JUDGMENT: Surjit Singh, J(Oral) State has appealed against the judgment, dated 11th November, 2003, of learned Special Judge, whereby respondent Budh Ram, who was Pradhan of the Panchayat, at the time of commission of the alleged offence, and respondent S.K. Gupta, who was working as Land Acquisition Collector, at that time, have been acquitted of offences, under Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 477-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. According to the prosecution, sometime in the year 1995, an amount of `11,07,056/- had been deposited with respondent S.K. Gupta, who was then working as Land Acquisition Collector, for Sirmour and Solan Districts, on account of acquisition of land of private persons, by the Public Works Department. The money was required to be disbursed by respondent S.K. Gupta to the land owners, whose lands had been acquired. From 18th May, 1995 to 20th May, 1995, respondent S.K. Gupta, who had his office at Nahan, the Headquarters of Sirmour District, allegedly was at Paonta Sahib, where he had his residence in a rented private accommodation. There he started disbursing the compensation money to the land owners. On 18th May, 1995, he disbursed money to the father of PW-1 Surjit Singh and also to a brother of the father of said PW-1 Surjit Singh. Both of them were disbursed `18,300/-, each. 3. PW-1 Surjit Singh felt that the money paid to his father and father’s brother was less than the money, which was actually due, on account of compensation assessed, as per award of the Land Acquisition Collector. So, he lodged report Ex. PW-1/A with the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Nahan. This complaint was made on 20th May, 1995. It was stated in the complaint that respondent S.K. Gupta was still in the process of disbursing money at his residence at Paonta Sahib and he was being assisted by the other respondent, namely Budh Ram, who was the Pradhan of the Panchayat and that both of them, in connivance with each other, had been paying less amount of money to the claimants, than due and were misappropriating the rest of it. 4. 4. Deputy Superintendent of Police, namely Ram Lal (PW-18), associated with him two Inspectors, namely Shadi Ram (PW-8) and Giri Raj (PW-17), a local independent witness, namely Satish Goal, and proceeded to the residence of respondent S.K. Gupta in Kedarpur, a suburb of Paonta Sahib. When the party was close to the residence of respondent S.K. Gupta, PW-2 Gurmeet Singh was seen coming out. He was carrying something wrapped in a Parna (a piece of cloth, which is normally used by the farmers as head-wear and also as towel). On enquiry as to what he was carrying in that Parna, Gurmeet Singh told that it was the amount of compensation, which was paid to him. It was counted. The amount was `37,300/-. Deputy Superintendent of Police, accompanied by the aforesaid two Inspectors and Satish Goel, then entered the rented accommodation of respondent S.K. Gupta. He was present there alongwith respondent Budh Ram. Some acquaintance rolls, in triplicate, were found. In those rolls, the amount of money shown to have been disbursed to PW-2 Gurmeet Singh was `74,556/-. Those papers are Ex. PW-8/A-1 to Ex. PW-8/A-3 and Ex. PW-8/B-1 to Ex. PW-8/B-6. The said papers were taken into possession. A sum of `1,15,300/-was available with respondent S.K. Gupta, though as per record no money was supposed to be available with him, on account of compensation money, entire money having been shown to have been disbursed. 5. During the course of investigation, it was found that many more persons, including PW-3 Sangat Singh, PW-4 Mahinder Singh, PW-5 Arjun Singh, PW-6 Surinder Singh and PW-7 Gulzar Singh, had also been disbursed less amount of money, on account of compensation, than shown in the acquaintance rolls and they had also been cheated. Sanction to prosecute both the respondents was obtained from the concerned authorities and they were challaned. 6. Learned trial Court, after complying with the requirement of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, charged the respondents, as aforesaid, and tried them, on their pleading not guilty. 7. Respondents took similar plea of defence. Sanction to prosecute both the respondents was obtained from the concerned authorities and they were challaned. 6. Learned trial Court, after complying with the requirement of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, charged the respondents, as aforesaid, and tried them, on their pleading not guilty. 