JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. This appeal is instituted against Judgment dated 29.7.2011 rendered by the learned Special Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala (HP) in Corruption Case No. 3-N/2006, whereby the respondents-accused (hereinafter referred to as 'accused' for convenience sake), who were charged with and tried for the commission of offence under Sections 120-B, 408, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201 read with Section 120-B IPC and under Sections 7 and 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, have been acquitted. 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that the accused Vijay Singh was appointed as Secretary, Co-operative Agricultural Society, Khajjan, during the year 1992-93 and he was holding and maintaining the entire record of the society including accounts and cash of the society. Vijay, in the month of October, 1992 prepared four pro-notes in the pro-note register Ext. PW-1/A-2 in favour of Suram Singh, Prem Singh (Ext. PW-2/F), Chattar Singh (Ext. PW-2/G) and Darshan Singh (Ext. PW-2/H), each amounting to Rs. 4,000/- in which the loanees and the sureties were identified by accused Krishan Chand and Pancham Chand amongst others. Charan Singh, a founding member of the Co-operative Agricultural Society, Khajjan, came to know about the preparation of forged pro-notes in the name of aforesaid persons. He inquired from accused Vijay about the pro-note and money of the society. Charan Singh thereafter made a report against accused to the Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies. Harnam Singh (PW-2) was entrusted with the inquiry by Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies on 20.8.2002. He scrutinized the record of the society i.e. ledger Ext. PW-1/A-1. Harnam Singh PW-2 found that accused Vijay had advanced the loan on the pro-notes to the aforesaid persons mentioned in the pro-note and these loans were shown to have been recovered after a period of one year and interest of Rs. 225/- each was shown to have been charged. Vijay made entry showing that the loan had been repaid. PW-2 Harnam Singh submitted report Ext. PW-2/A to Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies, Nurpur. On the basis of report, FIR Ext. PW-22/B was registered. Vijay was removed from the post of Secretary, Co-operative Agricultural Society, Khajjan and one Sukhdev Sharma (PW-18) took over the charge of Co-operative Agricultural Society, Khajjan from Inspector Gurbachan Singh. It is further alleged that as per audit note Ext. PW-2/A to Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies, Nurpur. On the basis of report, FIR Ext. PW-22/B was registered. Vijay was removed from the post of Secretary, Co-operative Agricultural Society, Khajjan and one Sukhdev Sharma (PW-18) took over the charge of Co-operative Agricultural Society, Khajjan from Inspector Gurbachan Singh. It is further alleged that as per audit note Ext. PW-1/C, society was having funds of Rs.53,000/- approximately but despite this, no amount was given in the charge to Sukhdev Sharma, which was due against Vijay. As such, no cash-in-hand was received by him. Sukhdev Sharma, after assuming charge of Secretary, had not received any proceedings book for the period prior to his joining which was maintained by the Secretary in which day-to-day proceedings were recorded relating to loan etc. Sukhdev Sharma, thereafter opened a new proceedings book Ext. PW-2/B-1 and mentioned about taking over charge and articles/items/documents which he had received/not received in the proceedings dated 28.10.1994 (Ext. PW-18/A). PW-18 Sukhdev Sharma after functioning as Secretary handed over the charge in 2002 to Mukta Sharma, Inspector, Inspector, Co-operative Societies and recorded handing over and taking over of the said fact in Ext.PW-2/B-1. During investigation, it was found that the loanees as mentioned in pro-notes were non-existent in the area of Gram Panchayat Oundh. Accused Vijay Singh made a statement Ext. PW- 2/C during the inquiry, confessing the misappropriation of amount and the circumstances under which it was done. Specimen handwriting and signatures of accused Vijay, Pancham Chand and Kishan Chand were taken before the Executive Magistrate, Sant Ram (PW-4). Signatures of Man Singh (PW-8) and Dhian Chand were also obtained before the Executive Magistrate, Sant Ram (PW- 4). Specimen handwritings of Karam Chand (PW-13) and Vakil Singh (PW-12) were also obtained before PW-5 Raj Krishan, Executive Magistrate, Nurpur. Dhian Singh, Man Singh and Vakil Singh had not signed the pro-notes. The admitted handwriting contained in the register was got compared from PW-23 Visheswar Sharma. He submitted his report, Ext. PX. Matter was investigated. Challan was put up in the Court after completing all the codal formalities. 