JUDGMENT : Indira Shah, J. Heard Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel for the appellant(s) in Crl. A. No.7 of 2007, Crl. A. No.14 of 2007 and Crl. A. No.15 of 2007, Mr. Z. Kamar, learned counsel for the appellant in Crl. A. No.31 of 2007 and Mr. A. K. Bhattacherjee, learned counsel for the appellant in Crl. A. No. 40 of 2007. Also heard Mr. D.K. Das, learned Standing Counsel, CBI and learned Addl. P.P., Assam. 2. These appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 29.12.2006 passed by the learned Special Judge, Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.), Guwahati, in special Case No.43/2004 convicting the appellants, namely, Dr. Enamul Haque, Md. Mokibul Haque, Tankeswar Saikia, Rajendra Prasad Borah, Achyat Borpujari and Smti Rojita Borpujari under Section 120 (B) IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years with fine of Rs. 20,000/- in default, further rigorous imprisonment for 2 months. 3. Appellants, Dr. Eramul Haque, Md. Mokibul Islam, Tankeswar Saikia and Rajendra Prasad Borah were also convicted under Section 420 IPC and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default, further rigorous imprisonment for 4 months. Accused appellant, Sh. Achyat Borpujari being convicted under Section 420 IPC and he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years with fine of Rs.30,000/- in default, rigorous imprisonment for another 3 months. 4. Accused-appellant, Dr. Enamul Haque, was also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with fine of Rs.50,000/- in default further rigorous imprisonment for 4 months for his conviction under Section 477-A of the IPC. 5. Accused-appellants, Dr. Enamul Haque, Md. Mokibul Islam and Tankeswar Saikia were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for 4 months for their conviction under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. All the sentences were said to run concurrently. 6. Dr. Enamul Haque, appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 14/2007 was Sub-Divisional Veterinary Officer at Sonari. Mukubul Islam, appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 15/2007 was then Accountant there. Appellant, Rajendra Prasad Borah in Crl. Appeal No. 40/2007 is private person. D.C. Konwar (since deceased) and Tankeswar Saikia, were treasury Officer and Accountant in Sonari Sub-Treasury Office, T. B. Dutta (acquitted) was Director of Veterinary, Government of Assam, Guwahati. 7. Mukubul Islam, appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 15/2007 was then Accountant there. Appellant, Rajendra Prasad Borah in Crl. Appeal No. 40/2007 is private person. D.C. Konwar (since deceased) and Tankeswar Saikia, were treasury Officer and Accountant in Sonari Sub-Treasury Office, T. B. Dutta (acquitted) was Director of Veterinary, Government of Assam, Guwahati. 7. On 27.07.1993, Sri K. Saikia, Superintendent of Police (SP), Vigilance, Anti-Corruption, Govt. of Assam lodged an FIR with Anti-Corruption Bureau, Govt. of Assam, alleging that Dr. Enamul Haque entered into conspiracy with accountant Mokibul Islam, Treasury Official of Sub-Divisional Treasury Office, Sonari and some private persons and in pursuance to their conspiracy, they procured false letter of credit (LOC, in short) and submitted false and fictitious bills abusing their power as public servant and fraudulently withdrew Rs. 30 Lacs from public exchequer during the year 1992. 8. On the basis of the said FIR, ABC Case No. 9/93 under Sections 409/468/120 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention Corruption Act was registered. Subsequently, Government of Assam entrusted the Case to C.B.I. for thorough investigation by issuing notification as per Section 6 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act extending power and Jurisdiction of members of DSPE to the whole State of Assam. Necessary notification from Government of India was also issued in due course. 9. During the investigation, CBI searched several places, seized documents, and obtained specimen handwritings and signatures of suspects, which were examined by the Handwriting Expert. On completion of investigation, sanction for prosecution of public officials were obtained and charge-sheet against the accused Dr. E. Haque, T.B.Dutta, Md. Mokibul Islam, D.C Konwar, Tankeswar Saikia, Rajendra Prasad Bora, Indira Borah, Achyut Borpujari under Section 120-B, 420 IPC was submitted. 