7. Respondents took similar plea of defence. Their defence is that respondent Budh Ram had been appointed as attorney by the persons, who had allegedly been cheated and he was paid the entire compensation money by cheques, by respondent S.K. Gupta, and after encashing those cheques, respondent Budh Ram had disbursed the money to the concerned land owners and prepared the record, in question, for his personal use. 8. Learned Special Judge held that it had not been proved as to how much amount of money had been entrusted, for disbursement, and out of that how much had been disbursed and how much had been misappropriated. He also held that investigation of the case had been entrusted to an Inspector, who, as per Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was not competent. Learned Special Judge also accepted the aforesaid defence plea. Consequently, respondents were acquitted. 9. We have heard learned Deputy Advocate General, representing the State, as also learned counsel representing the respondents, and gone through the record. 10. View taken by learned Special Judge that respondents are entitled to acquittal, on account of the case having been investigated by an Inspector, is not correct. Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 does not say that a case, under the Act, cannot be investigated by a Police Officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or a Police Officer of equivalent rank. What does it say is that when the investigation is to be undertaken by an Officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or by an Officer of the equivalent rank, an order of the Metropolitan Magistrate or the Magistrate of the First Class, shall have to be obtained. Proviso to Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, says that such order is not required when the investigation is carried out by an Officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, who has been authorized by the State Government, in this behalf, by a general or a special order. Proviso to Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, says that such order is not required when the investigation is carried out by an Officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, who has been authorized by the State Government, in this behalf, by a general or a special order. Respondents did not suggest to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who carried out the raid, or to the Investigating Inspectors, that they had not been authorized by the State Government to investigate the case. Therefore, learned Special Judge was not right in assuming that the Inspectors were not authorized to investigate. In any case, initial investigation, during the course of which vital evidence had been collected, was conducted by the team led by a Deputy Superintendent of Police, i.e. PW-18 Ram Lal. 11. Finding returned by the learned Special Judge that there is no evidence as to how much amount of money had been entrusted and what amount, out that entrusted amount of money, was misappropriated, is absolutely perverse. Respondent S.K. Gupta himself stated, in his statement, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that he had been entrusted a sum of `11,07,056/-, by the Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D., Paonta Sahib, for disbursement to the claimants. Three of the claimant witnesses, out of total six witnesses, examined by the prosecution, namely PW-2 Gurmeet Singh, PW-3 Sangat Singh and PW-6 Surinder Singh, very categorically stated that they had been disbursed `37,300/-, `18,350/- and `7,000/-, respectively. But, according to acquaintance roll Ex. PW-8/A-1, PW-2 Gurmit Singh had been disbursed `74,556/-, according to acquaintance roll Ex. PW-8/B-1, PW-3 Sangat Singh had been disbursed `36,649, and according to acquaintance roll Ex. PW-8/B-3, Balinder Singh, which is the alias name of PW-6 Surinder Singh, per his own testimony, had been disbursed `10,092/-. Respondent Budh Ram does not deny the genuineness of these documents or their seizure by the Police, during raid. His plea is that he had been preparing acquaintance roll for his personal record. Difference between the amounts, which the above-named three witnesses testified to have been disbursed to them and the amounts, which were shown to have been disbursed to them in the aforesaid documents Ex. PW-8/B-1, Ex. PW-8/B-3 and Ex. PW-8/B-5 is the amount that had been misappropriated. Total amount of misappropriation, as per this evidence, comes to `54,000/-, approximately. 12. Difference between the amounts, which the above-named three witnesses testified to have been disbursed to them and the amounts, which were shown to have been disbursed to them in the aforesaid documents Ex. PW-8/B-1, Ex. PW-8/B-3 and Ex. PW-8/B-5 is the amount that had been misappropriated. Total amount of misappropriation, as per this evidence, comes to `54,000/-, approximately. 