By the judgment and order, dated 29.8.2012, passed, in Special Case No. 36/2004, by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Assam, Guwahati, convicting the accused-appellant, Paresh Chandra Deka, and one, Bajra Kanta Kalita, under sections 120B, 420, 468 and 471 read with section 465, IPC and also under section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('the PC Act, 1988'), and sentencing the present appellant (i) to undergo, for his conviction under section 120B read with section 420, IPC, rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay a fine of Rs. 10,000 and, in default of payment of fine, undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month; (ii) to undergo, for his conviction under section 120B read with section 468, IPC, rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay a fine of Rs. 10,000 and, in default of payment of fine, undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month; (iii) to undergo, for his conviction under section 120B read with section 471 and section 465, IPC, rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay a fine of Rs. 10,000 and, in default of payment of fine, undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month; and (iv) to suffer, for his conviction under section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988, rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay a fine of Rs. 50,000 and, in default of payment of fine, suffer rigorous imprisonment for another six months, with the direction that the sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be described as under : (i) Unit Trust of India ('UTI’), Kolkata, dispatched thirteen numbers of cheques payable to different persons towards their maturity/repurchase value and dividend warrants, on different dates, by registered post. The addressees did not, however, receive these cheques. On 4.9.1996, six number of SB accounts were opened, at Paltan Bazar Sub-Post Office, with an opening sum of Rs. 25 each. To the accounts, so opened, cheques of different amounts, issued by the UTI, were deposited and, in course of time, the amounts, so deposited, in the said SB accounts, were withdrawn by the persons, who had opened the accounts and deposited the cheques. The account holders, in respect of the said six accounts, were introduced by Bajra Kt. 25 each. To the accounts, so opened, cheques of different amounts, issued by the UTI, were deposited and, in course of time, the amounts, so deposited, in the said SB accounts, were withdrawn by the persons, who had opened the accounts and deposited the cheques. The account holders, in respect of the said six accounts, were introduced by Bajra Kt. Kalita, who was, at the relevant point of time, an agent of Standerdised Agency System, ('SAS'), and as an SAS agent, he was authorized to introduce persons for opening SB account. After withdrawal of the money from the said accounts, an information, in this regard, was received by the Central Bureau of Investigation ('CBI’) wherein it was alleged, inter alia, that Achyut Deka, while posted and functioning as Sub-Post Master, at Paltan Bazar Post Office, had entered into a criminal conspiracy with Bajra Kt. Kalita, SAS Agent, and opened six SB accounts and deposited cheques of diverse sum of money amounting to Rs. 2,22,009 and, later on, withdrawn the said amount. (ii) Based on the information, so received, a First Information Report (in short, 'FIR') was registered. The investigation, carried out by the CBI, revealed that Bajra Kt. Kalita, SAS Agent, in conspiracy with Paresh Chandra Deka (i.e., the appellant herein), had opened the said accounts, deposited the cheques, in question, and withdrawn the amounts deposited in the said accounts. (iii) On completion of investigation and, after having obtained sanction for prosecution of Paresh Ch. Deka (i.e., the appellant), a charge sheet was laid, under sections 120B, 420, 468 and 471 read with section 465, IPC and also under section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988, against both, Paresh Ch. Deka as well as Bajra Kt. Kalita. 3. At the trial, charges, under sections 120B, 420, 468 and 471, IPC, were framed against both the accused and as far as the present appellant, Paresh Ch. Deka, was concerned, an additional charge, under section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 was also framed against him. To the charges, so framed, both the accused-appellants pleaded not guilty. 4. In support of their case, prosecution examined altogether 19 (nineteen) witnesses. Deka, was concerned, an additional charge, under section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 was also framed against him. To the charges, so framed, both the accused-appellants pleaded not guilty. 