JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present appeal is maintained by the appellant-State laying challenge to the judgment dated 15.12.2010, passed by the learned Special Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., in Corruption Case No.4-N/1994, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 471, 120-B IPC and under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, whereby all the accused persons were acquitted. 2. Respondent No.1, Narinder Paul Sooden (hereinafter called as ‘accused No.1’), died during the pendency of the appeal, therefore, appeal against him stood abated vide order dated 16.9.2016. Now, the appeal is maintained by the appellant-State against accused/respondents No.2 and 3 only. 3. As per the prosecution story, brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that accused Nardev Singh (hereinafter called as ‘accused No. 3’) was posted as Chowkidar in HPPWD, Sub-Division, Indora, and was working under the control of accused No. 1, for receiving and supplying material, including bitumen drums. Accused, Roop Lal (hereinafter called as ‘accused No. 2’) was also working under the control of accused No.1 (since deceased) in the same store at Kandrori. The accused persons, in connivance with each other, supplied 40 bitumen drums, worth Rs.14,000/- and converted the same for their own use by making a fictitious entry in the stock of out door register and Bin-card against indent card No.19/1977, dated 11.3.1981. The accused persons had wrongly shown the dispatch of above 40 bitumen drums through departmental truck, bearing registration No.HPK-701, but, in fact, it was transported for sale in a private truck, bearing registration No. HPK-7935. The accused persons forged certain documents and made a fictitious entry in respect of the delivery of 40 bitumen drums in bin-card/indent/MAS register and thus they fraudulently used the above referred documents as genuine. It has further been averred that accused No. 1 dishonestly and fraudulently made double entry in the Bin-card of bitumen drums, Ex. P7. Accused No. 3 made an entry in the outdoor register, Ex. P18, showing false dispatch of 40 bitumen drums from Kandrori Store. A departmental inquiry was conducted and the Executive Engineer reported the matter to the Superintending Engineer, vide letter. Ex. P17. The Superintending Engineer sent the complaint to the Chief Engineer, vide letter Ex. PC, who lodged an FIR at Police Station (Anti Corruption) North Zone, Dharamshala. During the course of investigation, police took into possession all the relevant documents. A departmental inquiry was conducted and the Executive Engineer reported the matter to the Superintending Engineer, vide letter. Ex. P17. The Superintending Engineer sent the complaint to the Chief Engineer, vide letter Ex. PC, who lodged an FIR at Police Station (Anti Corruption) North Zone, Dharamshala. During the course of investigation, police took into possession all the relevant documents. The specimen signatures/handwritings of the accused persons were also taken before the Judicial Magistrate and the same were sent for comparison to Government Questioned Documents Examiner, Shimla. As per opinion of the Examiner, Ex. P70, entry in the out door register, Ex. P18, marked as Q-4, was opined to have been made by the accused persons. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Trial Court. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses. Statements of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, wherein they pleaded not guilty. Five witnesses wee examined by the accused persons in support of their defence. 5. Learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the Court below has acquitted the accused persons on the basis of surmises only, whereas the prosecution has conclusively and beyond all reasonable doubts proved their guilt. She argued that the present appeal may be allowed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for accused No.2 & 3, has argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. She has argued that the Court below has rightly recorded its findings that the prosecution could not prove the pilferage of 40 bitumen drums, thus the judgment of the learned Court below needs no interference. 7. In rebuttal, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the testimonies of PW 1, 4 and 13, clearly establish the guilt of the accused persons and the appeal may be allowed. 8. To appreciate the arguments adduced by the learned counsel for the parties, we have gone through the record of the case in detail. 9. PW1 S.K. Aggarwal deposed that at the relevant time he was posted as Chief Engineer North Zone, HPPWD, Dharamshala, and was competent authority for appointment and removal of Class-IV employees, as well as the Junior Engineers. He accorded sanction, vide order, Ex. PA, for initiating prosecution against the accused persons. 