JUDGMENT: 1. MRINAL Kanti Sinha, J : This appeal has been directed against the Judgment and Order passed by Sri S.K. Das, learned Judge, Midnapore 1st Special court, (Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Midnapore) in Special Trial Case No.3 of 1984 (arising out of G.R. Case No.189 of 1977), on 14.07.1988, whereby the learned Judge found the appellant/accused guilty under Sections 409, 465, 467, 471 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code and convicted him under the said sections and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code only, but passed no separate sentence for the rest proven charges. 2. IT was the case of the prosecution that the appellant/accused, the then Anchal Pradhan of Anchal No.1, Sultanpur, Ghatal Block, took charge of re-sinking or repairing four derelict tube wells in March, 1977, and filed documents showing expenditure of Rs.850/- for the work done. But Mr. R.I. Singh, Sub-Divisional Officer, Ghatal on personal inspection of the site on 18.05.1977 found that nothing was done regarding the work of the said tube wells, Sri R. I. Singh, the then Sub-Divisional Officer, Ghatal, forwarded his report to the Officer-in-Charge of Ghatal Police Station for investigation and taking necessary action on 27.05.1977 vide Memo No.216C dated 27.05.1977. Inspector Santosh Kumar Chakraborty, the then Officer-in-Charge of Ghatal Police Station, started Ghatal Police Station Case No.18 dated 28.05.1977 in that regard after receiving the said complaint and treating the same as F.I.R and endorsed the case to Sub Inspector S.K. Lahiri for investigation, who after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against the appellant/accused receiving reports of the finger-print expert Kamal Kumar Mukherjee and handwriting expert Shankar Prasad Sinha. Thereafter the appellant/accused faced trial before the learned Judge, 1st Special Court, Midnapore, on the aforesaid allegations. 3. IT appears that after receipt of the F.I.R. from the S.D.O., Ghatal, G.R. Case No.189 of 1977 was initiated under Sections 406/477A/420 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation into the case police submitted a chargesheet against the appellant/accused under Sections 409, 467, 471 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code. 3. IT appears that after receipt of the F.I.R. from the S.D.O., Ghatal, G.R. Case No.189 of 1977 was initiated under Sections 406/477A/420 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation into the case police submitted a chargesheet against the appellant/accused under Sections 409, 467, 471 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter charges under Section 409, 465, 467, 471 and 477A were framed against the accused on the basis of the FIR lodged by the defacto complainant, which were read over and explained to the accused/appellant, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, and then evidence of the P.Ws. were taken. 4. IN support of its case the prosecution examined 20 witnesses, who were cross-examined by the defence, and submitted some documents, which have been marked Exhibits. Thereafter the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. From the trend of cross-examination as well as from the examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the defence case appears to be the denial of the prosecution case. It was also the case of the defence that a tube well 'mistri' named Banamali Basrdolui undertook the repairing work of the derelict tube wells and an amount of Rs.850/- was paid to him as advance and he admitted receipt of the said amount. It was also the case of the defence that as the B.D.O.of Ghatal had grudge against the appellant/accused on the ground that he did not comply with his request to sink a tube well in a vicinity of his father-in-law's house, so the appellant/accused was entangled in the said case. The defence examined no D.W. nor submitted any document in support of its case. Thereafter hearing the argument of the parties Judgment was delivered by the learned Trial Court. 5. MR. Sudipta Moitra, learned Counsel for the appellant/accused has assailed the impugned judgment and order on the ground that the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judge of the Court below is against evidence. Thereafter hearing the argument of the parties Judgment was delivered by the learned Trial Court. 5. MR. Sudipta Moitra, learned Counsel for the appellant/accused has assailed the impugned judgment and order on the ground that the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judge of the Court below is against evidence. It has also been submitted that the learned Court below overlooked the lacunae in the prosecution case and evidence and practically based its finding on the evidence of P.W.17, the Block Development Officer, Ghatal, and P.W.s 14, 15, 16, and did not at all consider the evidence of P.Ws 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10, who deposed that P.W.18 Banamali Bardolui was actually paid a sum of Rs.850/- for repairing the defunct tube wells, who actually performed that job and admitted receipt of the said amount as remuneration, but as under ground water level receded by the time when the B.D.O and S.D.O concerned inspected the locale, so they could not ascertain then as to why water was not coming out as the underground water level receded then. Moreover, it took sometime for P.W.18 Banamali Bardolui to complete the work beginning the same before March 31, 1977, as there was apprehension of refunding back of the money by the end of that financial year. The Block Development Officer, Ghatal, or the S.D.O., Ghatal, themselves not being an expert, did not take any expert with them at the time of their alleged visit there to ascertain the activity of the said tube wells, though it has been stated by the P.W.5 and P.W.18 that during summer the water level of that area recedes. All these matters were stated by the appellant/accused at the time of his examination