12. Plea taken by respondent S.K. Gupta that he had disbursed the entire amount of compensation to respondent Budh Ram against cheques and that there are acquaintance rolls to this effect, i.e. Ex. PW-8/C-2, Ex. PW-8/C-3 and Ex. PW-8/C-4, is not correct. There is absolutely no evidence, indicating that the money had been paid by cheques to respondent Budh Ram, who was the attorney of the land-owners, including the above-named three claimant witnesses. Moreover, in case money had been disbursed by respondent S.K. Gupta to respondent Budh Ram, where was the need for calling the claimants to the residence of respondent S.K. Gupta, for disbursement of money by respondent Budh Ram, especially when respondent Budh Ram says that he had prepared the acquaintance rolls, regarding disbursement of money to the claimant witnesses, for his personal record. In any case, even if it be assumed, for argument sake, that money had been paid by cheques to Budh Ram, that appears to be an act of fabricating record to avoid consequences of distribution of short amount of money to claimants, in case any one of them lodged a complaint, after receipt of short amount of money. 13. Documents Ex. PW-8/C-2, Ex. PW-8/C-3 and Ex. PW-8/C-4 not only do not support the contention of respondent S.K. Gupta that the money had been disbursed to respondent Budh Ram, the attorney, through cheques, but also falsify this plea. These documents, which are in the nature of consolidated vouchers for payment, though purport to be in respect of payments made in April, 1995 or say before disbursement to the claimants in May, 1995, a close look at the entries shows that the date of some of the cheques is 14th November, 1994. Entries, pertaining to PW-3 Sangat Singh, PW-6 Balinder Singh alias Surinder Singh and PW-2 Gurmeet Singh are at Serial Nos.12, 15 and 23, respectively. Against these entries, date of cheques is not mentioned. Entries, pertaining to PW-3 Sangat Singh, PW-6 Balinder Singh alias Surinder Singh and PW-2 Gurmeet Singh are at Serial Nos.12, 15 and 23, respectively. Against these entries, date of cheques is not mentioned. Number of cheque in respect of PW-3 Sangat Singh is 571061, in respect of PW-6 Balinder Singh it is 571056 and in respect of PW-2 Gurmeet Singh it is 571065. There are other cheques in the same series, for example cheque No.571058 per entry No.16, the date of which is 14th November, 1995. Similarly, numbers of the cheques mentioned in entries No.4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are 571046, 571047, 571048, 171049, 571050 and the date is 14th November, 1995. Now, when the date of cheques bearing smaller numbers than those against which money is shown to have been disbursed to the above-named three witnesses, presumption is that cheques, in respect of the said witnesses, were not issued before 14th November, 1995. If the date of the cheques, against which money was disbursed to respondent Budh Ram, a attorney of various claimants, was 14th November, 1995, question of respondent Budh Ram disbursing the same on 20th May, 1995, when raid was conducted, does not arise. The plea, thus, is proved to be false. 14. It is submitted on behalf of respondent S.K. Gupta that claimants had not been called to his residence and this part of the story of the prosecution is false. We are not convinced by the submission. PW-7 Surinder Singh very categorically stated that he had been called to a residence, where both the respondents were present and there he was paid a sum of `7,000/- and his thumb impression was obtained against his alias name Balinder Singh. No cross-examination was directed qua the part of his testimony that both the respondents were present when the aforesaid amount of money was paid to him and his thumb impression was obtained. 15. No doubt, this witness did not elaborate whether the residence was of respondent S.K. Gupta or that of respondent Budh Ram, but there is unchallenged testimony of two Inspectors of Vigilance Department, namely PW-8 Shadi Ram and PW-17 Giri Raj, which proves that it was the residence of respondent S.K. Gupta. 15. No doubt, this witness did not elaborate whether the residence was of respondent S.K. Gupta or that of respondent Budh Ram, but there is unchallenged testimony of two Inspectors of Vigilance Department, namely PW-8 Shadi Ram and PW-17 Giri Raj, which proves that it was the residence of respondent S.K. Gupta. Both the witnesses stated that the party, headed by Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), of which they were members, went to the residence of respondent S.K. Gupta and it was outside his residence that PW-2 Gurmeet Singh was spotted with currency notes, wrapped in a Parna, which, on counting, were found to be of `37,300/-. No cross-examination qua this part of their testimony was directed. PW-18 Ram Lal, ASP, who was Deputy Superintendent of Police, at the relevant time, also testified that they went to the residence of respondent S.K. Gupta, where PW-2 Gurmeet Singh was seen coming out of his (respondent S.K. Gupta’s) residence. Though, it was suggested to him, in the cross-examination, on behalf of respondent S.K. Gupta, that he did not raid his premises, which suggestion, of course, he denied, but that would not prove the plea that disbursement did not take place at respondent S.K. Gupta’s residence at Paonta Sahib, especially when there is unchallenged testimony of two Inspectors to this effect, as noted above. 