9. PW1 S.K. Aggarwal deposed that at the relevant time he was posted as Chief Engineer North Zone, HPPWD, Dharamshala, and was competent authority for appointment and removal of Class-IV employees, as well as the Junior Engineers. He accorded sanction, vide order, Ex. PA, for initiating prosecution against the accused persons. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that after a lapse of so many years, it is not possible for him to recollect the record, which was seen by him for according sanction. He has further deposed that though the Superintending Engineer is the appointing and removing authority, but the Chief Engineer is not debarred from appointing and removing the Junior Engineers. It has further been deposed that at the time when the sanction was accorded, the report of the police, against the accused persons, was available. The police record contained all the documents. He has further deposed that he had not started any inquiry against the accused persons, but has only accorded sanction, vide order Ex. PA, for prosecution and recommended to the Government for departmental inquiry, as there was a chance of recovery of loss, but the government did not agree and asked him to proceed further with the case. He has deposed that first of all the loss was detected by the Executive Engineer, Nurpur, who referred the matter to the Superintending Engineer and thereafter to the Chief Engineer. The Executive Engineer, Nurpur made a preliminary inquiry and thereafter reported the matter to the Superintending Engineer, Nurpur. He denied the suggestion that he had not gone through the record of the case nor applied his mind, while according sanction to prosecute the accused persons. 10. PW2, Paras Ram, deposed that in the year 1985, he was employed as Assistant in the office of Chief Engineer (North) Dharamshala, and handed over the relevant record and documents, Ex. P1 to Ex. P11, to the police, vide letter Ex. PB, which bears his signatures. 11. PW3, O.P. Samlok, deposed that in the year 1985, he was posted as Chief Engineer, North Zone, Dharamshala, and at that time, accused No.1 was working as Junior Engineer. He has further stated that on receiving letter, Ex. PC, from S.E., Nurpur, he wrote letter, Ex. PD, which bears his signatures. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that he had not verified anything at his end and forwarded the entire record for action. 12. He has further stated that on receiving letter, Ex. PC, from S.E., Nurpur, he wrote letter, Ex. PD, which bears his signatures. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that he had not verified anything at his end and forwarded the entire record for action. 12. PW4, Jarnail Singh, stated that he was employed as a Driver in HPPWD since 1965 and during the year 1981 was working as Driver of Truck No. HPK-701, which was owned by HPPWD. He further stated that he used to make entries in the log book of the truck and also to sign it alongwith the challan. The log books, Ex. P12 and P13, pertain to truck No. HPK-701. The entries in the log book were made in his handwriting and whenever the Junior Engineer accompanied the truck, he used to put his signatures on the challans and in the absence of the Junior Engineer, the driver of the truck had to put the signatures on the challans. As per this witness, challans No.154 and 166 were signed by Desh Raj, Junior Engineer, and challans No.156, 158, 160, 161 and 165 were signed by him. It has further been deposed that one log book continued for a month and thereafter was being sent for verification to the department. The log book, Ex. P12, contained the entry of the material carried in the aforesaid truck. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that he is an illiterate person. The entries in Ex. P9, in respect of the challan in question, were made by accused No.2. He did not know about the indent of the material in question, which was carried by him at the relevant time in the truck under reference. Further deposed that he did not know what had been written in the log books, Ex. P12 and Ex. P13, respectively. He also did not know as to by whom these log books were filled in and what were the contents of the challan, which bore his signatures as well as of the challan, Ex. P9. 13. PW5, Kishori Lal, who was posted as Senior Assistant in HPPWD, Nurpur, stated that he used to maintain statement of accounts of the office of SDO, PWD, Indora, where he was working as Assistant in the year 1981. He has deposed that the entries were made in bin-card, Ex. P7, regarding indent No.88/888. P9. 