10. In the Charge-sheet, it was alleged that the accused persons in conspiracy acquired illegal gain to the tune of Rs.66,90,495/- from the State Exchequer. The public servants also committed offence under section 13 (2) read with section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused Dr. E. Haque also committed offence under Section 477-A of the IPC as well. According to prosecution, Public servants, Dr. E. Haque, Mokibul Islam, D.C. Konwar, Tankeswar Saikia and T. B. Dutta entered into criminal conspiracy with Rajendra Prasad Borah, Proprietor of M/S RIB Enterprise, Smti. Indira Borah (acquitted) wife of Rajendra Prasad Borah, Achyut Borpujari and his wife Rojita Borpujari, Proprietor of M/S Kopil. According to prosecution, Public servants, Dr. E. Haque, Mokibul Islam, D.C. Konwar, Tankeswar Saikia and T. B. Dutta entered into criminal conspiracy with Rajendra Prasad Borah, Proprietor of M/S RIB Enterprise, Smti. Indira Borah (acquitted) wife of Rajendra Prasad Borah, Achyut Borpujari and his wife Rojita Borpujari, Proprietor of M/S Kopil. 11. As per allegation in the charge-sheet during the year 1991-92, Dr. E. Haque and Mukubul Islam prepared some false proposal in respect of various works and supply orders, which were purportedly sent to the Office of the Directorate of Veterinary, Government of Assam, for approval and for sanctioning of fund. The accused named above manufactured a false approval for Rs.66,90,495/- under the signature of T. B. Dutta for execution of proposed work and supply and on the basis of said sanction order, supply and work orders were issued to M/S RIB Enterprise, M/S Kapil and Mrs. Indira Borah. Aforesaid firms and individual submitted false bills, and bills were processed in their office and were sent to Sub-Treasury, Sonari, without any LOC and accordingly payments were made by the Bank. 12. Accused Rajendra Prasad Borah, owner of M/S RIB Enterprise submitted different vouchers on the basis of which bill Ex. 14, was prepared. Most of the money paid against those bills were received by Rajendra Prasad Borah either in the name of M/S RIB Enterprise or in the name of Rajendra Prasad Borah. Part of the money, so drawn, had gone to his account in Andhra Bank. 13. Smti. Indira Borah, wife of Rajendra Prasad Borah and Proprietor of M/S RIB Enterprise also submitted a false bill amounting to Rs.20 lacs against the work order vide Ex. 19. However, entire money drawn was collected by R.P. Borah. 14. It is alleged that accused Achyut Borpujari in pursuant to work order, submitted a false bill for Rs.1,65,000/- in the name of M/S Kopil and on the basis of which, entire money was credited to the account of M/s Kopil in the Andhra Bank. Achyut Borpujari acknowledged the receipt of Rs.1,65,000/- through acknowledgment vide Ex.65. Rojita Borpujari, Proprietor of M/s Kopil and wife of Achyut Borpujari actively corporated with other accused persons. Charges under Section 120 (B) and 420 being framed against all accused persons, they pleaded not guilty. A separate charge against the accused Dr. E. Haque under Section 477 IPC was also framed. Rojita Borpujari, Proprietor of M/s Kopil and wife of Achyut Borpujari actively corporated with other accused persons. Charges under Section 120 (B) and 420 being framed against all accused persons, they pleaded not guilty. A separate charge against the accused Dr. E. Haque under Section 477 IPC was also framed. All public servants faced the trial for the offence committed by them under Section 13(2) read with 13(1) (d) of the P.C. Act. 15. Accused D.C. Konwar died and the case against him was abated. Appeal against Achyut Borpujari abated during pendency of appeal. 16. During the trial, 42 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, however, evidence of P.W. 8 and P.W. 9 were expunged as they could not be brought for further examination and cross-examination. One witness was examined as Court witness. The accused persons, in their statement, recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the allegations levelled against them and pleaded that they are innocent. Evidence of one witness was adduced by defence side. On conclusion of trial, the accused persons were convicted and sentenced as stated earlier. 