16. Above-discussed evidence apart, respondent Budh Ram, when being examined, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, did not deny that the Vigilance party raided the premises of respondent S.K. Gupta. A specific question, i.e. Question No.13, was put to him that PW-2 Gurmeet Singh came out of the residence of respondent S.K. Gupta, carrying money, which was counted and found to be `37,300/-. He did not deny that PW-2 Gurmeet Singh came out of the residence of respondent S.K. Gupta, though he did deny that the money was `37,300/-, saying that money had not been taken into possession in his presence. 17. Testimony of PW-2 Gurmeet Singh that he had been paid only `37,300/-, on 20th May, 1995, remains unchallenged. Respondent S.K. Gupta did not cross-examine him. Respondent Budh Ram, whose counsel cross-examined him, suggested to him that he had received the entire amount of money, to which he answered that he received only `37,300/- on that date and remaining amount had been paid to him by respondent Budh Ram, lateron. Respondent S.K. Gupta did not cross-examine him. Respondent Budh Ram, whose counsel cross-examined him, suggested to him that he had received the entire amount of money, to which he answered that he received only `37,300/- on that date and remaining amount had been paid to him by respondent Budh Ram, lateron. Testimony of the witness that he had been paid `37,300/-, on that date, is corroborated by the testimony of PW-8 Inspector Shadi Ram, PW-17 Inspector Giri Raj and Deputy Superintendent of Police PW-18 Ram Lal, all of whom have stated that the money, which PW-2 Gurmeet Singh was carrying, when he stepped out of the residence of respondent S.K. Gupta, counted `37,300/- only. And, they were not cross-examined qua this part of their testimony. 18. There is no reason for disbelieving the testimony of PW-3 Sangat Singh that he had been paid `18,350/- only, on 20th May, 1995. During the course of cross-examination of this witness, it was suggested to him, on behalf of respondent Budh Ram, that the remaining amount, which implies the amount of `36,649/-, as reflected in Ex. PW-8/B-1 less the amount of `18,350/-, paid on 20th May, 1995, had been paid subsequently, by respondent Budh Ram. Thus, this is a clear case of embezzlement, though temporary. In fact, the balance amount was paid only during the trial of the case, as stated by PW-3 Sangat Singh. The witness very categorically stated that the remaining amount was paid to him, after he received summons from the Court to appear as a witness. 19. PW-6 Surinder Singh stated that he had been paid `7,000/- against entry in Ex. PW-8/B-4. The amount entered in the aforesaid document is `10,092/-. This witness also stated that another sum of `1,000/- was paid to him, after he had received the summons from the Court. 20. 19. PW-6 Surinder Singh stated that he had been paid `7,000/- against entry in Ex. PW-8/B-4. The amount entered in the aforesaid document is `10,092/-. This witness also stated that another sum of `1,000/- was paid to him, after he had received the summons from the Court. 20. In view of the above-discussed evidence, while reversing the finding of the trial Court, being perverse, we hold that the respondents are proved to have conspired to deprive atleast three claimants, namely PW-2 Gurmeet Singh, PW-2 Sangat Singh and PW-6 Surinder Singh alias Balinder Singh, of substantial portions of money due to them, on account of compensation, the aggregated amount of which comes to `54,000/-, approximately, and pursuant to that conspiracy they (the respondents) deprived them of the aforesaid amount of `54,000/-, approximately, and misappropriated the said amount of money and to accomplish this illegal act of misappropriation they falsified the record, in the form of acquaintance rolls and thereby cheated the above-named three land owners. Consequently, appeal is accepted, judgment of acquittal delivered by the learned Special Judge, i.e. judgment dated 11th November, 2003 is set aside and the respondents are convicted as follows: Respondent S.K. Gupta He is convicted of offences, under Sections 120-B, 409, 477, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Respondent Budh Ram He is convicted of offences, under Sections 120-B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondents be produced, in person, on April, 2011, for being heard on the question of quantum of sentence.