Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 137 (MP)

O. P. Dixit v. State Of M. P.

2012-01-31

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA, S.R.WAGHMARE

body2012
JUDGMENT : A. K. SHRIVASTAVA, J. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 5-1-2000 passed by Special Judge, Ujjain in Special Case No. 01/1996, convicting the first appellant O. P. Dixit under sections 409 and 467 and further convicting second and third appellants under section 409/120-B of Indian Penal Code and further convicting first and second appellant under section 467 and further convicting all the appellants under section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the 'Act') and thereby sentencing them to suffer seven years RI each for the offence committed by them under the Indian Penal Code and fine of Rs. 20,000/- each with a further stipulation that in case the fine amount is not deposited they shall further undergo RI for one year each and further sentencing them to suffer two years RI each and fine of Rs. 5000/- each for the offence punishable under section 13(2) of the Act, in default further RI for three months each, this appeal has been preferred by the appellants under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. In brief the case of prosecution is that under a scheme namely "Jeevandhara" was launched by the State Government and under this scheme 60 Well were to be dug. Necessary sanction therefore was sent to Block Development Officer, Bhanpura in the year 1988-89. A sum of Rs. 7 lacs for the said Project was deposited in the Co-operative Central Bank, Mandsaur Branch, Bhanpura. Out of Rs. 7 lacs, Rs. 6,26,356/- was already distributed. However, a complaint was received that Govt. money has been misappropriated. An enquiry was conducted on the said complaint by the then Dy. Commissioner Narendra Singh Dubey and Executive Engineer Shri S. K. Mishra at Commissioner Office, Bhopal where it was found that seven Well were constructed and the amount was disbursed to those persons whose names were not in the IRD list. The construction of Well in the field of two persons were dug who were having land more than two hectares and one Well was already dug by taking loan from the Bhoo Vikas Bank. It was also informed that the construction work was started from the month of June-July to September within three months although that period was rainy season and it was not possible to construct the Well. It was also informed that the construction work was started from the month of June-July to September within three months although that period was rainy season and it was not possible to construct the Well. Out of 14 Well, no digging took place for 7 Well and for 5 Well only some pits were dug and that too were old and only 2 Well were dug. 3. It is the further case of prosecution that the then Block Development Officer-appellant No. 1 by submitting the fictitious progress and with conspiring with second and third appellant, the amount of Rs. 1,65,000/- which was sanctioned by the State Govt. to dug 14 Well, it was shown that Rs. 1,62,500/- have been paid to the requisite beneficiaries but a sum of Rs. 1,26,140/- was misappropriated. In the enquiry, it was also found that although it was shown that Rs. 12,000/- each was disbursed to the beneficiaries but according to the Sarpanch it was found that only Rs. 2000/- for each beneficiary was given. Although in the note-sheet it has been mentioned that payments were made to the beneficiaries by cross cheque but by deviating from the said procedure cash payment was made to them. Hence, out of total sanction amount of Rs. 7 lacs, a sum of Rs. 5 lacs were misappropriated by Block Development Officer (first appellant), Accountant (second appellant) and also by appellant No. 3. As per case of the prosecution, Sarpanch Devilal of Gram Panchayat, Panch Hari Singh also conspired with the aforesaid three accused persons. The enquiry report against these persons was submitted to the State Govt. who transmitted it to the Economic Offence Wing Bureau, Bhopal and thereafter the matter was investigated after registering the case. 4. During investigation it was found that the Govt. money has been misappropriated. Although it was shown that the Well were dug but it was found that to Chander, Raghunath and Munna only Rs. 2000/- was paid and the rest sanctioned amount which was to be paid to them in that regard, there was a collusion between second appellant and Sarpanch Devilal. The agriculturists Man Singh Udha and Gayaram were not entitled to receive the amount for digging the Well in their field because they were having land more than two hectares. 2000/- was paid and the rest sanctioned amount which was to be paid to them in that regard, there was a collusion between second appellant and Sarpanch Devilal. The agriculturists Man Singh Udha and Gayaram were not entitled to receive the amount for digging the Well in their field because they were having land more than two hectares. Similarly, agriculturist Ramlal was benefited for irrigation in the year 1987 and, therefore, the benefit to dug the Well under the scheme could not be made to him, but still he was benefited under the Scheme. The fictitious and bogus reports were prepared and by showing the false, fictitious and bogus payment, the thumb impressions of the beneficiaries were obtained. 