3. Prosecution examined as many as twenty three witnesses to prove its case against accused. Accused were examined under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code. Accused stated that they were innocent. Accused were acquitted as noticed above. Hence, this appeal. 4. Mr. PX. Matter was investigated. Challan was put up in the Court after completing all the codal formalities. 3. Prosecution examined as many as twenty three witnesses to prove its case against accused. Accused were examined under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code. Accused stated that they were innocent. Accused were acquitted as noticed above. Hence, this appeal. 4. Mr. Parmod Thakur, Additional Advocate General, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused. 5. Mr. Anup Chitkara and Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocates, appearing for the respective respondents, have supported judgment dated 29.7.2011. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record carefully. 7. PW-1 Mukta Sharma, the then Inspector, Co-operative Societies, Nurpur testified that the society was closed in the year 2002. Sukhdev Sharma was the Secretary of Co-operative Agricultural Society during her tenure. In the year 2002, Sukhdev Sharma deposited record of the society with her as the society was not functioning. She kept the record in safe custody. She had produced record of Khata Bahi Ext. PW-1/A-1, pro-note register Ext. PW-1/A-2, Cash book Ext. PW-1/A-3 and another cash book with effect from 6.5.1966 to 31.3.2002, Ext. PW-1/A-4, which was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext. PW-1/A. Audit report is Ext. PW-1/C-1 and order of Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies is Mark A1. However, in her cross-examination, she could not narrate as to who had handed over charge to Sukhdev Sharma. Embezzlement came to the notice of the Society in the year 1993. 8. PW-2 Harnam Singh, is a material witness. He was Inspector, Co-operative Societies Nurpur. He was entrusted with inquiry by Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies. He checked register, Ext. PW-1/A-1 in which four pro-notes were prepared at pages No. 27, 28, 29 and 30 vide Ext. PW-2/E to Ext. PW-2/H. He submitted his report Ext. PW-2/B to the Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies. He has recorded statement of Charan Singh, Ext. PW-2/A and of the accused, Ext. PW-2/C. According to him, as per inquiry, it was found that the loan has been repaid. He was cross-examined. He could not narrate who had written the pro-notes. He has admitted that sanction was given by Kishan Chand and Executive Members Beli Ram, Nageen Chand, Sahai Deen and Jiwan Kumar for preparing pro-notes. He admitted that before granting loan, sanction is given by the Committee and entered in the proceedings. He was cross-examined. He could not narrate who had written the pro-notes. He has admitted that sanction was given by Kishan Chand and Executive Members Beli Ram, Nageen Chand, Sahai Deen and Jiwan Kumar for preparing pro-notes. He admitted that before granting loan, sanction is given by the Committee and entered in the proceedings. He admitted that when loan is advanced entry is made in the cash book. Entry is also made at the time of repayment of the loan. He could not narrate whether he has seen the proceedings book at the time of inquiry. He had not seen the relevant entries of pro-notes in the cash book as well as in the proceedings book in the Court. He admitted that the Secretary works on the direction of the members and he has no independent power. He admitted that till the time money is not deposited in the Bank, it is supposed to be with the cashier. Self stated that Vijay has admitted that he was having Rs.16,900/- approximately. He had not associated cashier at the time of inquiry. He had associated only Charan Singh and Vijay. He has not summoned the person who had sanctioned the loan. 9. Manohar Lal, PW-3 was posted as Inspector Audit. He has handed over record Mark B1, Mark B2 and Mark B3 and inquiry report Ext. PW-2/A. Statements of witnesses were recorded vide Ext. PW-2/B. Documents were taken into possession vide Ext. PW-3/B. He has explained that the work of society is undertaken by Secretary and in this connection Secretary makes entries in the cash book. Secretary deposits money in the Bank. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the cash remains with the cashier though cashier will get the cash if handed over by the Secretary. 10. PW-4 Sant Ram, Executive Magistrate has obtained the specimen signatures of Vijay on 10.8.2004 and also of Pancham Chand, Kishan Chand, Dhian Chand and Man Singh. In his cross-examination, he could not mention any of the provision of CrPC, under which he could obtain specimen signatures of the accused. 11. PW-5 Dhian Singh testified that he has not taken any amount from the society. He has not stood surety as per pro-note Ext. PW-2/H. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. He has stated that his specimen signatures were taken by the Tehsildar. 11. PW-5 Dhian Singh testified that he has not taken any amount from the society. He has not stood surety as per pro-note Ext. PW-2/H. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. He has stated that his specimen signatures were taken by the Tehsildar. In his cross-examination by learned defence Counsel he has testified that pro-note Ext. PW-2/H does not contain name of his father. 12. PW-6 Beli Ram was member of the Co-operative Society from 1992 to 1996. He deposed that at the that time, Kishan was Pradhan of the Co-operative Agricultural Society and Charan Singh was the Up-Pradhan, Jiwan Kumar was Cashier, Sain Deen, Hoshiar Singh and Babu Ram were members. Vijay was Secretary. He has not stood surety for any person. He used to take ration from the society and Vijay used to obtain his thumb impression on record. His thumb impression was obtained on Ext. PW-2/E. He did not know Suram Singh son of Mohar singh, Prem Singh son of Sohan Singh, Chattar Singh son of Pritam Chand, Darshan Singh son of Jagat Ram. They were not the residents of his Panchayat. In his cross-examination, by the learned defence Counsel, he has deposed that the loan is sanctioned by the Pradhan and Secretary of the Society, which is entered in the proceedings. He denied that in the pro-note, President, vice President and Members put their signatures. He could not say whether at the time of sanctioning of loan, by the society, he, President and the members had signed the pro-note. 13. PW-7 Charan Singh was member of Co-operative Agricultural Society, Khajjan from 1991 to 1996-97. Accused Vijay was Secretary of the society. Accused Vijay prepared forged Tamsak in 1992-93, which were in the names of Suram Singh, Chattar Singh etc. Pro-notes were not prepared in their presence. Accused had obtained thumb impressions of illiterate persons. They had inquired about fake persons but no record was found in the Gram Panchayat. There was no money in the account of the society. Matter was reported to the Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies. When report was made against accused, he made entry that the loan had been repaid. PW-2 Harnam Singh also recorded his statement. He specifically admitted that other members have signed Ext. PW-2/H. He also admitted that when any pro-note is prepared it is signed by Pradhan and other members of the Committee. When report was made against accused, he made entry that the loan had been repaid. PW-2 Harnam Singh also recorded his statement. He specifically admitted that other members have signed Ext. PW-2/H. He also admitted that when any pro-note is prepared it is signed by Pradhan and other members of the Committee. Decision is taken by Pradhan and other Members. Secretary works under the directions of the Committee. 14. PW-8 Man Singh testified that he has not signed pro-note Ext. PW-2/G. He was not having any account No. 108 as mentioned in Ext. PW-2/G. He did not know Chattar Singh. 15. PW-9 Raj Krishan is the Tehsildar before whom, Vakil Singh had given his specimen signatures. PW-9 Raj Krishan has also obtained specimen signatures of Karam Chand. 16. PW-10 Ashwani Kumar testified that he made inquiry under Section 69(1) of the Co-operative Societies Act. Report is Ext. PW-10/Al. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that in his report, there is reference about pro-notes and regarding forging the pro-notes regarding cash-in-hand. According to him, proceedings book, cash book were not available at the time of inquiry. Therefore, he could not properly conduct the inquiry. He admitted that pro-notes were sanctioned by Pradhan and Members. He had also mentioned in the inquiry report that recoveries are not effected from Secretary, then recoveries are effected from members of the Committee. All the decisions are taken by the executive committee of the society, which are entered into the proceedings book and then implemented by the Secretary. 