13. PW5, Kishori Lal, who was posted as Senior Assistant in HPPWD, Nurpur, stated that he used to maintain statement of accounts of the office of SDO, PWD, Indora, where he was working as Assistant in the year 1981. He has deposed that the entries were made in bin-card, Ex. P7, regarding indent No.88/888. He has further stated that there was no indent bearing No.38/888. He also produced the office record, Ex. P14 to Ex.P18, before the Investigating Officer, who impounded it vide memo, Ex. PE. He deposed that Ex. P9 was in the handwriting of accused No.1 and challans No. 166, 172 and 173 were issued by accused No.2, which were handed over to the police vide Memo, Ex. PF. He has further stated that the police had taken into possession record Ex. P22 and Ex. P23, in which signatures of accused No.1 were encircled red and marked Q8 and Q9. He has also identified the signatures of accused No.1, because he has worked with him in Sub Division. It has been further stated by this witness that the writing with red pen, in Ex. P8, was his handwriting and the receipt of 200 drums had been shown, vide entry, Ex.P11/1. He has also identified the signatures of accused No. 1, mark Q5, in Ex. P8. He has also stated that in out-door register, Ex. P19, at page No.38/39, entry qua the supply of 54 drums, vide indent No.777, had been made on 28.03.1981, 07.04.1981 and 22.04.1981 and the red entries were Ex. P19/1. However, this witness could not clarify as to in whose handwriting these entries were made and who had made entry 3/81, in Ex. P7. In the cross-examination, he has stated that he used to maintain account books his job was not a field job. He has also admitted that accused No.1 had not put his signatures or initials in his presence in all the documents as was stated by him in his examination-in-chief. Therefore, it cannot be said that this witness was conversant with the handwriting of accused No.1. He has further stated that he did not see the statement of accounts for the months of March to June, 1981, and that the matter was not enquired by their office. Therefore, it cannot be said that this witness was conversant with the handwriting of accused No.1. He has further stated that he did not see the statement of accounts for the months of March to June, 1981, and that the matter was not enquired by their office. As per this witness, they used to check the statements of account and tally the same with Bin-card on different occasions after one, two or three months, however, after tallying the same, signatures were not being put on the bin-card or statement of accounts. This witness could not state as to on which date the indent card was checked by him. 14. PW6 Chuni Lal, Beldar, who is an important witness, deposed that at the relevant time he was working as Chowkidar in HPPWD Store, Indora Sub-Division. As per this witness, accused No.3 (Nardev Singh), was also working as Chowkidar with him, accused No.2 (Roop Lal), was store Munshi and accused No.1 (Narinder Pal Soodan), was Junior Engineer. He has further deposed that a vehicle came and the driver of the vehicle asked him to load the drums, on which he refused. Further stated that accused No. 2 and 3 asked him as to under which authority he was refusing. Around 10.30 PM accused No.2 and 3 loaded 40 drums of bitumen in the vehicle upon which he asked accused No. 2 to make entry in the register, who made the entry and signed the same at page No 137 of the out-door register, which had been marked as Q3 and Q4 and accused No.2 put his signatures in his presence, marked as Q3. He further stated that he asked accused No. 3 to intimate accused No.1 about loading of drums in the truck. He could not clarify on which date and in which truck 40 bitumen drums were moved by the accused persons from the said store. In the cross-examination he stated that Ex.P 18 was not filled in his presence and he could not trace entry of 40 bitumen drums in register, Ex. P 18. 15. PW7 Desh Raj stated that during the year 1981, he was working in Sub Division, Nurpur. He produced muster-roll Ex. P25 and posting order of accused No.2 to the police which were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PG. 16. P 18. 15. PW7 Desh Raj stated that during the year 1981, he was working in Sub Division, Nurpur. He produced muster-roll Ex. P25 and posting order of accused No.2 to the police which were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PG. 16. PW8 Surinder Kumar, stated that during the relevant time, he was posted in Nurpur PWD Division. He has stated that the relevant record was taken into possession by the police in his presence vide memos, Ex. PG and Ex. PF. He also produced log books, Ex. P12 and Ex. P13, pertaining to truck No.HPK-701 containing entries regarding carriage of drums from Kandrori to Nurpur. In the cross-examination, he admitted that log books Ex. P12 and Ex. P13 pertain to field job and his duty was in the office and he had no direct concern with accused No.1. 