5. It is the further case of the prosecution that from the office of Gramin Yantriki Sewa, Mandsaur, sanction to dug 45 Well was given but on physical verification it was found that a sum of Rs. 9000/- was given to Dhulji Banjara, Rs. 12,000/- each was paid to Karan Singh Banjara and Amar Singh Banjara respectively. Although a sum of Rs. 12,000/- for each person was sanctioned to dug the Well. On physical verification it was found that Well were not dug. Hence, the Block Development Officer (first appellant), Accountant (second appellant) and Sub Engineer (appellant No. 3) by showing fictitious payment in the official record have misappropriated the government money. 6. During investigation it was also found by the Investigating Agency that Villagers Ratanlal, Ramlal Kahar and Sardar of Village Rampuriya were to be benefitted by Rs. 12000/- for construction of the Well as well as to provide them wheat and according to the note sheet of the office dated 29-3-1989, Rs. 3000/- each was already paid to them but the Block Development Officer O. P. Dixit (appellant No. 1) did not issue any order in that regard to accountant second appellant Gulam Moinuddin Qureshi and he (second appellant) on its own made requisite payment for the cost of 20 quintals wheat to each villager. When the statement of these villagers were recorded they told that the wheat was never supplied to them. On the contrary by keeping them in dark and by playing fraud upon them their thumb impressions were obtained and thus the said amount has been misappropriated by second appellant Qureshi. In the investigation it was further found that for the Villager Bala Rs. On the contrary by keeping them in dark and by playing fraud upon them their thumb impressions were obtained and thus the said amount has been misappropriated by second appellant Qureshi. In the investigation it was further found that for the Villager Bala Rs. 2000/- was sanctioned and the Block Development Officer (first appellant) directed to make payment to him by cross cheque but the accountant only on the basis of T. 60 Form made the payment directly and hence he has misappropriated the money. Apart from this, an application dated 19-6-1990 of said Bala was found in the relevant file of the office that on account of rains the Well has sunk and, therefore, an amount of Rs. 7000/- which has been paid to him be condoned and in this regard his statement is also tagged in the relevant file of the office which was written by the second appellant Qureshi. But, only an amount of Rs. 5000/- was given to the said Villager Bala and the requisite place where the endorsement in respect of payment of second installment was left blank. Hence, the second appellant by taking undue advantage of the illiteracy of Bala by showing that a sum of Rs. 2000/- was paid on 2-4-1990 to him but the accountant Qureshi in the note-sheet dated 26-6-1989 put a note that each beneficiary should be benefited by Rs. 5000/-. Obviously, on 16-4-1990 Rs. 2000/- was never paid to Villager Bala. 7. During the investigation it was found that Block Development Officer (first appellant) sanctioned Rs. 12,000/- each for Villagers Ratan Singh and Ram Singh, R/o Village Dhaba but both of them have not come within the specified category of agriculturist to whom the money was to be paid and, therefore, these two persons could not have been benefitted by the Scheme and when the statement of these two Villagers were recorded they told that only a sum of Rs. 3000/- and Rs. 2000/- respectively have been paid to them and apart from this, neither the wheat nor its cost has been paid to them and in this regard accountant Qureshi (second appellant) by playing fraud upon them obtained their signatures, although according to the official record a sum of Rs. 12,000/- each has been shown to be paid to them. In this manner, the second appellant Qureshi manufactured fictitious documents and had misappropriated the government money Rs. 15,000/-. 12,000/- each has been shown to be paid to them. In this manner, the second appellant Qureshi manufactured fictitious documents and had misappropriated the government money Rs. 15,000/-. Similarly, despite there was no order to pay second installment to Ratan Singh and Ram Singh and it was only directed to make payment by cross cheque but by showing that cash payment was made to them, the government money has been misappropriated. 8. While collecting the evidence, the Investigating Agency further found that one of the beneficiary Manna resident of Village Dhaba obtained a loan of Rs. 14,500/- from District Co-operative Land Development Bank, Mandsaur Branch Bhanpura to dug the Well in his field (Survey No. 188/2) and later on again a sum of Rs. 12,000/- was sanctioned by the Block Development Officer, Bhanpura for the same survey number to dug the Well and hence he has misappropriated the money. Similarly, Ratan Singh, resident of Village Dhaba, from the same aforesaid Co-operative Bank of Bhanpura Branch on 28-3-1989 sanctioned a loan of Rs. 18,520/- to dug the Well in Survey number 539/1-B and on the same survey number again the Block Development Officer (first appellant) sanctioned Rs. 12,000/- and thus committed serious irregularities. Apart from this, during investigation it was found that a sum of only Rs. 5000/- was paid to these two Villagers namely Ratan Singh and Ram Singh and the third Villager Manna of Village Dhaba told that he did not receive any amount from the office of Block Development Officer and by playing fraud upon him, his signature have been obtained and in this manner by showing in the official record that payment has duly been made to him, the accused persons have misappropriated the government money. 