17. PW-12 Vakil Singh testified that he was not a member of Co-operative Agricultural Society, Khajjan. He was member of Agricultural Society Sadwan. His specimen signatures were obtained by the Tehsildar Nurpur. 18. PW-13 Karam Chand claimed that he was a member of Co-operative Agricultural Society, Khajjan. However, he never stood surety to any person. He did not know Prem Singh. His specimen signatures were taken by Tehsildar Nurpur. 19. PW-16 Roshan Deen testified that he was Pradhan of Aund Panchayat some 13-14 years ago. He has seen Ext. PW-2/D which was issued by him that there was no person in the name of Suram Singh, Prem Singh or Chattar Singh and Darshan Singh. 20. PW-17 Manohar Lal testified that he issued certificate Ext. PW-17/A mentioning that Suram Singh, Prem Singh Chattar Singh or Darshan Singh were not the residents of his village. 21. He has seen Ext. PW-2/D which was issued by him that there was no person in the name of Suram Singh, Prem Singh or Chattar Singh and Darshan Singh. 20. PW-17 Manohar Lal testified that he issued certificate Ext. PW-17/A mentioning that Suram Singh, Prem Singh Chattar Singh or Darshan Singh were not the residents of his village. 21. PW-18 Sukhdev Sharma is another material witness. He remained Secretary of the Co-operative Agricultural Society, Khajjan from 26.10.1994 to 31.3.2002. He has taken charge from Inspector Gurbachan Singh. He handed over charge in 2002 to Mukta Sharma, qua which entry was made in Ext. PW-2/B-1 at Page No. 183. He has admitted that he has not mentioned about amount of Rs.53,000/- was due from Vijay. He had seen the pro-note in dispute signed by Kishan Singh Pradhan, Charan Singh Up-Pradhan, Jeewan Kumar Cashier and Karam Chand, member of the society. He could identify their signatures. 22. PW-22 Jodha Mal has investigated the case. FIR Ext. 22 was registered. He has taken into possession register of the Khata Bahi, Tamsak and register of Rokar Bahi. There were produced by Mukta Sharma, PW-1. He has also taken into possession record, inquiry conducted with respect to audit note and charge of Secretary. Vijay handed over charge to Krishan Singh on 7.6.1993, vide Ext. DA. He also seized certificate issued by Gram Panchayat Secretary, Ext. PW-17/A. He has admitted that pro-notes were prepared in October, 1992 and case was registered in July, 2003. He has admitted in his cross-examination that the salesman, Secretary and Cashier are under the control of Inspector and higher officers of the Cooperation Department. He has not secured any evidence regarding entrustment of Rs.16,900/-. He has also admitted that at the time of advancement of loan by the Society, resolution is passed by the Executive body of the society and thereafter, it is entered in the proceedings book. He has admitted that President Krishan Chand, Nageen Chand, Beli Ram have signed and sanctioned the loan vide Ext. PW-2/G and similarly in all other three Tamsaks, the President and other executive members have signed and sanctioned the loan. He further admitted that he has not challaned the said members of the executive committee in the present case. He has admitted that Jiwan Kumar was Cashier of the society at the relevant time but he has not interrogated him in the investigation. 23. He further admitted that he has not challaned the said members of the executive committee in the present case. He has admitted that Jiwan Kumar was Cashier of the society at the relevant time but he has not interrogated him in the investigation. 23. Co-operative Agricultural Society, Khajjan is a registered society. Shri Chararn Singh reported the matter to the Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies. Inquiry was entrusted to Harnam Singh, PW-2. His report is Ext. PW-2/A. FIR Ext. PW-22/A was registered. Matter was investigated by PW-22 Inspector Jodha Mal. Documents were taken into possession. Admitted signatures and handwritings of accused and others were taken by PW-4 Sant Ram and PW-9 Raj Krishan, Tehsildar. It has come on record that Jiwan Kumar was the cashier of the society at the relevant time. PW-22 Inspector Jodha Mal admitted that Jiwan Kumar was not interrogated during investigation. Prosecution has not placed on record constitution of the society and its bye-laws to prove that who was handling the cash. It was necessary for the prosecution to prove