17. P.W. 1, Dr. C. K. Raj Konwar, then Director of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department, P.W.2 Niranjan Ghosh, then Secretary Finance, Government of Assam, P.W.3 Sri Dal Bahadur Chetry, the Secretary, Veterinary Department and P.W.5 Sri Maninder Singh, the Deputy Commissioner, Sibsagar, accorded sanction for prosecution of accused persons, namely, Mukibul Islam, Dulal Ch. Konwar, T. B. Dutta, Enamul Haque and Tankeswar Saikia respectively. 18. P.W. 4, Ranjit Kumar Bhuiyan, Assistant Engineer of Directorate of Veterinary has narrated in detail about the process as to how proposal for work is initiated, processed, the procedure how fund is procured or sanctioned. 19. P.W.6 Ghanakauta Boro, P.W.7 Dilip Borgohain, P.W.18 Lankeshwar Buragohain, P. W. 21 Padma Gogoi, P.W. 22 M.C. Gogoi, P.W. 23 D. K. Bora, P.W. 24 Dr. K. K. Bora, P.W. 25. J. Shyam, P.W. 26 P. C. Bora, P. W. 27 R. N. Payang, P.W. 28 B. Bora, P. W. 29 Dr. P Bharati and P.W. 30 Dr. D. K. Gogoi had been working at various Veterinary Dispensaries, First Aid Centre, Sub- Center, State Dispensary as veterinary Assistant Surgeons, Veterinary Field Assistants and they all deposed that they never initiated any proposal for construction of house, internal road or erection of bamboo fencing during the relevant period. P Bharati and P.W. 30 Dr. D. K. Gogoi had been working at various Veterinary Dispensaries, First Aid Centre, Sub- Center, State Dispensary as veterinary Assistant Surgeons, Veterinary Field Assistants and they all deposed that they never initiated any proposal for construction of house, internal road or erection of bamboo fencing during the relevant period. They also deposed that they never witnessed any construction/ repair work during the period 1991-92. 20. P.W. 10 Binanda Kalita, P.W.11 Anuradha Das, P.W. 13 Manoranjan kalita, P.W. 14 Asraf Ali, P.W. 15 Sarat Sharma and P.W. 35 Naren Talukdar were examined to prove that sanction order (Ex. 7) was not issued from their Office i.e. different Offices of Director of veterinary. They stated that the format used in Ex. 7 had never been in any of the Sections of the Office of the Directorate, Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Department, Govt. of Assam. 21. Sri T. N. Gogoi (P.W. 34), Deputy Secretary, Veterinary Department, in his evidence, has narrated the procedure regarding issuance of LOC and exhibited the copies of LOC from the month of May 1991 to March 1992 of Sonari SDVO as follows:- In the Month of June 1991 LOC for Rs. 6,000/- In the Month of August 1991 LOC for Rs.12,000/- In the Month of September 1991 LOC for Rs. 4,000/- In the Month of October 1991 LOC for Rs. 9,000/- In the Month of November 1991 LOC for Rs.18,000/- In the Month of December 1991 LOC for Rs.16,000/- In the Month of January 1992 LOC for Rs.15,000/- In the Month of February 1992 LOC for Rs.18,000/- In the Month of March 1992 LOC for Rs. 8,000/- 22. For the month of June, August to December 1991 and January 1992 to March 1992. Ext. 49 to Ext. 55 are the genuine LOCs issued in favour of SPVO, Sonari. According to him, Treasury Officer cannot disburse any amount only on the basis of sanction order from Director, Veterinary Department and without LOC no bill can be processed and passed. P.W. 12 Npendra Nath Bordoloi, Assistant Director of Veterinary also stated that no DDO can draw any amount from Treasury without any LOC and sanction order. 23. P. W. 36, Dr. A. Zaman, was serving as Joint Director during 1995 in the Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Department. In his reply to the queries by Dy. P.W. 12 Npendra Nath Bordoloi, Assistant Director of Veterinary also stated that no DDO can draw any amount from Treasury without any LOC and sanction order. 23. P. W. 36, Dr. A. Zaman, was serving as Joint Director during 1995 in the Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Department. In his reply to the queries by Dy. S.P, CBI wrote letter Ext.57, about non-availability of budget for construction and repairing works in Sonari, SDVO. 24. PW. 16. Harish Kumar Dutta, Junior Accounts Assistant, Sonari Sub-treasury exhibited Ex.8 i.e. issue register maintained from 01.10.1986 to 04.07.1992 and Ext. 9, receipt register, from 03.10.1986 to 28.02.1994. Ext. 7 was never entered in Ext. 9. 