9. During investigation it was also found that the beneficiaries were to be benefitted under the Scheme and for whom the particular amount was sanctioned, and out of that amount the second appellant Qureshi took Rs. 1200/- back from those beneficiaries and hence obtained bribe and when Villager Mathuralal refused to give any money, Rs. 5000/- which was paid to him was taken back and his name was cancalled from the list of beneficiaries and in his place the name of another Villager Ramibai to dug the Well was sanctioned and wrongly the amount was paid to her. 10. 5000/- which was paid to him was taken back and his name was cancalled from the list of beneficiaries and in his place the name of another Villager Ramibai to dug the Well was sanctioned and wrongly the amount was paid to her. 10. During the course of investigation it was found that in between 13-11-1986 to 31-3-1989 cash books were written by the accountant but there is no signature or verification of the Block Development Officer (first appellant) on those documents. Thereafter by cancelling the earlier endorsement again new cash books were prepared and by tampering the cash books it has been tried to adjust the amount which has been misappropriated by overwriting. All these documents were seized during the investigation and all of them are Exhibits P/2 to P/373. During the investigation it was found that the accused persons by manufacturing forged documents made only partial payment to the beneficiaries or had not at all given to some of them any money and used the government money for their own benefit or by benefiting the unqualified persons, the loan was sanctioned in their favour and at the spot Well were also not dug. 11. After investigation was over a charge-sheet was submitted on 25-6-1996. The learned Special Judge framed charges mentioned in para 1 of the impugned judgment. Needless to say, all the accused persons including the appellants denied the charges and requested for trial. Their defence is that they have been falsely implicated and the proceedings which have been done by them are quite legal and the payment has been made to the Villagers according to the norms fixed by the State Government under the scheme. After examining the prosecution witnesses, the accused persons examined Madan Singh Hada (DW-1) and Bheru Singh (DW-2) in their defence. 12. The learned Special Judge on the basis of the evidence placed on record came to hold that charges are not proved against accused No. 3 Mohanlal and accused No. 5 Hari Singh and eventually acquitted them from all the charges. However, learned Special Judge came to hold that the present appellants have committed the offences which we have already mentioned in para of this judgment. 13. In this manner this appeal has been filed by the appellants assailing their judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 14. However, learned Special Judge came to hold that the present appellants have committed the offences which we have already mentioned in para of this judgment. 13. In this manner this appeal has been filed by the appellants assailing their judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 14. Shri Jaisingh, learned senior counsel appearing for the first and third appellants submitted that looking to the entire evidence it is difficult to hold that these two appellants had any role in the entire mischief and even if the documentary and oral evidence is stretched to a great extent, only this much can be said that some departmental irregularities have been committed by these two appellants and for that they should be subjected to departmental enquiry but anyhow they cannot be made liable for committing any offence for which they have been convicted. In support of his contention, learned senior counsel placed heavy reliance on the decision of Supreme Court C. Chenga Reddy and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 3390 and hence it has been put forth by him that by allowing the appeal of the appellants No. 1 and 3 they be acquitted from all the charges. 15. Shri Ashish Vyas, learned counsel appearing for appellant No. 2 Gulam Moinuddin Qureshi has also argued that looking to the evidence placed on record, at the most this appellant could be made liable to face the departmental enquiry for not adopting due procedure of the Department but he cannot be prosecuted and punished for the aforesaid offences. In support of his contention learned counsel has placed heavy reliance on the decision of Supreme Court Abdulla Mohammed Pagarkar etc. vs. State (Union Territory of Goa. Daman and Diu) AIR 1980 SC 499 . It has also been contended by him that if this Court comes to the conclusion that some offences have been committed by the appellant, the punishment part may be modified and in this regard learned counsel has placed reliance on the Division Bench decision of this Court (Indore Bench) in M. H. Shrangi vs. Union of India passed in Criminal Appeal No. 928/2000 decided on 17-1-2012. 