duties of Secretary. PW-2 Harnam Singh who has conducted inquiry and prepared report Ext. PW-2/A has also admitted that the cashier was also working in the society and he was supposed to deal with the cash. Prosecution has not led any evidence who was entrusted the duties of cashier. Police has not even associated Jiwan Kumar, Cashier during the investigation. Specimen handwritings and signatures of the accused and others who were cited as witnesses in the case, have been obtained by PW-4 Sant Ram and PW-9 Raj Krishan during the course of investigation. Admitted handwriting and signatures of accused could not be obtained during the course of investigation as held in AIR 1980 SC 791 . It was necessary for the prosecution to prove that cash was entrusted to Vijay. Proof of entrustment of money is a sine qua non. Thus, the charge of breach of trust has not been established against Vijay. Moreover, even Jiwan Kumar was cashier. It was necessary for the prosecution to prove that the Secretary used to look after cash as per its constitution. Jiwan Kumar was material witness to state whether it was Secretary who was entrusted with cash. 24. There is sufficient material on record that loans were sanctioned by the executive committee of the society. Moreover, even Jiwan Kumar was cashier. It was necessary for the prosecution to prove that the Secretary used to look after cash as per its constitution. Jiwan Kumar was material witness to state whether it was Secretary who was entrusted with cash. 24. There is sufficient material on record that loans were sanctioned by the executive committee of the society. PW-2 Harnam Singh has also not deposed in whose presence, statement of accused Vijay Ext. PW-2/A was recorded. There is no evidence that the statement was made by accused Vijay voluntarily. 25. PW-5 Dhian Singh claimed that his father’s name was not written in the pro-note and there was another person by the same name. Similarly, Man Singh has claimed that his father’s name was not mentioned in the Tamsak and there was another person by that name. PW-13 Karam Singh has denied that he stood surety in any pro-note. In case there were other persons in the village by the same name, IO should have ascertained the same to find out whether persons mentioned in the pro-note were not available in the village. Persons who were examined as sureties, claimed that there were other persons of their names in the village. 26. PW-2 Harnam Singh has admitted that at the time of advancement of loan by the society, resolution is passed by the executive committee of the society and it is entered in the proceedings book. 27. There is no evidence that the proceedings have been destroyed by the accused. prosecution has failed to prove that the accused has forged entry in the pro-note register and embezzled Rs.16,900.80 and other accused have connived with him. IO should have associated the members of the society during investigation. Proceedings register was neither produced nor the members of the executive committee were examined. Moreover, their specimen handwritings were also not obtained. Pro-notes were signed by the members of the executive committee. Thus, it can not be said that these were forged. 28. It is reiterated that prosecution has failed to prove that Vijay being secretary of Co-operative Agricultural Society, Khajjan being a public servant entered into criminal conspiracy with co- accused Kishan Chand and Pancham Chand by forging false pro-notes and after that used such forged pro-notes to be genuine documents for the purpose of cheating. 28. It is reiterated that prosecution has failed to prove that Vijay being secretary of Co-operative Agricultural Society, Khajjan being a public servant entered into criminal conspiracy with co- accused Kishan Chand and Pancham Chand by forging false pro-notes and after that used such forged pro-notes to be genuine documents for the purpose of cheating. Prosecution has thus failed to prove case against the accused Vijay under Sections 120-B, 408, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 201 IPC and Sections 13(1)(c) punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and against co-accused under Sections 120-B, 408, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 201 IPC. 29. Moreover, the view taken by the learned trial Court can not be said to be perverse. There is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the learned trial Court. 30. Accordingly, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any. Bail bonds of accused are discharged.