17. PW9 Parveen Kumar stated that during the relevant time he was posted in Nurpur Division and one indent Ex.P27 was produced by him to the police which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PH, but he could not tell as to who had issued indent Ex.P27. 18. PW 10, Roshan Lal, produced appointment letter. PW 11, Vyas Dev, stated that he was posted as SDO, HP PWD, Sub Division, Nurpur at the relevant time and through indent Ex.P27 he had received 17 drums and not 40 drums. In the cross-examination, he has stated that earlier to 1986, he was not posted in Nurpur Division. He has further stated that he was having no personal knowledge and was deposing on the basis of record. PW12, Moti Lal, produced letters Ex. PC and PD to the police which were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PE. 19. PW 13, Bhim Singh, was Junior Engineer, who stated that he had taken the charge from accused No.1 on his transfer in the year 1982 and charge report, Ex.P8, was signed by him and accused No.1. He further stated that he had taken 425 bitumen drums in charge and as per MAS register, he received 160 drums of bitumen but there was stock of about 200 bitumen drums. He further stated that he received 40 bitumen drums less in number and that Bin-card, Ex. He further stated that he had taken 425 bitumen drums in charge and as per MAS register, he received 160 drums of bitumen but there was stock of about 200 bitumen drums. He further stated that he received 40 bitumen drums less in number and that Bin-card, Ex. P7, shows that 200 bitumen drums had been issued and sent to Sub Division, Nurpur and he also got in writing from accused No.1 about the shortage of 40 drums of bitumen at the time of taking over the charge. Though he stated that through indent No.38/888, 40 drums of bitumen were never sent through challan book, Ex. P9, pertaining to the year 1981 and there was no indent having this number, however, in the out door register, Ex. P18, there was entry at page No.137 regarding sending of 40 bitumen drums to Sub Division No.2, through truck No. HPK-3935. In cross-examination, he deposed that he had conducted physical verification at the time of taking charge from accused No.1, but he did not report about the shortage of 40 bitumen drums to his senior officer. He further deposed that the entry about the material was made in the MAS register, but about the receipt of the material, it was not done in the store. He further deposed that the entry in MAS register, Ex. P11, about 200 drums of bitumen was in the handwriting of accused No.1, but it did not bear initials of any one else. He also deposed that there was cutting in the entry regarding date after the figure 888. He denied that he had received the out door register from the In-charge at the time of taking over the charge from accused No.1 and not seen the out door register but there was mention in the charge report, Ex. P8, about the out-door register. He also could not tell about the red entry in Ex. P8. He further deposed that he had not worked with accused No.3, so he was not conversant with his handwriting. He admitted that entry in outdoor register encircled Q4, was earlier to his taking over the charge and it was not incorporated in his presence. He admitted that signatures and initials by the accused were not made in his presence on the documents as stated in the examination-in-chief. 20. He admitted that entry in outdoor register encircled Q4, was earlier to his taking over the charge and it was not incorporated in his presence. He admitted that signatures and initials by the accused were not made in his presence on the documents as stated in the examination-in-chief. 20. PW14 Desh Raj stated that he was posted as J.E. in Nurpur Sub Division and seen indent Ex.P23, which was issued by him for the supply of 70 bitumen drums from Kandrori, HP PWD store which were supplied by the J.E. Store through challan No.154 and 166 and the entry dated 7.4.1985 Ex.P13 bears the signatures of Karam Chand Gupta, Work Inspector, who was working under him and he was conversant with his handwriting. He further stated that he never issued indent for 40 bitumen drums nor those were sent to him. In cross-examination, he stated that indent number in the indent book was given by the J.E. concerned by adopting his own technique and method. He also stated that the store is handled by the JE/AE/Store Keeper and the Chowkidar, who used to carry the material through private vehicles. 