25. PW. 17, Bijoy Kr. Handique, Jr. Accounts Assistant, Sonari Sub-Treasury exhibited Ext.10 i.e. Token Register for the period from 01.01.1991 to 11.03.1992, Ext. 11, Token Register from 17.03.1992 to 16.04.1993 and Ext. 12 the Daily posting Register from 03.04.1991 to 23.01.1994. Treasury Voucher No. 64 for Rs.1,65,000/- was exhibited as Ext.13, treasury voucher No. 65 for Rs.15,25,495/- was exhibited as Ext.14, Ex. 15 is treasury voucher for Rs.20,00,00/-. Ex. 16 and 17 are Treasury Vouchers for Rs.10,00,000/- and 20,00,000/- respectively. He also exhibited the vouchers/bills submitted by contractors & suppliers and were found along with the treasury vouchers exhibit No. 18 to 25. He identified the signatures of accused Tankeswar Saikia and D.C. Konwar (since deceased) in Ext. 13 to 17. He also identified the signatures of accused Dr. Enamul Haque and Mokibal Islam appearing the vouchers Ext. 18 to 25. 26. Mr. Rajib Gupta (P.W. 31), who was Assistant Manager (Personal, Banking Division), State Bank of India, Guwahati, during 1995, exhibited Ext. 26, Demand Draft of Rs.1,65,000/- in favour of M/s Kopil and signature of Manager of Accounts Division. 27. PW. 32, Mr. Ashish Chakraborty, Assistant Branch Manager of State Bank of India, Sonari Branch, exhibited Ext.27 i.e. letter handed over to him by Branch Manager relating to payments made to different parties. Ex. 34 to 39 are the pay-in-slips dated 30.12.1991 and 21.01.1992 for different parties. Ext. 34 to 35 were in favour of M/s RIB Enterprise and Ext. 36 to 39 in favour of SDVO, Sonari. Ex. 40 to 44 are bankers cheques dated 30.12.1991 for Rs.20,00,000/- and dated 29.01.1992 for Rs. 5,00,000/- each in favour of SDVO, Sonari. Ext. Ex. 34 to 39 are the pay-in-slips dated 30.12.1991 and 21.01.1992 for different parties. Ext. 34 to 35 were in favour of M/s RIB Enterprise and Ext. 36 to 39 in favour of SDVO, Sonari. Ex. 40 to 44 are bankers cheques dated 30.12.1991 for Rs.20,00,000/- and dated 29.01.1992 for Rs. 5,00,000/- each in favour of SDVO, Sonari. Ext. 40 to 44 are bankers cheques dated 30-12-1991 for Rs.20,00,000/- and dated 29-01-1992 for Rs.5,00,000/- each in favour of SDVO, Sonari. Ext. 45 to 47 were demand draft in favour of M/s RIB Enterprise for Rs.7,80,495, Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.7,45,000/- respectively. 28. PW. 33, Mr. T. N. Murthy was Manager of Andhra Bank, Guwahati during 1996. He exhibited Ext. 30 and Ex. 32 i.e. application forms for opening of account in the name of M/s Kopil and M/s RIB Enterprise. Ext. 30 is the application form for opening account of M/s Kopil. Ex. 28 is the signature of Barpujari and Ext. 29 is the specimen signature of introducer Mr. R. P. Borah of M/s RIB Enterprise. Ext.30 is the application form for opening account of M/s Kopil. Ext. 31 is the Pay-in-slip for depositing of Draft amount of Rs.1,65,000/-. Ext.26 is the draft mentioned in Ext.33 is certified copy of the statements of account of M/s Kopil. He on the basis of Ext.30 stated that Rojita Borpujari was the Proprietor of M/s Kopil. 29. P.W.38, Mr. N.K Jain adduced his evidence as handwriting Expert. The documents pertaining to this case were received from Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACU II, New Delhi vide letter No.489/03/02(A)/94-ACU II, New Delhi dated 06-10-1995. P.W.38 examined scientifically and prepared his report. The documents were also examined by then GEQD; Mr. Santosh Singh independently who also came to the same conclusion as P.W.38 and Mr. Singh also put his signature concurring the opinion of P.W.38. 30. P.W.40, Deepali Gogoi, LDA, SDVO, Sonari was maintaining the Issue and Receipt Register i.e. Ext.82 and Ext. 84 respectively. She stated that Ext.21, Ext. 24 and Ext.25 letters addressed to the Director, Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department were never entered in Issue Register i.e. Ext.82. She also stated that Ext. 13, 14 had never been received in the office of SDVO, Sonari. She thereby corroborated the evidence of P.W.10, P.W.11, P.W.12, P.W.13, P.W.14 and P.W.15. 31. 84 respectively. She stated that Ext.21, Ext. 24 and Ext.25 letters addressed to the Director, Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department were never entered in Issue Register i.e. Ext.82. She also stated that Ext. 13, 14 had never been received in the office of SDVO, Sonari. She thereby corroborated the evidence of P.W.10, P.W.11, P.W.12, P.W.13, P.W.14 and P.W.15. 31. P.W.42, Smti D. Devi, the then Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, recorded the statement of Narendra Kango and section 164 Cr.P.C. and affirmed that Ext.86 and Ext.87 are the photo copies of such statement recorded by her. 32. P.W.39, V.N. Verma, Investigating Officer, exhibited Ext.73, the FIR. He during investigation seized relevant documents pertaining to the case and recorded the statement of witnesses. Pending investigation, he being transferred out, the investigation of the case, was completed by Sri P. Lal, the then Dy. SP. P.W.39 also exhibited the charge-sheet. Ext. 74 submitted by Sri P. Lal. 33. P.W.39 did not mention in his statement that he obtained specimen signatures of the accused persons. 34. It is argued by Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel appearing on behalf of private accused that the prosecution failed to establish that the specimen signatures are admitted signatures of accused persons. In the whole case, the prosecution against the private accused is based on the opinion of handwriting expert. The opinion is based on the comparison of specimen writings of the accused persons taken by the investigating Officer in Ext. 70 series. Since the specimen writings were not taken in presence of handwriting expert (P.W.38), he cannot say that the accused persons themselves put the specimen signatures in Ext.70 series and the investigating Officer remained silent regarding obtaining specimen signature of private accused persons. Therefore, the very basis of comparison made by the hand writing expert not being legally proved. The opinion of handwriting expert has no evidential value. 35. It is further argued that the Bank Official P.W. 33 has also not properly proved the signature of accused Smti. Rojita Barpujari and Sri R. P. Borah as their signatures were not obtained in his presence. 36. In the cited case of the State of (Delhi Administration) v. Pali Ram, reported in (1979) 2 SCC 158 , the mode of proving the handwriting of a person has been discussed in Para 22 and 24, 25 and 26 as under:- "22. Rojita Barpujari and Sri R. P. Borah as their signatures were not obtained in his presence. 36. In the cited case of the State of (Delhi Administration) v. Pali Ram, reported in (1979) 2 SCC 158 , the mode of proving the handwriting of a person has been discussed in Para 22 and 24, 25 and 26 as under:- "22. Let us now compare it with Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, which runs as under: In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved, although that signature, writing or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose. The court may direct any person present in court to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the court to compare that words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person.... 24. Just as in English Law, the Indian Evidence Act recognises two direct methods of proving the handwriting of a person: (1) By an admission of the person who wrote it. (2) By the evidence of some witness who saw it written. These are the best methods of proof. These apart, there are three other modes of proof by opinion. They are: (i) By the evidence of a handwriting expert. (ii) By the evidence of a witness acquainted with the handwriting of the person who is said to have written the writing in question. (iii) Opinion formed by the court on comparison made by itself. All these three cognate modes of proof involve a process of comparison. In mode (i), the comparison is made by the expert of the disputed writing with the admitted or proved writing of the person who is said to have written the questioned document. In (ii), the comparison takes the form of a belief which the witness entertains upon comparing the writing in question, with an exemplar formed in his mind from some previous knowledge or repetitive observance of the handwriting of the person concerned. In (ii), the comparison takes the form of a belief which the witness entertains upon comparing the writing in question, with an exemplar formed in his mind from some previous knowledge or repetitive observance of the handwriting of the person concerned. In the case of (iii), the comparison is made by the court with the sample writing or exemplar obtained by it from the person concerned. 