under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, but his statement was not considered by the learned Trial Court. Some witnesses like P.Ws 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10 and 15 stated about the re-sinking of tube wells there, but none of them has been declared hostile by the prosecution nor there is any such case that they have been gained over. Some witnesses like P.Ws 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10 and 15 stated about the re-sinking of tube wells there, but none of them has been declared hostile by the prosecution nor there is any such case that they have been gained over. As some of the P.Ws like P.Ws 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10 and 15 have stated about the fact of re-sinking or repairing of the derelict tube wells by said Banamali Bardolui, so they have been depicted as defence witnesses by the learned Trial Court, which is not at all just and proper. Rather, it can be ascertained from the evidence of those P.Ws that there was some truth in the defence version, which was absolutely ignored by the learned Trial Court at the time of passing his Judgment, and this fact also raises a suspicion about the genuineness of the prosecution case. Moreover, though there is allegation against a public servant, yet no sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was obtained before his prosecution. It also appears that the appellant/accused has undergone a protracted trial for more than 35 years and has suffered mental agony during that period and the sentence given to him by the learned Trial Court was not also just and proper. 6. LEARNED counsel for the accused has also submitted that the proof of entrustment of dominion over the property is essential in case of allegation of criminal breach of trust, and has relied upon the decision reported in AIR 1965 SC 1433 in the case of Velji Raghabji Patel Vs. State of Maharastra in this regard. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the appointment of the Panchayat Pradhan and other members are made by the State Government as per the provisions of West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973, and as per the provision of Section 213 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973, the State Government may remove the Pradhan or Upa Pradhan, and from that point of view if they are termed as public servant, then entrustment of dominion over the property in question is essential for proving the case of criminal breach of trust. 7. 7. LEARNED counsel for the appellant/accused has also submitted that it appears that some material witnesses like Kanailal Chowdhury, Shibkumar Mukherjee, Samir Chakraborty, Haripada Mondal, Tulsi Rana, Kshudiram Majhi, Bibhuti Bhusan Chakraborty, Sanatan Dalui Ahit Kumar Dolui, Haradhan Dolui and others named in the FIR, whose written statements were taken by the S.D.O., Ghatal, as per the FIR, have not been examined, while some of the prosecution witnesses have deposed against the prosecution case, but they have not been declared hostile by the prosecution nor there is any such case that they have been gained over. The evidence of those P.Ws. as well as the other circumstances bring about a probability of the defence case which raises serious doubt about the genuineness of the prosecution case. 8. ON the other hand Mr. Pran Gopal Das, learned counsel for the respondent State has submitted that no sanction was required in the present case for prosecution of the appellant/accused in-as much-as the provisions of section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code are applicable only when the accused is such a public servant who is not removable without the sanction of the government, but in the instant case no such sanction is required for prosecution of the appellant/accused, and Section 12 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973, has stated under which circumstances and how the Anchal Pradhan can be removed. In such case only a majority of members by resolution can remove the Pradhan. No sanction is required in such case and so the trial of the appellant was regular. 9. LEARNED counsel for the respondent-State has also submitted that it was not the choice or authority of the Pradhan alone to take decision regarding repair of tube wells, and resolution by other members is also required but no such resolution was taken in this case. It also appears that resolution was taken on 22.05.1977 for the sinking of tube wells but long before that Banamali was allegedly given full payment before 31.03.1977. Why money was paid long before the work done without any resolution in that regard has not been explained. It was not also the choice or authority of the Pradhan alone. 10. It also appears that resolution was taken on 22.05.1977 for the sinking of tube wells but long before that Banamali was allegedly given full payment before 31.03.1977. Why money was paid long before the work done without any resolution in that regard has not been explained. It was not also the choice or authority of the Pradhan alone. 10. LEARNED counsel for the respondent-State has also submitted that the vouchers have been denied by persons by whom those were allegedly given and those have been found to be forged, and prior to March, 1977 there was no resolution for sanction to spend the money. 11. THE points to be considered in this appeal are whether the learned Judge was correct in his finding that the appellant/accused committed the alleged offences and whether the learned Trial court was legally justified in his Judgment and order of conviction and sentence against the present appellant/accused or not ? 12. THE prosecution case as well as the impugned judgment and order are to be judged on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties and recorded by the learned Trial Court. It appears that in this case the prosecution has examined 20 witnesses out of whom P.W.1 Saroj Kumar Banerjee, and P.W.2 Panchanan Roy are teachers and are witnesses of seizure of cash book and minute book and P.W.3 Gopal Chandra Majhi is also a seizure list witness, who knows the accused. P.W.4 Biswanath Roy, being a resident of Sultanpur was a member of Anchal Panchayat till 1977 and as per his evidence their Anchal Pradhan sanctioned Rs.850/- on 22.05.1977, for re-sinking of four tube wells at Sultanpur. P.W.5 Asim Mondal is a post-master of Sultanpur and as per his evidence there is a tube well near the post office and at the time of enquiry by the S.D.O. Ghatal, and B.D.O. of the local block in 1977 the tube well was in working condition. P.W.6 Sonatan Dolai, P.W.7 Ajit Kurel and P.W.8 Prankrishna Roy have been tendered by the prosecution without examination. P.W.9 Nandalal Roy was Inspector of Cooperative Societies Ghatal Sub Division from 1976 to 1981 in presence of whom 8 vouchers were seized by Darogababu. P.W.10 Manoranjan Roy is a member of Sultanpur Anchal and as per his evidence on 22.05.1977 a resolution was made in their Anchal office for re-sinking of four tube wells. P.W.9 Nandalal Roy was Inspector of Cooperative Societies Ghatal Sub Division from 1976 to 1981 in presence of whom 8 vouchers were seized by Darogababu. P.W.10 Manoranjan Roy is a member of Sultanpur Anchal and as per his evidence on 22.05.1977 a resolution was made in their Anchal office for re-sinking of four tube wells. P.W.11 Kamal Kumar Mukherjee is a senior Finger Print Expert attached to Finger Print Bureau, C.I.D., West Bengal, who examined some documents sent by I.O and came to the conclusion scientifically. P.W.12 Santosh Kumar Chakraborty is the Inspector of Police, who received the written complaint from the S.D.O. Ghatal on 28.05.1977 and started Ghatal P.S. Case No.18 of the same date, wrote out and signed formal F.I.R and endorsed the case to S.I S.K. Lahiri for investigation. P.W.13 Rabindranath Ghosh is the Secretary of the office of Sultanpur Anchal Panchayat under Ghatal P.S. in 1977 who has identified the accused as the then Pradhan of the said Anchal Panchayat and as per his evidence eight vouchers were written by him and he actually gave those vouchers to Banamali Bardolui, who was re-sinking the tube wells, and subsequently those were returned to him by the accused and he entered the same in the cash book and BDO Ghatal called for the same from him and took those vouchers, but he has no personal knowledge about the resinking of the tube wells. P.W.14 Kachi Das is a resident of Sultanpur but as per his evidence he does not know the accused and does not know the Anchal Pradhan of Sultanpur Anchal and he did not perform any work regarding re-sinking of tube wells of Sultanpur and did not get any payment for such tube well sinking and never put his L.T.I on the vouchers (Exbts.2/8 to 2/15). P.W.15 named Jugal Khan being a resident of Sultanpur knows the accused as Pradhan of Sultanpur Anchal and P.W.15 worked in tube well re-sinking at Sultanpur as a 'mistri' being employed by Banamali Bardolui, and Banamali Bardolui obtained L.T.I.on some papers and made payment to him and other labourers like him get their remuneration from Banamali after putting L.T.I or signature on the papers given by him and as per his evidence there are a few other persons in their village named Kochi Das. As per his evidence P.W.16 Madan Santra never worked in any repairing or re-sinking of tube well at Sultanpur and he never got any payment for such work and he cannot say if there is any other person in their village named Madan Santra. P.W.17 Tarashankar Ghosh has deposed that in May 1977 he was a B.D.O. of Ghatal and he submitted a report before the S.D.O, Ghatal, regarding misappropriation of Rs.850/- by the appellant/accused, and Sri R.I. Singh, the then S.D.O. of Ghatal, lodged complaint (Exbt.6) in official course of business and as per his evidence the appellant/accused submitted bills for re-sinking of four tube wells in March, 1977, and claimed Rs.850/- for that, but subsequently he received complaint that no such re-sinking was done and on the basis of complaint he made spot enquiry and ascertained that no resinking in fact was done for which he submitted a report to the S.D.O., Ghatal, in that regard. P.W.18 is Banamali Bardolui, who has deposed that he is a tube well 'mistri' and the appellant/accused is known to him and under the appellant/accused he was engaged to do tube well work on 31.03.1977 and he granted vouchers on receipt of payment and he has denied that he deposed falsely to save the accused and he has been declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.19 Shankar Prosad Sinha has deposed that he being Deputy Superintendent of police worked as examiner of documents, C.I.D. West Bengal, from 1963 to 1985 and he received some documents for examination and submitted report in connection with Ghatal P.S. Case No.18 dated 25.05.1977 and as per his opinion the signatures of Banamali Bardolui in four receipts were not written by the writer of the specimen and those signatures of Sri Banamali Bardolui were the products of divergent writing habits. P.W.20 Saroj Kumar Lahiri is the I.O. of the case, who investigated the case, met the local S.D.O., who instructed him to keep in touch with the B.D.O. and he had been to the B.D.O. Sri Tarashankar Ghosh, seized cash book, meeting resolution book from the appellant/accused, recorded statement of witnesses, seized eight vouchers from the B.D.O. on 20.07.1977 under seizure list, obtained specimen signatures of Banamali Bardolui, sent specimen signatures and thumb impressions of other persons to the handwriting expert, C.I.D. West Bengal, received report from the handwriting expert and after completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused, but he did not requisition service of any tube well expert and he denied the defence suggestion that he has been misguided in collecting the materials in this case. The informant Sri R.I. Singh has not been examined as witness in this case. Some documents filed by the prosecution have been marked Exhibits. 