4. In support of their case, prosecution examined altogether 19 (nineteen) witnesses. The two accused were, then, examined under section 313, Cr.PC and, in their examinations aforementioned, they denied that they had committed the offences, which were alleged to have been committed by them, the case of the defence being that of denial. No evidence was adduced by the defence. 5. Having, however, found both the accused guilty of the offences, which they stood charged with, the learned trial Court convicted them accordingly and passed sentences against them as mentioned above. Aggrieved by his conviction and the sentences, which have been passed against him, accused Paresh Ch. Deka, as a convicted person, has preferred this appeal. 6. I have heard Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the appellant. I have also heard Mr. P. N. Choudhury, learned Standing counsel, CBI, appearing on behalf the respondent. 7. While considering the present appeal, what needs to be noted is that the accused-appellant, Paresh Chandra Deka, was a postal clerk, at Paltan Bazar Sub-Post Office, and was authorized to receive the Account Opening Forms at the said post office. There is no dispute that accused Bajra Kanta Kalita was an SAS agent at the relevant point of time and Achyut Deka was Sub-Post Master at the said Post Office. 8. It is also not in dispute that Exts. 35 to 40 are Account Opening Forms for opening SB Accounts, at the said post office, in the name of Phool Chand Sood, Bhaba Nath Mishra, Sameer Kumar Ghosh and Rajendra Prasad Shah, and their postal addresses were given as Paltan Bazar Tribal Rest House Camp, Solapara, Guwahati-781008, nor has it been in dispute that all the account holders of Exts. 35 to 40 were introduced by Bajra Kanta Kalita, SAS Agent, who was, admittedly, authorized to introduce a person wishing to open an SB account at the post office. 9. 35 to 40 were introduced by Bajra Kanta Kalita, SAS Agent, who was, admittedly, authorized to introduce a person wishing to open an SB account at the post office. 9. Amongst others, the duties and responsibilities of SAS Agents are that they are to collect, according to the evidence of PW2, who is a postal employee, deposits from depositors and submit the same to the concerned post office(s), where the depositors have their account(s), and, in the present case, the depositors were introduced by Bajra Kanta Kalita. 10. It is the clear evidence of PW5, sub-post master, Goreswar Post Office, that during the relevant point of time, if any account opening form was properly filled up and duly introduced by a proper introducer, then, the postal clerk was required to merely send all these documents to the post master and that the introducer might have been a person known to the post office or could have been an NSC agent as per rules prevailing at the relevant point of time and that in the account opening forms, in question, Bajra Kanta Kalita was the introducer, who was authorized to introduce persons for opening account at the said post office. 11. What is important to note, in the evidence of PW5, is that he has admitted, in the cross-examination, that as the postal assistant, dealing with the documents, in question, one is simply required to forward the documents to the Head post office if the same were properly filled and the person, seeking to open the SB accounts, is introduced by an authorized introducer and that, during the relevant point of time, a person, who wished to open an account for depositing money, was not even required to come to the post office personally to sign and/or fill up the account opening form before the concerned postal assistant and no photograph was required to open any account in the post office. 12. 12. From the evidence, which has been given by PW5 and has been relied upon by the prosecution, it clearly transpires that the limited role, which a postal clerk, in the position of the present appellant, played, in the opening of accounts, at the relevant point of time, was that so long as an account opening form was duly filled up and introduced by an authorized introducer, the postal clerk concerned, such as, the present appellant, could have done nothing, last accept the form and account could have been opened and no photograph of the person, opening the account, was required, nor was the applicant required to go to the post office personally to sign and fill up the account opening form. 13. I may pause here to point out that, according to the evidence of PW8, the SB accounts, opened on the basis of Exts. 36 to 40, which form the subject-matter of controversy in the present case, were opened, on 4.9.1996, at Paltan Bazar Sub-post office, the introducer of these accounts being Bajra Kanta Kalita, and that Exts. 36(1) to 40(1) bore signatures of Ahyut Deka, the then Sub-post master of Paltan Bazar Sub-post office, the said accounts having been opened with the initial deposit of Rs. 25 each. 14. The more important evidence, given by PW8, is that Exts. 53, 54, 56, 58, 59 and 61 are the