21. PW 15, Bashi Ram, stated that he remained posted as Junior Engineer, PWD Sub Division No.2, Nurpur from 1980 to 1985. He deposed that he received 200 bitumen drums through indent No.16 and made the entry in the MAS register Ex. P11 at page No.130, Ex.P11/A. He stated that after issuance of material in the store, the Store Keeper entered the same in the GR book as well as in the Bin-card of a particular time. He further stated that in case any material was being dispatched from the store, the indent was issued by the requiring official and four copies of the indent were prepared. Two copies of the same were being tagged with the account and the third after obtaining the signatures of the person to whom the material was to be issued, was retained by the storekeeper and fourth remain in the G.R. Book. In the cross-examination, neither he could tell the name of person to whom he sent the indent, Ex. P16, nor he obtained the signatures of the said person. 22. PW16, Naresh Kumar, stated that in the year 1989, he was posted at Indora Sub Division as Assistant and he had handed over stock account 3/1981 list, Ex. In the cross-examination, neither he could tell the name of person to whom he sent the indent, Ex. P16, nor he obtained the signatures of the said person. 22. PW16, Naresh Kumar, stated that in the year 1989, he was posted at Indora Sub Division as Assistant and he had handed over stock account 3/1981 list, Ex. P29, to the police which was sent by accused No.1 from the store, which was taken into possession by the police vide memo Ex. PL. PW17, Roshan Lal, remained posted as Executive Engineer from 1979 to 1985 in HPPWD Division, Nurpur and Kandrori Sub Division was within his jurisdiction and Mr. P.D. Gupta, who was posted as Assistant Engineer at Indora Sub Division. He further stated that letter, Ex. P14, was received by him from the Assistant Engineer, with whom accused No.1 was working as Junior Engineer, at the relevant time. He further stated that he wrote letter, Ex. P1, to accused No.1 and on receipt of the same accused No.1 sent reply vide Exhibits P4 to P6 and Ex. P62. He further stated that on the basis of available record he wrote letter, Ex. P17, to the Superintending Engineer for taking appropriate action. In the cross-examination, he could not tell whether any departmental inquiry was conducted against accused No.1. He further stated that there was over writing vide Ex. P14, which was encircled red and not initialed by any one. He also could not tell as to whether any explanation was sought by him or he took any action. He deposed that he might have called the explanation of the Store Munshi. 23. PW18, Sukhdev Sharma, stated that he was posted as Assistant in PWD Sub Division, Indora in the year 1985 and that the then A.E. Mr. K.L. Gupta and he had produced the documents Ex.P-63 to Ex.P-66 to the police, which were taken into possession vide memo PM. PW 19, P.D. Gupta, stated that at the relevant point of time he was posted as Assistant Engineer in PWD Indora Division and letter, Ex. P14, was written by him to the Xen. PW20, Mohinder Singh, stated that he was posted in the office of Chief Engineer (North) HPPWD, Dharamshala, in the year 1990 and produced letters at the instance of the police, which were seized by the police vide memo, Ex. PX. P14, was written by him to the Xen. PW20, Mohinder Singh, stated that he was posted in the office of Chief Engineer (North) HPPWD, Dharamshala, in the year 1990 and produced letters at the instance of the police, which were seized by the police vide memo, Ex. PX. PW21, Hari Ram, stated that he partly investigated the case and during investigation, the police seized record/documents, Exts.P1 to P11, vide memo, Ex. PB, and that he was conversant with the signatures of police officials, who have investigated the case. 24. PW22, Subhashish, Dy. Government Questioned Documents Examiner, stated that the documents along with specimen handwriting and signatures of the accused were sent by the police vide letter dated 4.2.1987 and 24.2.1988 and he examined the documents along with Expert, namely B. Lal, who had independently examined the case, arrived at the same conclusion and affixed his signatures. He further stated that the detailed reason of his Opinion Report, Ex. P-70, is Ex. P-71, which was in two sheets. He further stated that documents were photographed in the laboratory by the photographer under his supervision and negatives of the original documents in three wallets are Ex. P72 to Ex. P74. In the cross-examination, he has stated that no science is perfect, so the science of comparing handwriting. He has also deposed that he had not admitted or disputed whether it was the handwriting of accused No. 2. He denied that there was no sufficient material for giving opinion qua accused No.1 and 3. 