13. IT appears that the learned Trial Court has observed in his Judgment that the ".....the evidence of P.W.17 the then B.D.O. Ghatal, clearly and unmistakably points out that on spot verification, no sign of repair could detected and it can be said safely that at any rate till the date of the inspection on 18.05.1977 no repair work was taken out (P.W.17 at Page 1 and Exbt. 6)". As per the evidence of P.W.17 he did not take any expert with him and there is no evidence also that P.W.17 himself is an expert regarding tube well. In that case how he ascertained that the tube wells in question were not repaired or resunk or were not functioning, when as per the evidence of P.W 5, who has not been declared hostile by the prosecution, and P.W.18 April is a dry period in Ghatal and water level goes down in their locality in summer months and it is difficult to get water from the local tube wells in the dry season in summer months. 14. 14. IT also appears that as per the evidence of P.Ws 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10, who have not been declared hostile by the prosecution nor there is any suggestion that they deposed falsely, that Banamali Bardolui P.W.18 was entrusted with the job of resinking or repairing of four tube wells at Sultanpur by the accused according to the direction of P.W.10, a member of Sultanpur Anchal, and others, who re-sunk or repaired those four tube wells at Sultanpur shortly after 31.3.1977, though Banamali began working before 31.3.1977, for which Rs.850/- was given to said Banamali Bardolui for re-sinking of four tube wells. Banamali himself has also deposed as P.W.18 that he was engaged by the accused to do the tube well work on 31.3.1977 as a tube well 'mistri' and he received payment and he took payment on 31.3.1977 and the work was completed within 15th of the following month and he granted vouchers on taking the payment and he has denied the suggestion of the prosecution that in order to save the accused he deposed falsely. Though P.W.18 has been declared hostile by the prosecution, yet this much can be gathered from his evidence that he was actually engaged by the accused and others for doing the work of repair of the tube wells in March 1977 and he completed the work within 15. TH of the following month and that evidence of P.W.18 has been supported by evidence of P.W.3 that Banamali Bardolui resunk and repaired four tube wells at Sultanpur shortly after 31.3.1977. It also appears from the evidence of P.Ws.9 and 10 that the work was done after 31st March of 1977 and four tube wells were resunk by the middle of Baisakh that year, which corresponds to the month of April. P.W.10 has further deposed that Banamali Bardolui began the work before 31.3.1977, but the work could not be completed within the closing of financial year on 31. 3.1977 and four tube wells were resunk by the middle of Baisakh that year. P.W.9 has also supported the case of the defence that under the rules if payments which are to be made under the proposal of budget are not made within 31st March of the year, then it become lapsed. 3.1977 and four tube wells were resunk by the middle of Baisakh that year. P.W.9 has also supported the case of the defence that under the rules if payments which are to be made under the proposal of budget are not made within 31st March of the year, then it become lapsed. Though P.W.17 being a B.D.O. has once deposed that allotment of money to the Panchayat unspent is not required to be refunded even after 31st March, yet he has also deposed at the time of his cross-examination by the defence that if allotment made by the government is not adjusted within 31st March the balance amount is to be returned. In view of that evidence of the P.Ws it cannot be said that the defence case that there was apprehension of the refunding back of the un-spent money after 31st March of the year, was imaginary. 15. It also appears from the cash book (Exbt.9) that Banamali Bardolui was paid Rs.850/- as advance for doing repairing work of tube well of Sultanpur Gram Sabha on 31.3.1977. It has been checked and audited up to 31st March, 1977, by the Extension Officer of the Panchayat on 22.04.1977, but it is not apparent there from that any objection was raised by the Extension Officer of Panchayat then. So, it cannot be said that the said entry was made therein subsequently. It has been observed by the learned Trial court that the said entry was made in the cash book as last item, but the receipts, Exbts. 2/8 to 2/11, point out that those payments were made against 'the work already done' and Banamali admitted that he received payment of Rs.400/- from the accused for work done by the said receipts while as per his evidence the persons who worked under him also granted vouchers like Exbts.2/12 to 2/15 on taking the payment and the receipts were granted against the payment made by the accused for 'the work already done' by Banamali. But how 'advance' payment was made to Banamali for 'the work already done', has not been made clear because the question of 'advance' payment is raised only when the work is yet to be done and advance is not generally paid for that and there is no question of payment of advance 'for the work already done', but when apparently that amount was paid as 'advance', then it may be taken for granted that the said 'advance' was paid for the subsequent work. There is also no reason to presume that the said entry was made subsequently because apparently the Extension Officer of the Panchayat checked and audited that the entry dated 31.03.1977 on 22.04.1977, which is apparent from the said cash book (Exbt.9). When admittedly said Banamali received payment by granting said receipts, then it cannot be said that those receipts were forged or fabricated. 