original withdrawal forms, dated 11.9.1996. Similarly, other withdrawal cheques were also signed by the said Sri Achyut Deka. In fact, PW8 has reiterated the evidence, given by other prosecution witnesses, by conceding that, at the relevant point of time, the procedure for opening of SB account was too simple in the sense that, for opening of SB account, a duly filled up application form along with signature of the introducer was to be submitted to the post office by the applicant and that any person could have opened an SB account in the post office and no document, as regards the identification of the applicant, was necessary except that he was required to be introduced by a person, who was either an employee of a post office or an NSC agent, or any person known to the post office, and that the account opening form could have been filled up either at the post office or at any other place with a minimum deposit of Rs. 25 as the initial deposit. 15. It is the further evidence of PW8 that an account holder or any authorized person could withdraw the amount; but before allowing the withdrawal of any amount, the post master was required to compare the signature, appearing on the withdrawal form, with the specimen signature retained in the post office, and, if the two signatures tallied, then, the withdrawal was permitted. 16. Interestingly enough, the Investigating Officer has deposed that the FIR, in the present case, was lodged naming Achyut Deka, the then Sub-post master, at the said sub-post office, and Bajrakanta Kalita, SAS agent, as the two accused inasmuch as the allegation, in the FIR, was that Achyut Deka had arranged to get the six SB accounts opened, with fictitious names, in conspiracy with Bajrakanta Kalita, and withdrawn the amounts deposited in the said accounts. 17. On marshalling the evidence on record and on a close scrutiny thereof, not even a particle of incriminating evidence is found against the present appellant inasmuch as there is no evidence on record to show that the appellant had the knowledge of the fact that the duly filled up forms, which he was accepting for the purpose of opening of the SB accounts, were forged. There is no direct or indirect evidence on record to show that there was a criminal conspiracy between the appellant and Bajrakanta Kalita. There is also no evidence on record to show that the appellant knew any of the person(s) in whose name(s) cheques had been issued by the UTI, Kolkata. 18. When a case depends on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances are not only required to be consistent with the guilt of the accused, but must also be inconsistent with every hypothesis of the innocence of the accused. These are the dwell tests, which are required to be applied to every case of circumstantial evidence. 19. 18. When a case depends on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances are not only required to be consistent with the guilt of the accused, but must also be inconsistent with every hypothesis of the innocence of the accused. These are the dwell tests, which are required to be applied to every case of circumstantial evidence. 19. In the present case, when there is no evidence at all to show that the present appellant knew any of the persons in whose favour the cheques had been issued by the UTI, Kolkata, when he is also not shown to have any knowledge that the filled-up forms, received by him from Bajrakanta Kalita, who was, otherwise, authorized to introduce a person wishing to open an account at the post office, were forged, it could not have been held, and ought not to have been held, that the appellant had entered into any criminal conspiracy with accused Bajrakanta Kalita for the purpose of committing forgery and/or for the purpose of committing offence of cheating. This apart, there was also no evidence to show that the present appellant had committed offence under section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988, in the sense that there is no evidence to show that the appellant had, by any corrupt or illegal means, obtained, for himself or for any other person, any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. 20. Situated, thus, it becomes abundantly clear that the learned trial court seriously erred in fact and in law in coming to the conclusion that the accused-appellant had been proved guilty of the offences, which he stood charged with. 21. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, this appeal succeeds. The impugned conviction of the accused-appellant and the sentences, which have been passed against him by the judgment and order, under appeal, are hereby set aside. The accused-appellant is held not guilty of the offences, which he stands convicted of, and he is acquitted of the same. 22. The bail bond of the accused-appellant stands cancelled and his surety stands discharged. 23. Send back the LCR. _____________