25. PW 23, Kirpa Ram, stated that he partly investigated the case. He further stated that documents Ex. P14 to Ex.P 18 were taken into possession by him, which bear his signatures. He also took into possession one outdoor register Ex. P19, vide memo, Ex. PQ. He further stated that he recorded the statements of the witnesses and further investigation was handed over to Munshi Ram. FIR, Ex. PZ, bear the signatures of Netar Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police (since deceased), and he can identify his signatures. In the cross-examination, he deposed that investigation was handed over to him by Dy. SP, Dharamshala (Vigilance) and the documents Ex.P14 to Ex.P18 were taken into possession by him from Kishori Lal, who was working as A.E. at the relevant time. 26. In the cross-examination, he deposed that investigation was handed over to him by Dy. SP, Dharamshala (Vigilance) and the documents Ex.P14 to Ex.P18 were taken into possession by him from Kishori Lal, who was working as A.E. at the relevant time. 26. DW1 S.L. Gupta was posted as Executive Engineer in Nurpur HP PWD Division and had sent letter Ex.DW1/A to accused No.1, but further stated that this letter was not the same, as Ex.P1, though these letters were issued under his signatures. He also stated that there was cutting on the letter Ex.DW1/A. In cross-examination, he stated that Ex.DW1/A might be different letter than Ex.P1. 27. DW2 Kahan Singh, Reader to ADG(V) stated that original letter Ex.DW2/A had been written by the Chief Engineer (North) to Inspector General of Police (Vigilance). 28. DW3 S.K. Aggarwal, who was also examined as PW1 has stated that letter Ex.PW3/A bear his signatures, and the same was written by him when he was Chief Engineer, Dharamshala and Ex.DW2/A was its photocopy. In cross-examination, he deposed that entry in Bin-card were made by the J.E. and that he had written letter after consulting the relevant record. 29. DW4 T.C. Bhagoria, who was the Superintending Engineer, stated that letter Ex.PW4/A was written by him to the Chief Engineer and reply thereof is Ex.PW4/B. 30. DW5, Lalit Bhusan, stated that there was no entry in the ledger for the month of March, 1981, in respect of indent No.88/888, however, there was an entry in the month of June, 1981 regarding indent No.38/888. The said witness has voluntarily stated that indent No.88/888 was sent to Division Office in the monthly accounts in the month of June, 1981. The said witness feigned ignorance as to how indent No. 88/888 was changed to 38/888, as the said entry did not pertain to his tenure. He could not depose whether on letter, Ex. PW4/A, written by accused No. 1 to the then Assistant Engineer, Nurpur, any action or not. In cross-examination, he deposed that from March, 1981 to June, 1981, only one indent had been issued and entered as per record in respect of 200 bitumen drums in question. He also could not clarify whether there was only one indent pertaining to 200 bitumen drums for the year 1981. In cross-examination, he deposed that from March, 1981 to June, 1981, only one indent had been issued and entered as per record in respect of 200 bitumen drums in question. He also could not clarify whether there was only one indent pertaining to 200 bitumen drums for the year 1981. However, self stated that there is one more entry about 200 drums of bitumen in the ledger bearing indent No.49/30 of May, 1981. 31. As per the statement of PW-1, S.K. Aggarwal, who was also examined in defence as DW-3 it is clear that accused No. 2 confessed through a statement that he would compensate the loss of 40 bitumen drums. In this regard, letters, Ex. DW4/A, Ex. DW4/B, stand duly proved. Letter, Ex.PW3/A, written by the Chief Engineer to the Secretary PWD also throws light on the alleged confession of accused No. 2. However, surprisingly, the said statement of accused No. 2 or the preliminary inquiry report was not filed in the Court below and the reason for non-filing of the same is not explained. 32. No explanation has come from the prosecution, as to why PW 13, Bhim Singh, who took charge from accused No.1, did not report the matter to his superiors immediately, if at all there was shortage of the store articles. So, the prosecution has not been able to prove as to how many bitumen drums had been handed over in the charge of accused persons during the period when they remained posted at Kandrori. The prosecution also could not cogently and convincingly prove that how many bitumen drums were entrusted in the custody of the accused persons. In that case it seems that only on the basis of presumption loss of 40 bitumen drums has been projected by the prosecution. If specific quantify of bitumen drums entrusted in the custody of accused persons is not establish, then less quantity of bitumen drums cannot at all be ascertain with certainty. Therefore, in our considered view the prosecution has failed to establish