16. IT also appears that the said work of repairing or resinking of the tube well by P.W.18 Banamali Bardolui, a tube well 'mistri' was ratified by the resolution of the Panchayat (Exbt.4) on 22.05.1977. Learned Trial Court has observed that the resolution of the Panchayat meeting on 22.05.1977 for the work of March 1977 giving clearance to the accused shows that an attempt was made by the members to save the accused though unsuccessfully, but it might be a fact and there is a probability of the defence case in view of the receipts granted by said Banamali and others as well as their evidence of receiving payment for that work that in order to avoid the refunding back of the unspent allotted money after the end of the financial year on 31st March 1977 the work of resinking or repairing of tube well work was started before 31st March, 1977, and so subsequently that was ratified in the Panchayat meeting by taking resolution in that regard and there is such a probability also, and in fact it also appears from the evidence of P.Ws. 3, 9, and even P.W.17 that if any amount allotted in one year is not spent within the financial year by 31st March of the following year, then that amount cannot be spent further and it lapses. So to avoid that the money was given for repair of tube well and that was not the decision of the Pradhan alone, but as per the evidence of P.Ws. So to avoid that the money was given for repair of tube well and that was not the decision of the Pradhan alone, but as per the evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 10, members of Sultanpur Anchal, Banamali was entrusted with the job of resinking of four tube wells by the accused according to their directions, and as per the evidence of P.W.4, another Anchal Panchayat member, Gram Addhakya has got the power to spend money for the purpose of improvement of village. 17. THOUGH it has been alleged that the vouchers which have allegedly been given by the persons have been denied by them and have been found to be forged by the expert, P.W.11, yet it has been pointed out by the learned Trial Court in his Judgment that Exbts.2/8 to 2/11 are the receipts of Banamali, who has admitted that those receipts bear his signature, but four other receipts, Exbts. 2/12 to 2/15 came from the alleged labourers, though as per the evidence of P.W.18 Banamali and other persons who worked under him granted those vouchers, Exbts. 2/12 to 2/15, taking the payment, but those were duplicate receipts and one of such labourers named Jugal Khan, P.W.15, allegedly giving Exbt.2/14 admitted that he received payment, though the thumb impression of his receipt, Exbt.2/14, allegedly did not tally with the specimen thumb impression. As such it cannot be said definitely that those receipts were forged or fabricated by the appellant/accused. Moreover, as per the provisions of Evidence Act admitted fact need not be proved. As per the evidence of P.W.13, Secretary of the Anchal Panchayat, Banamali Bardolui brought the persons in whose names the vouchers Exbts.2/8 to 2/15 were prepared. Then how those receipts coming from the labourers became forged or fabricated has not also been made clear, rather in that case there is a probability of the defence case that P.Ws. 14 and 16, upon whom the prosecution relied much, were not those labourers, who actually worked under P.W.18 Banamali and granted receipts after payment. When there is such a probability then there is enough scope for reasonable doubt also in that regard. 18. 14 and 16, upon whom the prosecution relied much, were not those labourers, who actually worked under P.W.18 Banamali and granted receipts after payment. When there is such a probability then there is enough scope for reasonable doubt also in that regard. 18. IT is apparent from the impugned judgment that much stress has been laid by the learned Judge of the learned court below in his judgment upon the evidence of P.W.14 Kochi Das, P.W.15 Jugal Khan and P.W.16 Madan Santra in arriving at his conclusion in the case on the reasoning that they allegedly worked as labourers with others being engaged by P.W.18 Banamali Bardolui in the work of re-sinking tube wells there, but P.Ws. 14 and 16 have challenged the stand of the defence regarding doing of any repairing work and the evidence of the Finger Print Expert (P.W.11) is that the L.T.I. appearing on Exbt. 2/13 and Exbt.2/15 do not tally with the specimen thumb impression of Madan Santra and Kachi Das. 19. APPARENTLY , the learned Trial court was not sure that P.W.14 Kachi Das and P.W.16 Madan Santra never worked under Banamali Bardolui for repair or re-sinking of tube well, rather as per his finding P.Ws. 14 and 16 received half payment for the work worth Rs.240/- done by each of them. In that case unless they did any work why there would be question of half payment for the work and this shows that they also worked under Banamali Bardolui and received payment for that and this matter brings a probability of the defence case and a reasonable doubt about the genuineness of the prosecution case in spite of the surmise, conjecture and suspicion of the learned Trial court regarding the truth of the defence case. In such a case onus is always upon the prosecution to prove its case by sufficiently cogent and reliable evidence beyond all reasonable doubts and not upon the defence to disprove the prosecution case or to prove its own case and it would be sufficient for the defence if it can at least show a probability of its own case, but in this case learned Trial court has virtually shifted the onus of proof upon the defence and as such he was not correct in his approach in this regard. The defence might have some irregularity in its case, but that will not help the prosecution as in such a case prosecution must have to stand on its own leg and have to prove its own case and it cannot depend upon the weakness of the defence case, if any. 20. THE learned Trial Court has observed in his judgment that :- ".......True, P.W.15, Jugal Khan, admitted that he received payment, but curiously, exbt.2/14, the thumb impression appearing on the receipt did not tally with the specimen thumb impression. However, when he has admitted receipt of payment, then document is left out of consideration." So, it appears that at least one witness out of the three witnesses