JUDGMENT: Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 2. This appeal is preferred against a judgment and order dated 24.12.2013, delivered in Special Case No.71/2013 by Special Judge, Special Court (CBI), Nagpur thereby convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The appellant together with 4 other accused persons was tried for offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 471, 477-A of Indian Penal Code, as also Section 3[2] read with 13[1][d] of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The substance of allegations made against the accused persons was that the accused persons hatched a criminal conspiracy for releasing agent's commission in case of issuance of Insurance Policies to the employees of the Nagpur District Central Cooperative Bank, in a fraudulent manner by using forged documents as genuine, with intention to cheat United India Insurance Company and thereby caused wrongful loss to the insurance company and obtained pecuniary advantage for themselves through corrupt and illegal means. The case was tried on merits and the learned Special Judge, so far as the present appellant is concerned, found that charge relating to offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code only was established and therefore, the learned Special Judge convicted the appellant for these offences by sentencing him to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- and in default to suffer 3 months further R.I. on each counts, and acquitted the appellant of the remaining offences with which he was charged. Aggrieved by this judgment and order dated 21.12.2013, the appellant is before this Court in the present Appeal. 4. Shri R.M. Daga, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that there is no iota of evidence brought by the prosecution against the appellant and it is only on the basis of conjectures and surmises that the guilt of the appellant has been found by the learned Special Court for offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. In support he has taken me through the notes of evidence of important witnesses filed on record and also relevant observations of the learned Special Judge in the impugned judgment and order. In support he has taken me through the notes of evidence of important witnesses filed on record and also relevant observations of the learned Special Judge in the impugned judgment and order. He submits that this evidence would show that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the main ingredients of offences of criminal conspiracy and cheating and therefore, the impugned judgment and order deserve to be quashed and set aside and appellant deserves to be acquitted of these offences. 5. Shri S.B. Ahirkar, the learned Special Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has also taken me through the impugned judgment and order to support his contention that the impugned judgment and order is based upon sound reasoning and therefore, the view taken by the Special Judge cannot be upset in this appeal. It is submitted that the basis for holding the appellant guilty of offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 420 of Indian Penal Code can be found in the observations made in paragraph no.67 of the judgment. 6. It is seen from the impugned judgment and order that the learned Special Judge found that the accused no.4 Sunil Bhave was equally responsible for mentioning in the advises, the agents code number, though the agents were not entitled to get the commission amount and this act went against the appellant. Thus, according to the learned Special Judge merely mentioning of agents code number in the advises prepared as per the procedure of the Insurance company for issuance of the Insurance Policies by itself would be sufficient to constitute offences of criminal conspiracy and cheating. However, for constituting both these offences necessary ingredients of existence of criminal agreement and intentionally or knowingly making false representation or preparing a false document with a view to cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss must be brought on record through relevant material. But, apart from mentioning of the code number, I could see no other material or no evidence showing that mentioning of agents code numbers was done intentionally inspite of having a knowledge that commission was not payable to the agents. That apart, even the basic fact, mentioning of agents code numbers by the appellant himself and nobody else, has not been proved by the prosecution. That apart, even the basic fact, mentioning of agents code numbers by the appellant himself and nobody else, has not been proved by the prosecution. If one peruses the evidence available on record, particularly the evidence of P.W.2 Ramsumiran, one would find that observations of the learned Special Judge in this regard, that is to say, Sunil Bhave made a mention of code numbers of agents in the advises, is not correct. P.W.2 Ramsumiran, is an Assistant working with the Insurance Company and he admits that the advises concerned were prepared by him and these advises contained all code numbers of the agents. He also admits that these advises were accordingly signed by the accused no.4 along with him. This evidence would establish that even the basic fact - fact of mentioning of agents code numbers in the advises which has led to an inference of guilt of the appellant for offences of criminal conspiracy and cheating, was not at all attributable to the appellant and was relatable to P.W.2 Ramsumiran, alone. 7. The case as against accused no.4 or the appellant is required to be looked into from another angle also. Accused nos. 1 to 3 have been acquitted by the learned Special Judge only on the ground that they were mere signatories to cheques issued towards payment of commission to the agents of the Insurance Company and that there was no other evidence showing that the cheques were signed by these accused persons with any criminal or dishonest intention. If merely signing of the cheques does not amount to any dishonest or criminal conspiracy by the accused nos. 1 to 3, I do not understand how merely mentioning of agent code numbers in the advises, if it is presumed to be proved for the sake of argument, signed by the appellant, would amount to criminal conspiracy and cheating on his part. Learned Special Judge thus, appears to have discriminated between the two sets of accused persons, although both the sets on facts were standing on the same ground. At this stage, learned Special P.P. appearing for the respondent submits that case of accused no.4 or appellant stands slightly on a different ground because accused nos. Learned Special Judge thus, appears to have discriminated between the two sets of accused persons, although both the sets on facts were standing on the same ground. At this stage, learned Special P.P. appearing for the respondent submits that case of accused no.4 or appellant stands slightly on a different ground because accused nos. 1 to 3 did not approve the proposal, whereas accused no.4 had approved the proposal and therefore, it was possible that accused no.4 had more knowledge about the whole issue than the accused nos. 1 to 3, and as such, the dishonest intention can be presumed to be present in case of the accused no.4. I am not inclined to accept this argument for the reason that though accused no.4 had approved the proposal, there is no evidence on record showing that mentioning agents code numbers in a case where commission was not payable to the agents was with knowledge. Apart from this, even there is no evidence available on record to show that the act of mentioning of agents code numbers was performed by the accused no.4 himself. Accused no.4 admittedly was not the beneficiary of any amount in this case and it is difficult to digest that the accused no.4 without any personal interest would mention agent code numbers in order to create a false case for payment of commission to the agents, not otherwise payable. Of course, as rightly submitted by the learned Special P.P., a person may do such a dishonest or criminal act in order to secure advantage or gain for some body else. But, the basic ingredients for the offences of cheating and criminal conspiracy not having been established, there is no need to examine this aspect any further. Therefore, I find that case of accused no.4 Sunil Bhave or the appellant cannot be distinguished from the case of other set of accused persons namely accused nos. 1 to 3 and he also deserves to be treated with same equality. 8. In the circumstances, I find that the findings contained in impugned judgment dated 24.12.2013 are not based upon the evidence established on record and that they are also not in consonance with the settled principles of law. The conclusions reached by the learned Special Judge in convicting the appellant therefore, cannot be sustained. 8. In the circumstances, I find that the findings contained in impugned judgment dated 24.12.2013 are not based upon the evidence established on record and that they are also not in consonance with the settled principles of law. The conclusions reached by the learned Special Judge in convicting the appellant therefore, cannot be sustained. The impugned judgment and order deserve to be quashed and set aside and the appellant deserves to be acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed in Special Case No.71/2003 by the Special Judge, CB.I. Court, Nagpur in so far as it relates to the appellant is quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Fine amount paid by the appellant be refunded to him. Bail bonds executed by the appellant stand discharged. 10. In view of above, Criminal Application No.107/2014 does not survive. The same is also disposed of. Appeal allowed.