16. 16. On the other hand, Shri Bohra learned Public Prosecutor argued in support of the impugned judgment and submitted that there is overwhelming evidence on record to convict the appellants and there is no reason to interfere in the judgment either on the merit or on the sentence part and hence it has been prayed that this appeal be dismissed. 17. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that this appeal deserves to be allowed. 18. M. L. Sindhi (PW-1) is a retired Joint Collector and at the relevant point of time he was serving on the post of Dy. Collector at Mandsaur and he has proved the covering letter Ex. P/1 which was sent in compliance to the query made by the Vigilance Department. Dhanna (PW-2), Chander (PW-3), Ramlal son of Chunnaji (PW-4), Durga (PW-5), Rama (PW-6), Udaji (PW-7), Rughnath (PW-8), Ram Singh (PW-15), Ratanlal (PW-16), Mannalal (PW-17), Ramlal son of Narainji (PW-18), Prabhu (PW-19) and Nanuram (PW-27) are 13 Villagers (the beneficiaries) for whom the government money was to be disbursed. The prosecution has not examined the other beneficiaries. We would marshall the evidence of these witnesses in detail from para 37 onwards of the judgment. 19. Banwarilal (PW-9) is an accountant of Janpad Panchayat, Bhanpura and according to him on 12-3-1992 the record mentioned in Ex. P/10 was seized from the office of Janpad Panchayat and the seizure memo Ex. P/10 has been signed by this witness. Similarly certain more record of the office was seized and the description of the said record is mentioned in the seizure memo, Ex. P/11 which bears his signatures. Thus, from the statement of this witness only the seizure of certain record of the office of Janpad Panchayat has been proved and nothing more. 20. D. L. Chauhan (PW-10) is an Inspector in the office of State Economic Offence Investigation Bureau and he has proved the articles (official record of Janpad Panchayat) which he seized. Although he has stated that interpolation in the document was made by appellant No. 2 but, his statement cannot be believed because this witness is the inspector of respondent and not the officer or the employee of the department of appellants and, therefore, it cannot be said that he is acquainted with the handwriting of any of the appellant. 21. Narendra Kumar Dubey (PW-11) is an important witness. 21. Narendra Kumar Dubey (PW-11) is an important witness. True, at the relevant point of time he was serving on the post of Dy. Commissioner in the office of Commissioner Development at Bhopal and according to this witness the local MLA of Village Bhanpura made a complaint in respect to illegalities and irregularities committed in digging the Well under the scheme of 'Jeevandhara' of the State Government and on receiving the complaint the Commissioner deputed this witness to make enquiry in the matter departmentally. This witness along with Executive Engineer (Rural) A. K. Mishra made spot verification of the Well and submitted his report to the Commissioner who, after taking into account the report found the matter to be serious and referred the matter to EOW (Economic Offence Wing). This witness has proved his report Ex. P/13 which was forwarded to the Economic Offence Investigation Bureau. According to this witness, during enquiry which he made in the Village, he along with local Patwari, Block Development Officer (first appellant), Sub-engineer (appellant No. 3) in presence of the Villagers (beneficiaries of the Scheme) went to the spot and also recorded the statement of the beneficiaries at the spot and attached their statements along with the report. It would be relevant to mention here that neither local MLA on whose complaint the case was enquired and report was submitted to the respondent, nor Executive Engineer A. K. Mishra who inspected the spot has been examined by the prosecution. 22. Vishnu Shankar Sharma (PW-12) is the accountant and this witness on the order of Commissioner, went to Village Bhanpura and inspected the relevant record of Block Development Office. 23. Hari Singh (PW-13) is a hostile witness. In the year 1994 this witness was serving on the post of Assistant Engineer and has proved a letter Ex. P/19 written by him which also bears his signatures. 24. Hemant Kumar (PW-14) is the Sarpanch of the Village Dhua which comes within the territory of Block Development Office Bhanpura. According to this witness the names of nine Villagers were sanctioned who were to be benefitted under the "Jeevandhara" Scheme and he has also named those Villagers. 25. Pradeep Hingad (PW-20) is the Assistant Development Officer and was posted in Bhanpura from year 1983 to 1992 and according to him the respondents seized certain documents from the office and the seizure memo Ex. 25. Pradeep Hingad (PW-20) is the Assistant Development Officer and was posted in Bhanpura from year 1983 to 1992 and according to him the respondents seized certain documents from the office and the seizure memo Ex. P/10 which was prepared bears his signatures and by the seizure memo certain documents were seized. 