relied upon by the learned Trial court has admittedly received payment for the work done under Banamali Bardolui. Said P.W.15 Jugal Khan a labourer "presumably a pocket witness" as termed by the learned court below, himself has deposed that he knows the accused, whom he has identified as Pradhan of Sultanpur Anchal, and he has worked in tube well sinking at Sultanpur as 'mistri' being employed by Banamali Bardolui, who has also been examined as P.W.18 in this case and who has corroborated the P.W.15 by deposing that the persons who worked under him also granted vouchers on taking payment, and Banamali Babu obtained LTI on some papers and made payment to him and other labourers. No reason has also been assigned by the prosecution as to why he would depose falsely in this regard without actually receiving any payment and that too without doing any work. 21. IT has further been observed by the learned Trial court in his judgment that:- ".......The accused person filed another receipt in the name of Gokul Hazra, but that Gokul Hazra is not examined and so that receipt is also left out of consideration, even though the thumb impression appearing on exbt.2/12 does not tally with those of the specimen finger print (Exbt.10/3). From exbt.2/13 and exbt.2/15, the alleged receipt granted by Madan Santra and Kochi Das it appears that they received half payment for the work worth Rs.240/- done by each of them. So they are yet to receive payments. But the accused person did not state during trial or in his statement that any amount was due to any person for the repairing works. So they are yet to receive payments. But the accused person did not state during trial or in his statement that any amount was due to any person for the repairing works. The defence tried to confuse that there are more than one Kachi in their village. But we are yet to know who that Kachi is. His full description is wanting. In receipt (Exbt.2/15) there is the name of Kachiram Santra. P.W.14 is Kachi Das, but from the finger print slip (Exbt.10) it appears that Kachiram Das described himself as Kachi Das @ Santra. His identity is not challenged, so, it does not matter much..." , But at the time of his cross examination P.W.14 Kachi Das cannot say if any other person put his L.T.I. on those vouchers shown to him and a few hundreds of people live in Sultanpur which is a big village, and P.W.15 Jugal Khan has deposed that there are a few other persons in their village named Kachi Das and he does not know if there is any other person named Madan Santra and P.W.16 Madan Santra cannot also say if there is any other person in their village named Madan Santra. 22. IT also appears that as the cost of repair of tube wells was paid to Banamali before 31st March to avoid refunding of the money, so no resolution could be taken then, but that matter was regularised subsequently by taking resolution in that regard ratifying the previous decision. 23. ONE of the cardinal principles of law which has always to be kept in mind that in our system of administration of criminal justice an accused is presumed to be innocent unless the presumption is rebutted by the prosecution by producing evidence as may show him to be guilty of the offence with which he is charged. It is also the duty of the prosecution to prove that the accused committed the alleged offence in the way and manner as stated by the prosecution. This initial burden of proving the guilt is on the prosecution and unless it relieves itself of that burden, the Court cannot record a finding of guilt against him. 24. It is also the duty of the prosecution to prove that the accused committed the alleged offence in the way and manner as stated by the prosecution. This initial burden of proving the guilt is on the prosecution and unless it relieves itself of that burden, the Court cannot record a finding of guilt against him. 24. ANOTHER golden thread which runs through the web of this administration of justice is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be accepted. In cases in which Court entertains reasonable doubt regarding guilt of the accused, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, not to the prosecution. In the light of these cardinal principles of law the instant case is to be considered and it is to be considered how far the learned Court below was correct in his decision. 25. THERE is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 15, who have not also been declared hostile by the prosecution, and P.W.18, nor any such case has been proved by evidence that they deposed falsely only in order to save the accused. It also appears that as per the findings of the learned Trial Judge P.W.13 Rabindranath Ghosh, the Secretary of the Anchal Panchayat, deposed that eight vouchers written by him were given by him to Banamali Bardolui, who was sinking the tube wells, and four such receipts bearing Exbts. No.2/8 to 2/11 were given by Banamali whereby he received payment of Rs.400/- and four more receipts were coming from the alleged labourers, wherefrom it appears that Madan Santra P.W.16, and Kachi Das P.W.14 received half payment for the work worth Rs.240/- done by each of them, but they are yet to receive payments. But full description of said Kachi is wanting and as per the observation of the learned Trial court ".....taking into consideration of the receipts (exbts.2/8 to 2/15) it can be said that there has not been full payment". So, much emphasis cannot be given upon the said receipts. But full description of said Kachi is wanting and as per the observation of the learned Trial court ".....taking into consideration of the receipts (exbts.2/8 to 2/15) it can be said that there has not been full payment". So, much emphasis cannot be given upon the said receipts. As per the cash book (Exbt.9) Banamali Bardolui was given Rs.850/- , which has been supported by the resolution book of the Panchayat meeting (Exbt.4) as well as by the admission of P.W.18 that he received the payment after doing the work of tube well as a