the less quantity of bitumen drums and accused persons cannot be held liable for the loss of unascertained quantity of bitumen drums. PW 13 has specifically admitted that there had been addition in the charge report, Ex.P8, but he could not tell as to who made the addition. Therefore, in our considered view the prosecution has failed to establish the less quantity of bitumen drums and accused persons cannot be held liable for the loss of unascertained quantity of bitumen drums. PW 13 has specifically admitted that there had been addition in the charge report, Ex.P8, but he could not tell as to who made the addition. As per the testimony of PW5, Kishori Lal, they used to maintain statement of accounts in the office with which he used to tally the Bin-card. However, the said statement of accounts was not produced by the prosecution for the reason best known to it, which creates a doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution case. For withholding the record of statement of accounts maintained at Kandrori Sub Division, adverse inference has to be drawn against the prosecution and it has to be held that had the statement of accounts been produced, it would have gone against the prosecution. The statement of accounts further shows that there was no mis-appropriation of the bitumen drums, otherwise while checking the Bin-card with the statement of accounts maintained in the office, PW5 would have come to know about the shortage of these store articles, which further negates the prosecution case. 33. Though, it has come on record that in the register, there was an entry that 40 bitumen drums were transported in a private vehicle, i.e. truck No.HPK7935, but the prosecution has neither interrogated the owner nor the driver of the said truck. Furthermore, PW13 did not report about the purchase and loss of 40 bitumen drums to his superior officers. It has also come on record that these bitumen drums were sent to another Sub-division but no efforts have been made by the prosecution to investigate the matter with respect to these facts. After considering the statements of PWs 1, 4, 5, 6, 13 and 16, this Court finds that though these witnesses have tried to support the case of the prosecution as has been discussed hereinabove, but nothing favourable to the prosecution has come out. 34. It is also to be noted that PW5 Kishori Lal, Assistant from the office of Sub Divisional Officer, Kandrori, claimed that they also kept statement of accounts of the material and they used to check the Bin-card with the statement of accounts after one, two or three months and they tallied the articles. 34. It is also to be noted that PW5 Kishori Lal, Assistant from the office of Sub Divisional Officer, Kandrori, claimed that they also kept statement of accounts of the material and they used to check the Bin-card with the statement of accounts after one, two or three months and they tallied the articles. Had there been some shortage of bitumen drums in the store, then this shortage would have been reflected in the Bin-card as also in the statement of accounts maintained in Sub Divisional Office, Kandrori. However, no discrepancy was noticed by the Assistant Engineer, who was having charge of the store, which further belies the claim of the prosecution in this regard. 35. In these circumstances, this Court finds that the findings arrived at by the learned Court below is after appreciating the facts correctly, as the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused conclusively and beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, this Court finds that the findings of the Court below are not required to be interfered with. 35. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in K. Prakashan Vs. P.K. Surenderan (2008) 1 SCC 258 , has held that when two views are possible, Appellate Court should not reverse the judgment of acquittal merely because the other view was possible. It has also been held that when judgment of trial Court was neither perverse nor suffered from any legal infirmity or non consideration/ misappropriation of evidence on record, reversal thereof by High Court was not justified. 36. The Hon’ble Apex Court in T. Subramanian Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2006) 1 SCC 401 , has held that where two views are reasonably possible from the very same evidence, prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 37. In these circumstances, we find no illegality in the judgment passed by the learned Court below, as the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused conclusively and beyond reasonable doubt. 38. In view of the above referred decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the discussion made hereinabove, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.