25. A sample writing taken by the Court under the second paragraph of Section 73, is, in substance and reality, the same thing as "admitted writing" within the purview of the first paragraph of Section 73, also. The first paragraph of the section, as ready seen, provides for comparison of signature, writing, etc. purporting to have been written by a person with other admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the court to have been written by the same person. But it does not specifically say by whom such comparison may be made. Construed in the light of the English Law on the subject, which is the legislative source of this provision, it is clear that such comparison may be made by a handwriting expert (Section 45) or by one familiar with the handwriting of the person concerned (Section 47) or by the court. The two paragraphs of the Section are not mutually exclusive. They are complementary to each other. 26. Section 73 is therefore to be read as a whole, in the light of Section 45. Thus read, it is clear that a court holding an inquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of an offence triable by itself or by the Court of Session, does not exceed its powers under Section 73 if, in the interests of justice, it directs an accused person appearing before it, to give his sample writing to enabling the same to be compared by a handwriting expert chosen or approved by the court, irrespective of whether his name was suggested by the prosecution or the defence, because even in adopting this course, the purpose is to enable the court before which he is ultimately put up for trial, to compare the disputed writing with his (accused's) admitted writing, and to reach its own conclusion with the assistance of the expert." 37. In the case of Ajit Savant Majagvai v. State of Karnataka, reported in (1997) 7 SCC 110 , it was observed in Para 38 as under:- "As a matter of extreme caution and judicial sobriety, the Court should not normally take upon itself the responsibility of comparing the disputed signature with that of the admitted signature or handwriting and in the event of the slightest doubt, leave the matter to the wisdom of experts. But this does not mean that the Court has not the power to compare the disputed signature with the admitted signature as this power is clearly available under Section 73 of the Act." 38. In the case of Shashi Kumar Banerjee & Ors. v. Subodh Kr. Banerjee, reported in AIR 1964 SC 529 , it was held that the expert's evidence as to handwriting is opinion evidence and it can rarely, if ever, take place of substantive evidence. Before acting on such evidence, it is usual to see if it is corroborated either by clear direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. 39. The documents of this case were received in the Laboratory of P.W. 38 from the Superintendent of Police SPE/CBI/ACU-II, New Delhi vide Letter No. 489/03/02(A)/94-ACU-II dated 06.10.1995 containing disputed and specimen signatures, pertaining to RC Case No. 2(A)/94-ACU II New Delhi. The I.O. had collected/seized all documents pertaining to the said RC case. 40. PW-38 stated that documents bears signatures of the accused persons. In cross-examination of the I.O., no suggestion was given that the specimen signatures are not the signatures of private accused persons. Ext. 70 series were allowed to be exhibited and proved without raising objections. 41. There is no denial of fact that there was conspiracy. False proposals in respect of various works and supply were shown to be sent to the office of the Directorate of Veterinary, Government of Assam. False sanction orders were prepared. Works and supply orders were issued in the name of M/s Kopil, M/s RIB Enterprise. Those firms submitted false vouchers and false bills were processed in the Office which were passed and payments were also made through Sub-Treasury, Sonari. Most of the money paid against the bills were received by R.P. Borah either in his name or in the name of M/s RIB Enterprise. Those firms submitted false vouchers and false bills were processed in the Office which were passed and payments were also made through Sub-Treasury, Sonari. Most of the money paid against the bills were received by R.P. Borah either in his name or in the name of M/s RIB Enterprise. Bank accounts in Andhra Bank in the name of M/s Kopil and M/s RIB Enterprise were opened showing the name of Rojita