tube well 'mistri' and it has also been found by the learned Trial court that P.W.18 Banamali Bardolui, the tube well 'mistri', admitted the receipt of payment for the work done. As such at least it is apparent from the evidence of these P.Ws that P.W.18 Banamali Bardolui was engaged for doing the work of tube well under Sultanpur Anchal Panchayat for which he received payment for the work done and as such it would not be unjust to presume that said Banamali Bardolui actually did some work of tube well at Sultanpur Anchal Panchayat according to the direction of Anchal Panchayat members like P.Ws 4, 10 and the Pradhan and received some amount as his remuneration, and other labourers engaged by him also received payment, even if there might have some dispute regarding the amount actually received by P.W.18 and others, and the actual time when that was done in 1977, but the fact remains that himself and labourers engaged by him received payment of some amount for the work done in 1977 and actually he did some repair or resinking work for the said tube wells in the first part of 1977. When as per the finding of the learned Trial Judge four receipts were produced by P.W.18 Banamali Bardolui and four other receipts were produced by the labourers and apparently some work was done by P.W.18 Banamali Bardolui and others and he received some payment for that work done in the first part of 1977, then it cannot be said that the appellant/accused misappropriated public money or committed criminal breach of trust forging the said receipts without doing any such re-sinking or repair work of the tube wells of the said Anchal Panchayat . P.Ws. P.Ws. 11 and 19 Finger Print Expert and Examiner of questioned documents respectively, have sought to say that the said vouchers or receipts were not written by the persons whose names appear there but out of them Banamali Bardolui himself has deposed as P.W.18 that he received payment for the work done and granted vouchers and the receipts, exbts. 2/8 to 2/11, bear his signatures, and other labourers including P.W.15 also granted vouchers taking payment putting L.T.I. or signature thereon. Learned Trial court has also observed that four more receipts came from labourers. How those came from the labourers has not been made clear. If the Exbts.2/12 to 2/15 were duplicates, then where were the originals has not been explained. Such non-production of the original vouchers speaks a volume against the prosecution case and for that reason it may be presumed that the original vouchers bore the L.T.Is of the labourers engaged by Banamali Bardolui including the L.T.Is. of the P.Ws. 14 and 16 and for that reason those have not been produced or P.W.14 and 16 were not those labourers who were actually engaged by Banamali Bardolui for the said work and granted receipts after receiving payment. Moreover, the originals of the said vouchers or receipts ought to have been produced from the custody of the appellant as Pradhan and not from the custody of the labourers who worked under the said Pradhan. Identity of the P.Ws 14 and 16 has also been disputed by the defence. P.W.15 has deposed that he worked under Banamali Babu and received payment by putting L.T.I on some papers like others. P.W.18 has denied the suggestion put to him that he deposed falsely to save the accused. 26. IT also appears that some of P.Ws. like P.Ws. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 15, and 18 have supported the defence case, for which some of them have been termed as "defence witness" by the learned Trial court, but the fact remains that their evidence has at least brought about a probability of the defence case, which the learned Court below has not also been able to deny in his judgment, and when there is such a probability of the defence case, then there is scope of reasonable doubt also regarding the genuineness of the prosecution case, to the benefit of which the appellant/accused is entitled according to law. So it appears that apart from some technical defects some evidence has also run against the prosecution case and the defence case is not altogether improbable and even if the defence case is not proved then also the prosecution cannot take any opportunity of the weakness of the defence case, if any. 27. AT least it is apparent there from that two views are possible from the evidence adduced in this case--one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence. It is also an established principle of law that a golden thread which runs through the web of our system of administration of criminal justice is that if two views are possible from the evidence adduced in the case-one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, then the view which is favourable to the accused should be accepted and in a case in which the Court entertain reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused, then the benefit of the doubt must be given to the accused and not to the prosecution, and this is apart from the principle of law that in a criminal case onus always lies upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt by sufficient reliable evidence and not upon the defence to disprove its case and it would be sufficient for the defence if it can show only a preponderance of probability of its case. 28. IN view of the evidence of P.Ws. 5, 18 that April is a dry period in Ghatal and level of the water goes down then and problem is created then for pumping out water or getting water from local tube wells in the dry season and in summer months, there is a probability of the defence case that the tube wells concerned were not found to be functioning at the time of the said inspection by the informant S.D.O. Sri R.I. Singh, who has not also been examined in this case as witness, and P.W.17 due to that reason and when there is such a probability, then there is scope of reasonable doubt also in that regard. 29. 