26. Narendra Kumar Shrivastava (PW-21) is the Executive Engineer and on 26-5-1992 he was serving on the post of Assistant Engineer in the office of Commissioner Development and was also having charge of Dy. Commissioner and the charge of Scheme 'Jawahar Rozgar Yojna' as well. The respondents sought certain documents under the said Scheme which this witness along with his covering letter Ex. P/365 supplied those documents by signing the covering letter. The letter Ex. P/365 bears his signatures and by this letter he sent several documents running to 47 pages. According to this witness, the documents which he sent includes enquiry report Ex. P/318 and the relevant information in respect of beneficiaries related to the Well. 27. Mahesh Kumar Dhanotia(PW-22) is another Sub-Engineer who was posted during the period July, 1984 to June, 1993 in the Block Development Office, Bhanpura and under Scheme "Jeevandhara Yojna" the construction work which was to be performed was being investigated by him and according to this witness he was following the verdict of the Block Development Officer. 28. Harisingh Raghuvanshi (PW-23) is the Inspector of respondents and according to this witness the charge-sheet was submitted under his signatures. 29. Gangaram Dhakad (PW-24) is a Lower Division Clerk in the Tahsil Bhanpura and according to him from Block Development Officer B. L. Parmar, the Investigating officer seized the documents details of which are mentioned in Ex. P/18 and the seizure memo bears his signatures. 30. J. S. Jadhav (PW-25) is an employee (Assistant Grade-III) of the department of Grameen Development and was serving in Secretariat Office at Bhopal and at the relevant point of time he was serving in the Budget section at Bhopal. According to him the Secretary of this department was Mr. R. Parshuram and he is acquainted with his signatures. According to this witness at Ex. P/315 at places A to A and B to B bears the signatures of Secretary of the Ministry of Grameen Development. 31. Babulal (PW-26) is an accountant of Bhoomi Vikas Bank and according to this witness letter Ex. R. Parshuram and he is acquainted with his signatures. According to this witness at Ex. P/315 at places A to A and B to B bears the signatures of Secretary of the Ministry of Grameen Development. 31. Babulal (PW-26) is an accountant of Bhoomi Vikas Bank and according to this witness letter Ex. P/299 has been issued under his signatures and he gave necessary information how much amount of loan was given to Villager Mannalal Khema which was sought by the Economic Offence Bureau and according to this witness Villager Mannalal was benefited by loan of Rs. 9000/- to dug new Well although the loan of Rs. 14,520/- was sanctioned along with installation of electric motor. 32. H. C. Soni (PW-28) is Inspector of the respondent and he has proved the registration of offence on Ex. P/15. 33. B. L. Parmar (PW-29) is the Block Development Officer posted in March, 1992 in Village Bhanpura. According to this witness on 12-3-1992 the Inspector of Economic Offence Bureau Chander came to his office and asked this witness to provide the relevant record related to 'Jeevandhara' Scheme and on being asked by him the entire record was handed over to him. This witness has proved his signatures on the relevant documents. 34. The last witness Govind Singh (PW-30) is the Dy. S.P. (Administration) in the establishment of respondent and has proved certain documents which were seized during the investigation. 35. The aforesaid witnesses are the total witnesses who have been examined by the prosecution and the gist of their testimony we have mentioned hereinabove. The purpose of mentioning the gist of the testimony of each and every witness is that the prosecution has not taken any pains to examine any witness who could prove that what duty was assigned to which of the appellant. The prosecution has not even examined any Senior Officer of the Department who could say and explain the entire set-up and the procedure of the office and the duty assigned to each appellant. Learned Public Prosecutor could not point out the record in order to show the set-up and procedure of the office and their duties assigned to each and every appellant. Although Joint Collector M. L. Sindhi (PW-1), who at the relevant point of time was serving on the post of Dy. Collector at Mandsaur, Dy. Learned Public Prosecutor could not point out the record in order to show the set-up and procedure of the office and their duties assigned to each and every appellant. Although Joint Collector M. L. Sindhi (PW-1), who at the relevant point of time was serving on the post of Dy. Collector at Mandsaur, Dy. Commissioner of the office of Commissioner Development Bhopal Assistant Development Officer Pradeep Hingad (PW-20), Executive Engineer N. K. Shrivastava (PW-21) and Sub-Engineer Mahesh Kumar Dhanotia (PW-22) are the witnesses of the department and some of them are quite senior and some are the junior employees but they have also not stated any set-up or procedure of the office. There is no iota of any evidence that first appellant O. P. Dixit, second appellant Gulam Moinuddin and appellant No. 3 Mohanlal who at the relevant