Borpujari, Proprietor of M/s Kopil and R.P. Boarh as Proprietor M/s RIB Enterprise. Most of the money drawn against the false vouchers and bills were deposited in Andhra Bank. 42. That apart, the agreement, Ext. 18, between SDVO and accused Rajendra Prasad Borah, as contractor, clearly indicates that Rajendra Prasad Borah is R.P. Borah and Proprietor of M/s RIB Enterprise. In the bank account maintained in Andhra Bank, Rajendra Prasad Borah is shown as owner of M/s RIB Enterprise. There was supply order of medicines etc in favour of firm M/s Kopil and in response to such order, A. Borpujari submitted vouchers and Mrs. Rojita Borpujari was Proprietor of M/s Kopil. Accused Achyut Borpujari is husband of the accused Rojita Borpujari. There is no denial of fact that M/s RIB Enterprise and M/s Kopil had looted the Government money. The prosecution could establish that Rajendra Prasad Borah and Rojita Borpujari was proprietor of the firm M/s RIB Enterprise and M/s Kopil. Accused Achyut Borpujari submitted vouchers and claimed an amount of Rs.1,65,000/- against the vouchers for carrying out the supply order placed in favour of M/s kopil. He also acknowledged the receipt of Rs.1,65,000/- from SDVO, Sonari. 43. Mr. Z. Kamar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Tankeswar Saikia in Crl. A. No. 31 of 2007 has submitted that the prosecution failed to prove by adducing specific evidence that the appellant Tankeswar Saikia conspired with other co-accused and did any overact so that he can be convicted against the charges levelled against him. The Treasury Officer is the final authority to pass the bills and generally the accountant cannot pass the bills for payment which clearly goes to show that the accused appellant Tankeswar Saikia had no role to play in the conspiracy as alleged. 44. It is further submitted that P.W.16, Shri S.C. Dutta, Jr. The Treasury Officer is the final authority to pass the bills and generally the accountant cannot pass the bills for payment which clearly goes to show that the accused appellant Tankeswar Saikia had no role to play in the conspiracy as alleged. 44. It is further submitted that P.W.16, Shri S.C. Dutta, Jr. Account Assistant, Sonari Sub-Treasury, in his deposition, stated that the sanction letter (Ext.7) were sent to the Treasury Officer to the Accountant for processing and therefore, the appellant in discharge of his assigned duties, processed the bills. P.W.17, Shri B.K. Handique, the then Jr. Account Assistant posted in Sub-Treasury at Sonari stated that he against the Ext. 13 to 17 i.e. treasury vouchers issued Token No.52(3) and the entries were made under his handwriting. He further stated that after giving Token number, bills are sent to the Sr. Account Officer. Therefore, the bills were processed initially by P.W.17 and it was sent to Sr. Account Officer i.e. the appellant, herein whereas P.W.17 has been examined as witness and the appellant Tankeswar Saikia has been made accused. 45. The learned counsel has relied upon the case of Raj Kumar Singh alias Raju alias Batya v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2013 CrLJ 3276 , wherein Para 17 and 36, it has been held as under:- "17. Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large different between something that "may be" proved and will be proved. In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. This is for the reason, that the mental distance between "may be" and "must be" is quite large and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. In a criminal case, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. The large distance "may be" true and "must be" true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and un-impeachable evidence produced by the prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied. The large distance "may be" true and "must be" true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and un-impeachable evidence produced by the prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied. In such cases, while keeping in mind the distance between "may be" true and "must be" true, the court must maintain the vital distance between conjectures and sure conclusions to be arrived at, on the touchstone of dispassionate judicial scrutiny based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case, as well as the quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record. The Court must ensure, that miscarriage of justice is avoided and if the facts and circumstances of a case so demand, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, keeping in mind that a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely probable doubt, but a fair doubt that is based upon reason and common sense. 