing the issue of 50 bags of cement against indent Ex. PW-3/A and his denial that he had issued cement, alone is enough to disbelieve his version. 14. As regards second accused, signatures Q-1 on indent Ex. PW-3/A in token of his having received the cement, is proved to be his not only by the opinion evidence of PW- 13 Dr. Visheshwar Sharma, but also by the testimony of PW-3 Nek Chand, Assistant Engineer, under whom he had been working at the relevant time. The witness, very categorically, stated that he was familiar with the signature and writing of respondent Tarsem Lal Chandla and that signatures on the indent at the place, meant for the signatures of the person receiving the store item, is that of respondent Tarsem Lal Chandla. The signature is marked Q-1 and has been opined by PW-13 Dr. Visheshwar Sharma, Handwriting Expert to match with the specimen and admitted signatures marked S-1 to S-19 and A-1 to A-6 on Ex. PW-13/A-1 to Ex. PW-13/A-19 and Ex. PW-2/C and Ex. PW­2/D. Admitted signatures on Ex. PW-2/C and Ex. PW-2/D were shown to respondent Tarsem Lal Chandla, when he was examined under Section 313, Cr. P.C.. He did not deny that these are his signatures, but expressed ignorance, which is an evasive reply. PW-13/A-1 to Ex. PW-13/A-19 and Ex. PW-2/C and Ex. PW­2/D. Admitted signatures on Ex. PW-2/C and Ex. PW-2/D were shown to respondent Tarsem Lal Chandla, when he was examined under Section 313, Cr. P.C.. He did not deny that these are his signatures, but expressed ignorance, which is an evasive reply. An educated man like respondent Tarsem Lal Chandla, can very easily recognize his signature/writing and expression of ignorance is, therefore, to be equated with evasiveness. 15. According to indent Ex. PW-3/A, respondent Tarsem Lal Chandla had received 50 bags of cement. Bin card Ex. PW­3/B shows that respondent Attar Singh made entry Q-4 regarding issue of 50 bags of cement in favour of respondent Tarsem Lal Chandla. Both of them deny this established fact. Attar Singh denied having issued 50 bags of cement to Tarsem Lal Chandla and Tersem Lal Chandla denied having received the same. This, itself, is enough to jump to the conclusion that both of them conspired to mis-appropriate the cement and also committed the offence of criminal mis-conduct, punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 16. A bare reading of the judgment of the trial court suggests that learned Judge decided the case in a perfunctory manner, without application of mind. He seems to have not even read the evidence. In paragraph-12 of the judgment, learned trial court writes that all the specimen and admitted writings and signatures marked S-1 to S-43, A-1 to A-6 and A-10 to A­13 are of Attar Singh. That is contrary to the evidence on record. Writings, S-1 to S- 19, are of respondent Tarsem Lal Chandla. It is only specimen writings marked S-26 to S-43, which are of respondent Attar Singh. Reasoning given by the trial Judge for disbelieving the expert opinion is that, for want of signature on the bin card, opinion of the expert that the entry is in his hand, cannot be believed. The entry is in the nature of a writing and not the signature of respondent Attar Singh and thus, the reasoning given by the learned trial Judge is perverse on the face of it. 17. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that there was delay of about 6-7 years, in lodging the report with the police and this created a reasonable doubt about the correctness of prosecution’s version. 17. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that there was delay of about 6-7 years, in lodging the report with the police and this created a reasonable doubt about the correctness of prosecution’s version. No doubt delay is there, but in this kind of cases, delay is of little consequence, because the innocence or the guilt of the person, accused of this kind of offence, depends upon documentary evidence and unless the documents are shown to have been falsely prepared, after the alleged occurrence to frame up an accused, which is not the case here, delay is not a circumstance suggestive of the innocence of the accused. 18. For the foregoing reasons, appeal is accepted. Both the respondents are convicted of the offence of criminal conspiracy, punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, as also offence of criminal misconduct, under Section 13(2) of the Preventions of Corruption Act. There is no specific charge of criminal mis-appropriation or cheating against either of the two respondents. 19. Both the respondents be produced in person on 17th October, 2011, for being heard on the quantum of sentence.