point of time were serving on the post of Block Development Officer, Accountant and Sub-Engineer respectively, what type of the duties they were actually discharging and whether their work was being supervised and checked by any Superior Officer or not similar there is no evidence of the prosecution that who was drawing or disbursing officers and further whether these powers were conferred to first appellant or not or whether these powers were vested in some other officer superior to that of first appellant. According to us it is very much essential because to constitute an offence under section 409, Indian Penal Code the prosecution is obliged to prove the following ingredients :- (i) The accused must be a public servant; (ii) He must have been entrusted, in such capacity, with property; (iii) He must have committed breach of trust in respect of such property. Hence, unless and until there is cogent evidence on record that the money was entrusted to first appellant O. P. Dixit and he has committed breach of trust in respect of that money merely because he is a public servant it cannot be said that he has committed the offence under section 409, Indian Penal Code unless and until aforesaid two other essential ingredients are also proved against him. The question now hinges is that whether the bank account was being operated under the signature of this Officer or the same was being operated by any other Officer senior to him. The question now hinges is that whether the bank account was being operated under the signature of this Officer or the same was being operated by any other Officer senior to him. It is very much necessary for the simple reason that if the bank account was being operated by any other Superior Officer who is above appellant No. 1, it cannot be said that money was entrusted to the first appellant unless and until there is evidence on record that the said Senior Officer entrusted the official government money to him (the first appellant). According to us only when it is proved that the money was entrusted to the first appellant, it was for him to explain that how and in what manner the said money has been disbursed by him and to whom. The same preposition of law is equally applicable for the disbursement of the cash to the beneficiaries and in that case also it was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove first that the cash money which was to be disbursed to the beneficiaries was entrusted to the first appellant and then only he could be made liable to give explanation that how and in what manner and to whom he has disbursed the cash amount and whether the said amount has been disbursed in terms of the scheme under which the beneficiaries were to be benefited. But there is no evidence of the prosecution in this regard and the learned Public Prosecutor also could not point out the testimony of any prosecution witness who has deposed in the aforesaid terms. Hence the charge under section 409, Indian Penal Code against first appellant and charge under section 409/120B against other appellants are not proved. 36. In order to constitute the offence under section 467 of the Indian Penal Code two things are required firstly the accused must have forged a document and secondly the document must be one of the classes specified in this section. It be seen that first appellant has been convicted for the offences under section 409 and 467, Indian Penal Code apart from section 13(2) of the Act. While the other two appellants have been convicted under section 409/120-B, Indian Penal Code and also under section 13(2) of the Act. No where it has been proved that alleged entries in the cash book etc. While the other two appellants have been convicted under section 409/120-B, Indian Penal Code and also under section 13(2) of the Act. No where it has been proved that alleged entries in the cash book etc. has been made by first appellant or any of the appellant because the interpolation and overwriting is in whose handwriting the prosecution has not laid down any evidence in this regard. No particular witness is saying that the interpolation and the overwriting etc. in the figures of the cash books or on other official record was made by which appellant and how in what manner that particular witness is acquainted with his handwriting etc. The prosecution has also not examined any handwriting expert who had examined the disputed overwriting and interpolation in the words and figures of the cash books and other official record etc. with the admitted handwriting of any of the appellants and, therefore, according to us it cannot be said that first appellant O. P. Dixit has committed the offence under section 409 or under section 467 of the Indian Penal Code. Once it is held that first appellant cannot be convicted in absence of any evidence under section 409 and 467, Indian Penal Code, certainly the other two appellants cannot be convicted under section 409/120-B, Indian Penal Code and, therefore, all the three appellants cannot be convicted under section 13(2) of the Act for the simple reason that the prosecution has not proved that they have committed any criminal misconduct. 