29. IN this case it also appears that though allegation has been made against a public servant under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, yet no sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been obtained or produced by the prosecution under said Section of law. As per the provisions of Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code no court shall take cognizance of an offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant, not removable from his office without the sanction of the government, who is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acing or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty except with the previous sanction of the State Government in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of a State and the question of such sanction may be raised at any stage of the trial. 30. IN this regard learned counsel for the State has submitted that in this case no such sanction was required in as-much-as Pradhan and Upa Pradhan may be removed only by the resolution carried by the majority of the existing members of the Gram Panchayat as per the provisions of Section 12 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973, and no sanction of the State Government is required for his removal, but on the other hand learned counsel for the appellant/accused has submitted that the state government may remove the Pradhan or Upa Pradhan of Panchayat with effect from a date to be specified in the order as per the provisions of Section 213 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973, and the State Government is the only authority to remove a Pradhan as a public servant in such case. 31. IN view of the provisions of Section 213 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973, there is force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that Pradhan being a public servant is removable by the State Government only as per the provisions of Section 213 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973, and that is to be accepted, and taking of any resolution by the Panchayat concerned in such a case was not essential and unless sanction is given by the State Government Court cannot take cognizance of any such offence and cannot proceed further in that regard. Though it appears that the resolution was taken on 22.05.1977 but the work began before 31st March, yet when it appears that there was apprehension of refunding back of the un-spent money, so the resolution was taken afterwards for ratifying the work already done and there was nothing wrong in that. 32. IT also appears that it has been decided by the decision reported in AIR 1965 SC 1433 in a case of Velji Raghabji Patel Vs State of Maharastra (in Para 6) that in order to establish entrustment of dominion over property by accused the existence of dominion was not enough, and it must be further shown that the dominion was the result of entrustment. 33. IT also appears from the evidence that two stories and two views appear regarding the prosecution case_______ one view is that the appellant/accused being a public servant has not done the alleged work and has misappropriated public money amounting to Rs.850/-, while the other view is that the appellant/accused performed the work of re-sinking of tube wells through P.W.18 and others, but that work could not be seen as underground water level receded due to summer season at the time of said inspection by the S.D.O., Ghatal, who has not been examined as witness, and by P.W.17, who are not also experts regarding the functioning of tube well. It is an established principle of law that when two views are possible one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, then the view pointing to his innocence should be accepted, and in that case there is reasonable doubt regarding genuineness of the prosecution case, to the benefit of which the accused is entitled. It also appears that it has not been proved by the prosecution by sufficient reliable evidence that the present appellant being a public servant has committed the alleged offences of criminal breach of trust by forging documents and falsifying the accounts with any dishonest intention of misappropriating public money without doing any work and there is sufficient scope to reasonably doubt if the present appellant has committed the alleged offences or not to the benefit of which the present appellant is entitled. 34. 34. THUS having regard to the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, evidence of the witnesses, other materials on record and the circumstances of the case it appears that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and there is enough scope to reasonably doubt if the appellant has committed the alleged offences in the way and manner as stated by the prosecution or not and as such the appellant is entitled to get the benefit of such reasonable doubt. From that point of view it appears that the learned Trial Judge was not correct in his finding that the present appellant has committed the alleged offences and as such the learned Trial Judge was not legally justified in his judgment and order of conviction and sentence against the present appellant. So the impugned Judgment and order of conviction and sentence cannot stand and are required to be interfered with and there is no other option, but to set aside the judgment and order under challenge. 35. ACCORDINGLY, the appeal bearing CRA No. 305 of 1988 is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellant passed by the learned judge, Midnapore 1st Special Court (Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Midnapore) in Special Trial Case No.3 of 1984 on 14th July, 1988 are hereby set aside. The appellant is found not guilty of the offences under Sections 409, 465, 467, 471, 477A of the Indian Penal Code and is acquitted and he be discharged from his bail bond. 36. LET a copy of the judgment along with the Lower Court Record be sent to the learned Trial court for information and necessary action. 37. URGENT Photostat certified copy of this judgment be given to the parties, if applied for, on compliance of necessary formalities.