36. In view of the above, the law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is recorded to meet the requirement of the principles of natural justice as it requires that an accused may be given an opportunity to furnish explanation of the incriminating material which had come against him in the trial. However, his statement cannot be made a basis for his conviction. His answers to the questions put to him under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be used to fill up the gaps left by the prosecution witnesses in their depositions. Thus, the statement of the accused is not a substantive piece of evidence and therefore, it can be used only for appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution, though it cannot be a substitute for the evidence of the prosecution. In case the prosecution's evidence is not found sufficient to sustain conviction of the accused, the inculpatory part of his statement cannot be made the sole basis of his conviction. The statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is not recorded after administering oath to the accused. In case the prosecution's evidence is not found sufficient to sustain conviction of the accused, the inculpatory part of his statement cannot be made the sole basis of his conviction. The statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is not recorded after administering oath to the accused. Therefore, it cannot be treated as an evidence within the meaning of Section 3 of the Evidence Act, though the accused has a right if he chooses to be a witness and once he makes that option, he can be administered oath and examined as a witness in defence as required under Section 325 Cr.P.C. An adverse inference can be taken against the accused only and only if the incriminating material stood fully established and the accused is not able to furnish any explanation for the same. However, the accused has a right to remain silent as he cannot be forced to become witness against himself. 46. There is no doubt, the Treasury Officer is the final authority for passing or rejecting the bills and it appears from the evidence of P.W.17 that initially vouchers were process by P.W.17 and thereafter it was sent to the appellant, who was then Sr. Account Officer for passing the vouchers/bills. 47. Admittedly, the appellant Tankeswar Saikia processed the bills and passed the bills for payment under his signature. P.W.20 has corroborated the evidence of P.W.17. The appellant was Sr. Account Officer and as such, it was his duty to process and pass the bills after verifying as to whether there was any approval, sanction or LOC for those vouchers/bills but he processed the bills without verifying anything. He cannot claim immunity as because the Jr. Account Officer had issued the Token and entered the bill numbers in the relevant register. It is the duty of the Sr. Account Officer to see whether there is any budgetary allotment in the form of LOC and without LOC, no bills can be initiated by the DDO. But without any LOC, the bills were sent to the Treasury for processing and for getting an order for payment of such bills. 48. In view of the above, this Court finds that no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the learned trial Court in convicting the appellants in all the appeals. But without any LOC, the bills were sent to the Treasury for processing and for getting an order for payment of such bills. 48. In view of the above, this Court finds that no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the learned trial Court in convicting the appellants in all the appeals. The judgment passed by the learned trial Court needs not any interference by this Court and therefore, all the appeals are dismissed and disposed of. 49. The appellants, who are on bail, shall immediately surrender before the learned trial Court to serve out the sentence passed against them. 50. Send down the LCRs to the learned court below forthwith along with a copy of this judgment.