37. The learned trial Court in para 16 of the impugned judgment has held that out of 13 beneficiaries from the statement of Dhanna (PW-2), Chander (PW-3), Ramlal son of Chunaji (PW-4), Durga (PW-5), Rama (PW-6), Udaji (PW-7), Rughnath (PW-8), it is not proved that any amount less than Rs. 12,000/- was given to them and the receipt of bigger amount was obtained. Similarly, in para 30 the learned trial Court has given finding that it cannot be said that entire case which has been prepared is forged. In para 31 also learned trial Court has given a finding that after making payment of Rs. 1250/- to the beneficiaries the cash amount was obtained back cannot be believed for the reasons given in the impugned judgment. In para 31 also learned trial Court has given a finding that after making payment of Rs. 1250/- to the beneficiaries the cash amount was obtained back cannot be believed for the reasons given in the impugned judgment. In para 34 learned trial Court has given specific finding in favour of first appellant O. P. Dixit that he selected seven beneficiaries wrongly and they were not coming within the norms which were fixed by the State Government to provide benefit to the beneficiaries. Clear finding has been recorded that there is no document on record in order to hold that contrary to the norms fixed by the State Government they were benefited. In para 36 the learned trial Court has held that one of the charge against the first appellant is that he benefited Uda (PW-7), Mansingh and Gangaram although they were not required to be benefited under the scheme because they were having land more than 2 hectares but specifically it has been held that no such document has been filed and proved nor there is any cogent evidence in this regard and hence this charge is not at all proved against first appellant. In the same manner in para 37 it has been held by learned trial Court that beneficiaries Sardar, Bala and Ratansingh son of Mokamsingh were benefited by lesser amount which is not proved because these beneficiaries have not been examined. In para 38 the learned trial Court has held that there is one more charge against first appellant that the beneficiary Manna has been wrongly benefited because he already obtained loan from Bhumi Vikas Bank for the construction of the well and similarly is that of Ratansingh son of Mokamsingh because his land was already sanctioned from Bhumi Vikas Adhikosh, but no evidence has been adduced by the prosecution to prove these charges that first appellant was having knowledge that they have already been benefited by some other Institution and, hence, the learned trial Court categorically gave finding in favour of first appellant. 38. In para 39 learned trial Court further came to hold that after the loan of Rs. 1200/- was sanctioned to Mohanlal Chamar and the second respondent after making payment of first instalment made demand of bribe from him but when it was not paid his sanction was cancelled, has not been proved because Mohanlal has not been examined by the prosecution. 1200/- was sanctioned to Mohanlal Chamar and the second respondent after making payment of first instalment made demand of bribe from him but when it was not paid his sanction was cancelled, has not been proved because Mohanlal has not been examined by the prosecution. 39. The learned trial Court has not found the case of prosecution to be proved in any respect that the 13 beneficiaries who have been examined were not benefited in terms of the scheme of the Government and the government money has been misappropriated except the two beneficiaries out of these 13, and they are Ramsingh (PW-15) and Ratanlal son of Ramlal (PW-16). According to learned trial Court these two witnesses have stated that the requisite amount of the wheat was not paid to them. But from the testimony of Ramsingh (PW-15) it is found that Rs. 4,000/- was sanctioned for him and the said loan was paid to him in two instalments. According to him how much amount was sanctioned for him he did not know and except Rs. 4,000/- no other payment was made to him. The question arises that which of the appellant had not paid the said amount to him or by showing that the entire amount which was sanctioned to this villager has been paid to him, in whose handwriting such an endorsement was made in the cash book etc. there is no evidence on record. Similar is the case of Ratanlal (PW-16) and, therefore, in absence of any evidence that interpolation etc. was made in the cash book etc. by the first appellant or second appellant they cannot be convicted under section 467, Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Court has already acquitted the appellant No. 3 from the charge under section 467, Indian Penal Code. We have already held hereinabove that first appellant cannot be convicted under section 409, Indian Penal Code and, therefore, other two appellants also cannot be convicted under section 409/120-B, Indian Penal Code. For the similar reasons, because that no criminal misconduct has been proved against any of the appellants, their conviction under section 13(2) of the Act is also set-aside. 40. Resultantly, this appeal succeeds and is, hereby, allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order is, hereby, set-aside and the appellants are acquitted from all the charges. They are on bail, their bail bonds are discharged.