Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J. – All the above named four appellants were convicted by Sri Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Special Judge, (Vigilance) North Bihar, Patna in Special Case No. 25 of 1989 for the offences punishable under Sections 120 B, 420, 467/34, 468/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1) (d) read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 467/34 of the Indian Penal Code, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 468/34 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and furthermore, all the appellants were also fined of rupees five hundred each for the offence punishable under Section 5(1) (d) read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and in default of payment of fine, they were ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order dated 25.05.2001. However, all the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently. Since all the aforesaid appeals have arisen out of the aforesaid common judgment of conviction and sentence order, all the above stated criminal appeals were heard together and a common judgment is being passed in all the above stated criminal appeals. 2. The brief fact giving rise to file these criminal appeals is that P.W.8, Rameshwar Nath Mishra, the Police Inspector, Cabinet (Vigilance Department Investigation Bureau), Patna gave written report to officer in charge of Cabinet (Vigilance) Department, Police Station, Bihar, Patna on 11.10.1982 stating therein that preliminary enquiry against appellant Dr. Janardan Narayan Prasad, the then in charge of Medical Officer, State Hospital, Raxaul, was conducted and prima facie it came to light that he, in collusion with rest appellants, misappropriated government money amounting to Rs. 530/- after showing the same as distributed amongst 19 patients and 15 motivators in vasectomy operations which were actually not performed and the amount was distributed amongst them after forging the documents. 530/- after showing the same as distributed amongst 19 patients and 15 motivators in vasectomy operations which were actually not performed and the amount was distributed amongst them after forging the documents. He further stated in his written report that the thumb impressions of patients and motivators were examined by the expert and thumb impressions of 19 patients and 15 motivators were found similar. 3. On the basis of aforesaid written report, formal first information report for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120 B of the Indian Penal Code and 5(2)/5(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was prepared against the appellants. The matter was investigated and after completion of investigation, charge sheet for the aforesaid offences was submitted against the appellants. The cognizance was taken in usual way and all the appellants were put on trial and accordingly, appellant, Dr. Janardan Narayan Prasad was, separately, charged for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 465, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 whereas rest appellants along with appellant Dr. Janardan Narayan Prasad were jointly charged for the offences punishable under Sections 467/34, 468/34, 120 B of the Indian Penal Code and section 5(1) (d) read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. 4. In course of trial, altogether, ten prosecution witnesses were examined and besides the oral evidence, prosecution also got exhibited signature of P.W.2 on seizure list as Exhibit-1, signature of P.W.7 on seizure list as Exhibit 1/1, sanction orders as Exhibit-2 series, verification report of P.W.8 as Exhibit-3 series, entries in vasectomy register as Exhibit-4 series, expert report of Director Finger Print, CID, Bihar, Patna as Exhibit-5 and formal first information report as Exhibit-6. The statements of appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the prosecution story. Two defence witnesses were also examined on behalf of the appellants. 5. Learned trial court having relied upon the testimony of P.W.8 coupled with Exhibit-3, Exhibit-4 series, Exhibits 5 and 6 convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner as stated above. 6. Two defence witnesses were also examined on behalf of the appellants. 5. Learned trial court having relied upon the testimony of P.W.8 coupled with Exhibit-3, Exhibit-4 series, Exhibits 5 and 6 convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner as stated above. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants assailed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order arguing that the learned trial court passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order on the basis of surmises and conjectures particularly, in the circumstance when P.W.8 admitted in his deposition that he had not made any enquiry from the patients and motivators whose name appeared in vasectomy acquaintance roll. He further submitted that verification reports of P.W.8 (Exhibit-3 series) are based on report of finger print expert and the finger print expert based his report on the basis of photographs of thumb impressions supplied to him but the aforesaid finger print expert was not examined by the prosecution and similarly, the photographer, who had taken the photographs of thumb impressions, was also not examined nor the negatives of the aforesaid photographs of thumb impressions were produced before the trial court and, therefore, the report of finger print expert is not admissible in evidence. 7. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order submitting that Exhibit-4 series as well as Exhibit-5 clearly established this fact that forged thumb impressions were made on vasectomy acquaintance roll and on the basis of aforesaid forged thumb impressions money was withdrawn. 8. As I have already sated that, altogether, ten prosecution witnesses were examined, out of whom, P.W.2 is a witness on seizure list whereas P.W.4 has been tendered by the prosecution. Similarly, P.W.5 proved the signatures on sanction order whereas P.W.6 is a typist who had typed sanction order. 9. P.W.1, Yogendra Jha was posted as sanitary inspector at State Hospital, Raxaul at the relevant time. He stated that after vasectomy operation, the appellant, Chitranjan Prasad used to distribute the amount on the basis of identification made by the appellant, Janardan Narayan Prasad. 10. P.W.7 stated that on 12.09.1983 he was posted as Civil Surgeon, Motihari and on that very date the officials of vigilance department had seized some documents from his office. 11. P.W.8 is the informant of this case. This witness stated that on 24.05.1976, on the basis of complaint of Dr. 10. P.W.7 stated that on 12.09.1983 he was posted as Civil Surgeon, Motihari and on that very date the officials of vigilance department had seized some documents from his office. 11. P.W.8 is the informant of this case. This witness stated that on 24.05.1976, on the basis of complaint of Dr. P.D. Sinha vigilance department directed him to enquire into the aforesaid complaint and after making enquiry he submitted his enquiry reports. He further stated that he seized two registers from Raxaul State Dispensary. He further stated that he sent thumb impressions of 114 persons out of those registers to finger print expert of C.I.D, State Government and he proved the enlarged photographs of left thumb impressions as material Exhibit-1. This witness also proved the report of finger print expert as Exhibit-5. He further stated that he submitted his last report on 31.05.1982 in which he mentioned that thumb impressions of 19 patients and 15 motivators were of the same person and it was found that Rs. 530/- was defalcated. He further stated that after submission of last verification report, he was directed by the higher officials of vigilance department to lodge case and after that he prepared written report and submitted the said written report to police. On being cross examined, he admitted at para 23 of his cross examination that he submitted his report on the basis of documents available before him. He also admitted at para 24 of his cross examination that he had not recorded the statement of any patient or motivator. 12. P.W.9 and P.W.10 are investigation officers and they simply stated that they did investigation and after completion of investigation submitted charge sheet. 13. Exhibit-5 is report of finger print expert who reported that thumb impressions marked as A/1, A/2 and A/3 were similar and similarly, thumb impressions of vasectomy acquaintance roll marked as A/4, A/5 and A/6 were also similar. The finger print expert also mentioned in his report that thumb impressions marked as A/7, A/8, A/9, A/10 etc. were also similar. 14. From perusal of Exhibit-5, it appears that at the time of comprison of thumb impressions, enlarged photographs of the aforesaid thumb impressions were produced before the finger print expert and on the basis of aforesaid enlarged photographs of thumb impressions, the finger print expert came to the above stated conclusion. were also similar. 14. From perusal of Exhibit-5, it appears that at the time of comprison of thumb impressions, enlarged photographs of the aforesaid thumb impressions were produced before the finger print expert and on the basis of aforesaid enlarged photographs of thumb impressions, the finger print expert came to the above stated conclusion. Admittedly, the negatives of aforesaid enlarged photographs of thumb impressions were not exhibited nor produced before the trial court. Furthermore, it is an admitted position that photographer, who had taken the aforesaid photographs, was also not examined before the learned trial court and, in my opinion, non examination of the photographer, who had taken the photographs of thumb impressions, is fatal to the prosecution case because it is only the photographer, who can say that he had taken the photograph of thumb impressions from the seized registers of the concerned hospital and furthermore, it is only the photographer, who can say that he had prepared the material Exhibit-1 from the negatives which had been taken by him from the seized registers. Admittedly, the finger print expert based his finding after comprison of enlarged photographs (material Exhibit-1) but prosecution could not succeed to prove this fact that material Exhibit-1, the enlarged photographs of thumb impressions, were taken from the seized registers and, therefore, in my opinion, the appellants are entitled to get the benefit of doubt on account of above stated lacuna of the prosecution case. 15. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, all the above stated criminal appeals are allowed and accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order dated 25.05.2001 are, hereby, set aside. The appellants are on bail. They are discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds.