JUDGMENT : (Delivered By Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh, J) 1. Heard Sri I.P. Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Rajeev Lochan Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2 and Sri Puneet Bhadauria, learned counsel for accused respondent no.3 and perused the trial Court judgment and record. 2. The present Government Appeal has been filed against the judgement and order dated 12.6.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Gorakhpur passed in Special Sessions Trial No.02 of 2004 (State of U.P. Vs. Madan Kumar Agarwal and others), under Sections 418, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 7/13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Civil Line, District Meerut, whereby the accused persons were acquitted by the trial Court for the offence. 3. On the basis of written complaint being Ext. Ka-2 filed by the complainant Surajpal Singh, Inspector, EOW, CID Headquarters, Indira Bhawan, Fifth Floor, Lucknow, under the orders of Anti-Corruption Organisation, CID, Uttar Pradesh, Faizabad, an FIR was registered against the aforesaid accused persons by PS Kotwali Nagar, District Faizabad in case crime no.122/1997 u/s 418, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of IPC and under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The aforesaid accused persons were tried under the said sections on the basis of the charge-sheet filed after conclusion of the investigation by the Crime Investigation Department, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. 4. The accused Smt. Shail Agarwal has died during the pendency of the case and this being the reason this case stands abated against her on 23.06.2012. Hence, only three accused persons i.e. present appellants, namely, Madan Kumar Agarwal, Smt. Navneeta Agarwal and Raghubir Singh Bhadoria were tried by the trial Court. 5. In brief, the prosecution story is that on 09.01.1997 at 18:30 hours, an FIR was was got registered at PS Kotwali Nagar, Faizabad by the complainant Surajpal Singh, Inspector, Economic Offences Wing, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow stating therein that in compliance of demi-official letter no. U.O.-80/25-8-96 dated 25.07.1996 of Confidential Section-8 of the Government of Uttar Pradesh. 5. In brief, the prosecution story is that on 09.01.1997 at 18:30 hours, an FIR was was got registered at PS Kotwali Nagar, Faizabad by the complainant Surajpal Singh, Inspector, Economic Offences Wing, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow stating therein that in compliance of demi-official letter no. U.O.-80/25-8-96 dated 25.07.1996 of Confidential Section-8 of the Government of Uttar Pradesh. An investigation was carried out by this wing in connection with the objections raised in the investigation report of Deputy Inspector General of Police, Faizabad Range, Faizabad as also in the Special Audit Report of the Audit Party into irregularities in payments for the materials taken on rent for police arrangements on the occasion of Kar Sewa at Faizabad (Ayodhya) held on 06.12.1992. During the investigation, the concerned records were obtained and scrutinised, and the statements of the following witnesses were recorded: Shri Satsai Ram Prajapati, Varishth Samprekshak, Shri Sushil Kumar Jaiswal Jaiswal, Samprekshak, Police Headquarters, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh; Shri Sushil Kumar Jaiswal, S/o Nand Kishore, R/o House No. 416/227, Khawaspura, Faizabad; Ashok Kumar Jaiswal, S/o Jamna Prasad, R/o House No. 1218, Kakrahi Bazar, Faizabad; Amarnath Jaiswal, S/o Ramanand, R/o House No. 467, Khawaspura, Faizabad; Ram Charan, S/o Ram Prasad Niyawan, R/o Chowraha Machhli Mandi Road, Gorapatti, PS Cantt, Faizabad; Jai Prakash, S/o Ram Ujer Shukla, R/o Village Shrirampur (Khadbhadepur), Village Adilpur, PS Inayat Nagar, Faizabad; Madan Kumar Agarwal, S/o Babu Ram, R/o House No. 513/34A, Amaniganj, Faizabad; Nand Kishore Jaiswal, S/o Puddan Lal, R/o House No. 787, Angoori Bagh, Faizabad; Ashok Kumar Agarwal, S/o Kishori Lal, R/o House No. 562, Kydganj, Allahabad; Jagdish Kumar Agarwal, S/o Bal Govind Das, R/o Ram Bagh, Allahabad; and the then Reserve Inspector Faizabad. From the entire investigation, it came into knowledge that a tender notice was on 28.11.1992 issued on a demand letter dated 27.11.1992 from the Reserve Inspector for obtaining tent/furniture on rent for police arrangements at Faizabad (Ayodhya) for Kar Sewa held on 06.12.1992. Even the rules were not followed in inviting the tenders. Only five days were given for submission of the tenders. Even the rules were not followed in inviting the tenders. Only five days were given for submission of the tenders. The tender notice was published neither in the newspapers nor was the same published on a broad scale, taking advantage whereof, the owner of M/s Agarwal Tent House, Faizabad, Shri Madan Kumar Agarwal, S/o Babu Ram, R/o 513/34A, Amani Ganj, Faizabad had on 02.12.1992 at 12 pm submitted their firms's tender/quotation with the police office along with the forged tender/quotation of M/s New Jaiswal Tent House, Faizabad by getting the same prepared by his clerk Jai Prakash S/o Ram Ujer Shukla R/o Village Shrirampur (Khadbhadepur), Village Adilpur, PS Inayat Pur, District Faizabad and by himself preparing a forged tender/quotation in the name of Sumit Tent House. In this way, the aforesaid Madan Kumar Agarwal himself submitted all the three tenders as a result of which competitive rates could not come up. The then police officers/employees have, under a conspiracy, approved the tender of aforesaid Madan Kumar Agarwal's firm M/s Agarwal Tent House, Faizabad despite his rates being higher as compared to previous years' rates as also to the market rates prevailing at that time. While opening the tenders, the signatures of the tenderers, who were present, were also not obtained nor were any remarks recorded in this regard. By recommending the payment of expenditure submitted by Madan Kumar Agarwal, he was given undue benefit and the government ex-chequer was subjected to heavy losses. In this way, an offence u/s 418, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of IPC is prima facie made out against the aforesaid Madan Kumar Agarwal, Clerk Jai Prakash and the then concerned police officers/employees. 6. The investigation of the aforesaid case was carried out by the Economic Offences Wing, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and after completing all the formalities of the investigation, a charge-sheet in case crime no. 122/97 u/s 418, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of IPC and u/s 7/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was filed against the accused persons Madan Kumar Agarwal, Smt. Navneeta Agarwal and Raghubir Singh Bhadoria. 7. 122/97 u/s 418, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of IPC and u/s 7/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was filed against the accused persons Madan Kumar Agarwal, Smt. Navneeta Agarwal and Raghubir Singh Bhadoria. 7. On the basis of the charge-sheet and other documents produced, cognizance of offences against the accused persons Madan Kumar Agarwal, Smt. Navneeta Agarwal and Raghuvir Singh Bhadoria was taken, and on finding sufficient evidence after compliance of Section 207 of Cr.P.C, charges u/s 418, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of IPC and u/s 7/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were framed against the accused persons Madan Kumar Agarwal and Smt. Navneeta Agarwal on 23.11.2006 and against the accused person Raghubir Singh Bhadoria on 27.06.2014. The accused persons claimed to be tried by pleading not guilty. 8. On behalf of the prosecution, in order to prove its case, the following have been examined as oral witnesses: PW-1 Jagdish Kumar Agarwal, PW-2 Sushil Kumar Agarwal, PW-3 Satai Ram Prajapati, PW-4 Ashok Kumar Jaiswal, PW-5 Amarnath Jaiswal, PW-6 Ram Charan Gupta, PW-7 Jai Prakash Shukla, PW-8 Retired Inspector General of Police Harbhajan Singh, PW-9 Professor Dr. Jagannath Tripathi, PW-10 Bhola Ram Chaturvedi, PW-11 Suresh Chand Sharma, and PW-12 Retired Inspector General of Police Girish Nandan Singh. 9. The statements of the accused persons were recorded u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein they have stated the prosecution of the accused-respondents was launched on the basis of wrong investigation; the prosecution of the appellants has been proceeded in collusion with Lallu Ji & Sons with an intent to put undue pressure; and false testimonies have been given under influence of the vigilance. The accused person Madan Kumar Agarwal has further stated that he had filed correct quotation and that he hadn't prepared any forged document nor had he hatched any conspiracy. He has been falsely implicated. The accused Navneeta Agarwal has stated that she had a separate firm namely Sumit Tent House three years prior to her marriage with Madan Kumar Agarwal and that she already had a separate business, which got started by her father. Even after her marriage, she used to work at her firm independently and used to pay its taxes separately. She has been falsely implicated. The accused Raghubir Singh Bhadoria has stated that he was posted on the post of Reserve Inspector/RI. Even after her marriage, she used to work at her firm independently and used to pay its taxes separately. She has been falsely implicated. The accused Raghubir Singh Bhadoria has stated that he was posted on the post of Reserve Inspector/RI. He hadn't himself done any work to get the supplies on rent. The Reserve Inspector/RI is Incharge of the police lines. Here, proper maintenance of daily attendances, list of roster duties and the registers, as also the safety of equipment, arms & ammunition and tents is ensured. Inviting & opening the tenders and ensuring payments do not fall within the domain of RI. He has no role in this process nor does it come under his jurisdiction. In their defence, no oral or documentary evidences have been produced on behalf of the accused persons. 10. We heard learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for accused/respondent no.3 and perused the lower court record. 11. Learned A.G.A. submits that the trial Court has misread the evidence on record and has acquitted the accused persons. It is further submitted that in the instant case, on the basis of oral testimonies of the witnesses adduced by the prosecution, the charges under Sections 418, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 7/13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the accused persons are proved. It is further submitted that, on the basis of oral and documentary evidences, charges under Sections 418, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 7/13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the accused persons are proved beyond reasonable doubt and it is necessary to punish the accused persons for the above-mentioned charges. It is further submitted that the trial Court has not properly appropriated the evidence of the prosecution and decided the case on the basis of surmises & conjecture. It is further submitted that evidence of the prosecution was disbelieved due to minor contradictions in the statement of the witnesses, hence the judgment and order passed by the trial Court deserves to be set aside. 12. The examination-in-chief of the oral witnesses, which have been produced by the prosecution to prove the charges levelled against the accused persons are summarized below: Jagdish Kumar Agarwal has been examined as PW-1, has stated that Lallu Ji Tent House is situated at Ram Bagh, not elsewhere. He is a partner in the said firm. 12. The examination-in-chief of the oral witnesses, which have been produced by the prosecution to prove the charges levelled against the accused persons are summarized below: Jagdish Kumar Agarwal has been examined as PW-1, has stated that Lallu Ji Tent House is situated at Ram Bagh, not elsewhere. He is a partner in the said firm. Tents are installed on rent in government and private fairs, elections and functions by his tent house. In the Kartik Fair 1992, a quotation was invited from the SP, Faizabad, responding whereto he had submitted his tender. His representative Mata Charan Pandey went to Faizabad taking this tender with him. The tender was opened in his presence and of other contractors. Three tenders were submitted. Amongst them, one was mine; second one, of Agarwal Tent House and the third one, of Sumit Tent House. On the basis of the rates quoted in the tender, the total work to be undertaken by us amounted to Rs. 1,36,060/-. Sumit Tent House had given its quotation based on per piece per day which came to be Rs. 59,650/-. On this very ground, the work was given to Sumit Tent House. In the year 1993, his firm's payment came to Police Lines, Faizabad and we went there to collect the same. We got the opportunity there to see the bills of Sumit Tent House and Agarwal Tent House. On seeing the same, we got to know that Sumit Tent House had submitted the bill on the basis of per square foot instead of submitting the same on per piece basis which caused the amount of the bill increased. In the same way, the pieces of work of 3rd Kar Sewa and Ram Navami 1993 were got performed through Sumit Tent House and Agarwal Tent House, for which no quotation was invited. In this connection, a complaint letter was on 19.07.1973 sent to the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, informing about the total financial losses faced by the department due to the change in the aforesaid rates. Due to change in rates, an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- was given to those contractors. All these losses were caused due to the conspiracy hatched by the departmental officers by foul-playing in the rates of the tenders. Due to change in rates, an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- was given to those contractors. All these losses were caused due to the conspiracy hatched by the departmental officers by foul-playing in the rates of the tenders. The rates for per piece per day which were quoted for Kartik Fair 1992 were changed and its bills were submitted on the basis of per square foot per day, which resulted in an increase in the amount of the bills. It is also stated that he had in this connection sent a complaint letter to the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, annexing thereto other enclosures, on the basis of which this matter was investigated. The copy of that complaint letter which was a photostat copy of the original is before me having my signature, which is paper no. 71-Ka-1 to 71-Ka-5. It was marked as Ext. Ka-1. Tender paper no. is 71-Ka-6 and 71-Ka-7 which bears his signature. It was marked as Ext. Ka-2 and Ext. Ka-3, and the tender notice is paper no. 71-Ka-8 and 71-Ka-9, in response whereto tenders 2 and 3 were given. Sushil Kumar Singh has been examined as PW-2 who has testified that he owned a tent house firm running since 1992-93. His father's firm Sunil Mahesh Tent House operated in Faizabad. Tender had been submitted on behalf of my firm against the tenders invited by the police office during 1992 Kar Sewa and the 1993 Ram Navami Mela by my father who looked after the work of my firm. Tenders were not opened in my presence nor was any comparative chart prepared. He had submitted an affidavit through his counsel. The witness seeing 7ka29 has identified it to be the photo copy of my affidavit. Its true copy is on record. The proprietor of New Jaiswal Tent House was my father and after his death he took over its proprietorship. The tender has not been submitted by me; rather, somebody else has submitted tender on his behalf by putting my false signature because he resided at Varanasi. He came to know about this forgery in due course which was committed by Agrawal Tent House, to obtain an order in his favour and others, in collusion with the police officers thereby submitting a quotation on behalf of my firm. He came to know about this forgery in due course which was committed by Agrawal Tent House, to obtain an order in his favour and others, in collusion with the police officers thereby submitting a quotation on behalf of my firm. After perusing all the documents he had explained everything to the Investigating Officer and submitted an affidavit. Satai Ram Prajapati, Senior Officer (Retd.) has been examined as PW-3 who has testified that the audit of the tender, etc. related to Kartik Mela Ram Navami, Kar Sewa, etc. at Ayodhya Faizabad and was conducted at 27.08.94 wherein notice of the tender was issued by the SSP, Faizabad. Notices were issued by the office of the SSP to two firms viz. Agrawal Tent House, Faizabad and Sumit Tent House, Faizabad, whereas other firms were not given information. Tender had not been published in any newspaper nor had any time fixed for the said day. Ram Janam Bhumi Kar Sewa had been declared quite before and their pamphlets had already been distributed. Responsibility of timely performance of the action was not discharged within time. The Rule 11 of Appendix 19 of the Financial Handbook Part (5) had been violated. The comparative chart of tenders was prepared by Addl. S.P. Manju Gupta where tenders of three firms namely Agrawal Tent House, Faizabad, New Jaiswal Tent House, Faizabad and Sumit Tent House, Faizabad were received. No tender on behalf of any firm was received nor had it been issued. This chart was approved by the then S.S.P. Devendra Bahadur Rai which was not dated but bore only initial. After audit he found after comparative analysis that the approved rates for the Kar Sewa proposed on 06.12.1992 was unexpectedly higher. After audit he prepared my report and it found that the rates of a few articles, on comparison, were unexpectedly higher than the approved rates. Thus, in the matter, revenue loss accrued to the tune of Rs. 14,03,156.90 and the concerned police officers violated Sub clause 3-1 of Para 12 of the Budget Manual. My companions in audit party was Sushil Kumar Srivastava and Avadhesh Kumar Srivastava. This audit was conducted on the oral direction of the D.I.G., Police Headquarters, wherein he had mentioned that he performed audit on the basis of rates shown at Kartik Mela held in 1992. My companions in audit party was Sushil Kumar Srivastava and Avadhesh Kumar Srivastava. This audit was conducted on the oral direction of the D.I.G., Police Headquarters, wherein he had mentioned that he performed audit on the basis of rates shown at Kartik Mela held in 1992. The copy of the audit report being paper no.1 to 17 is before me which bears my signatures and after having typed the same in my office on 27.08.94 was issued which was marked as Ex ka 3. This is the photocopy of the original. Ashok Kumar Jaiswal has been examined as PW-4 who has testified that my firm Saket Tent House was situated at Nahar Bagh, Faizabad and is presently closed down. He had submitted his statement on affidavit to the Dy Inspector General, Anti Corruption, Lucknow stating that my firm undertakes tent, furniture, etc related government and civil work. He has good reputation in the tent business. There are 50 small-big firms in my district but he does not know about small and new firms. The owner of Agrawal Tent House, Faizabad was Madan Kumar Agrawal whose firm has good repute and his firm mostly undertook government work. Boards of the Abhinav Tent House and Sumit Tent House were installed but their shops never opened. He came to know that this was a small firm whose proprietor is Madan Agarwal. Paper nos. 7ka32, 7ka33 and 7ka34 available on records are the copies of his affidavits. Amarnath Jaiswal has been examined as PW-5 who has testified that he and his forefathers have been undertaking tent and furniture related work. He undertake government contract and civil work. The owner of Agrawal Tent House is Madan Kumar Agrawal. His firm mostly undertook work related to government contract. There are many small-big firms in his district which undertake government and civil works. These firms have mutual competition which is often reflected in tender forms. Government contracts are notified in newspapers and on the department's advertisement board; and in response thereto, tenders are presented by the firms. The CID officers had come over to my shop in connection with investigation and questioned us. They were questioning about tent house of Madan Kumar Agrawal. The Investigating Officers were asking questions as to the tent materials supplied to Ayodhya Mela on rental basis. He does not knows about government files. The CID officers had come over to my shop in connection with investigation and questioned us. They were questioning about tent house of Madan Kumar Agrawal. The Investigating Officers were asking questions as to the tent materials supplied to Ayodhya Mela on rental basis. He does not knows about government files. They were not asking about conduct and working style of any police officer. He cannot say whether the Investigating Officer had obtained his signature on any paper or not. He had signed after reading the contents of affidavit. Paper no. 7ka24, to 7ka26 are the photocopies of his affidavit to the DIG, Anti- Corruption which are signed by him. Ram Charan Gupta has been examined as PW-6 who has testified that he worked as labourer for erecting tents and installing electrical instruments. Tarang Niyavaon Road is at some distance from my house. Madan Agrawal ran tent business in a rented shop. He do not know where he belongs to. The shop was run in the name of Agrawal Tent House. He cannot tell anything about their relatives as also about business of their family members. He worked as a labourer in the work contracts taken at Faizabad by Allahabad's firm Lalloo Ji and Sons. Some time back, persons from Lalloo Ji & Sons and officers from the C.I.D. had come over there to enquire about Madan Kumar but he does not have any knowledge about Madan Kumar Agrawal. They inquired about the owner of Jaiswal Tent House, Nand Kishor, and his son Sushil Kumar Jaiswal. They inquired about Madan Agarwal. They obtained signatures of us, workers of Lallo Ji & Sons, on some papers whereon something was written but he does not know what was written there. On being asked about what the said papers related to, they stated them to be accounts related papers. He himself had got prepared affidavit by going to kutchery. The affidavit bears his signature and photograph which is verified by the counsel. The Investigating Officer had recorded my statement. Paper nos 7ka22 to 7ka23 are the photocopies of my affidavit submitted to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Lucknow Unit which bear his signature. Jai Prakash Shukla has been examined as PW-7 has testified that at present he was engaged in a private service. In 1990 - 91, he ran a tent house business in a rented shop located at Jail Road, Sultanpur. Jai Prakash Shukla has been examined as PW-7 has testified that at present he was engaged in a private service. In 1990 - 91, he ran a tent house business in a rented shop located at Jail Road, Sultanpur. he undertook civil work on a small scale. He have never worked in the tent house of Madan Agarwal. He does not know about the Madan Agrawal Tent House. He was not aware of the Abhinav Tent House, Sumit Tent House and the New Jaiswal Tent House and he cannot say whether their proprietor is Madan Agrawal or not. The firm of Lallu Ji & Sons had taken contract of erecting tent in Congress Session at Katara, Sultanpur. He has worked in the said work. The employees of Lallu Ji & Sons and CID officials had come to me. They obtained my signature on the papers wherein something was already written and the same was not read over to me. He had himself got prepared the affidavit at Kutchery putting my photograph and signature thereon. His photograph had been identified by the Advocate. The firm of Lallu Ji had undertaken barricading work at Sultanpur. At the time of signing the paper when He inquired with the firm's employees, he came to know that his signature is required on a complaint moved by Lallu Ji & Sons. He voluntarily submitted the affidavit to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, A.C.O., Lucknow Unit. The photocopies of the affidavit are paper no 7ka18 to 7ka20 which bear his signature and photograph. Inspector General of Police (Retd.) Harbhajan Singh has been examined as PW-8 who has examined that in 1992-93, he was posted as Senior Superintendent of Police, Faizabad. During Ram Janam Bhumi Babri Masjid Kar Sewa in 1992, the furniture, tents , etc were required on rent to maintain law and order situation and police management at the disputed place. The said articles for total 29 days were taken on rent. Supply of articles for police management was made according to demand letter of Reserve Inspector Raghubir Singh Bhadauria and acceptance thereto was given by me under the approval of the D.I.G., Faizabad. Ram Janam Bhumi Babri Masjid related original file no 308/92, Office of the ACO, Faizabad, which pertains to the 6.12.1992 Kar Sewa, is available on record. He perused the said file. Ram Janam Bhumi Babri Masjid related original file no 308/92, Office of the ACO, Faizabad, which pertains to the 6.12.1992 Kar Sewa, is available on record. He perused the said file. The tent, furniture, etc articles were taken on rent for a period w.e.f. 03.12.92 to 31.12.92 and designation wise details of officers and employees are also mentioned in the file. He had received letters dated 20.6.93 and 21.6.93 sent by the DIG, Faizabad Range which were given to head clerk of my office making endorsement thereon. The bills and quotations were submitted in original in two copies. He had also countersigned the bill sent by Madan Kumar Agrawal, proprietor of the Agrawal Tent House, Faizabad putting his initial and stamp of the Senior Superintendent of Police therein. He had made endorsement on the letters sent by the Senior Officers. Paper no 6ka230 available on record contains the quotations of the Abhinav Tent House, Amar Tent House, Agrawal Tent House and Sumit Tent House which bears the signature of the then C.O. (Building). This witness as per rule has proved Ex ka-5 quotation of the Sumit Tent House, Ex ka-6 list of articles by Agrawal Tent House, Ex ka-7 list of articles by Agrawal Tent House, Ex ka-8 letter sent to the Police Headquarters, Uttar Pradesh by the then D.I.G., Faizabad, Ex ka-9 letter sent to D.I.G., Faizabad by the then S.S.P. Harbhajan Singh, Ex ka-10 & Ex ka-11 letters to SSP, Faizabad by the DIG, Faizabad, Ex ka-12 & Ex ka-13 list related to articles of firm sent by SSP, Ex ka-14 letter sent to S.S.P. Faizabad by the then Reserve Inspector, Ex ka-15 & Ex ka-16 letter sent to firm by the then Addl. Superintendent of Police Akhilesh Mehrotra, Ex ka-17 comparative chart of the tenders of firms prepared by the then Addl. Superintendent of Police Anju Gupta, Ex ka-18 letter sent to S.S.P. Faizabad by then D.I.G. Uma Shankar Bajpai Ex ka-19 & Ex ka-20 letters sent to SSP, Faizabad by the then Reserve Inspector, Ex ka-21 tender notice prepared by the Addl. Superintendent of Police Anju Gupta, Ex ka-22 & Ex ka-23 letter sent to DIG, Faizabad by the Addl Superintendent of Police and Ex ka-25 charge-sheet and he also identified and proved the handwriting and signatures of Akhilesh Mehrotra, the Addl. Superintendent of Police Anju Gupta, Ex ka-22 & Ex ka-23 letter sent to DIG, Faizabad by the Addl Superintendent of Police and Ex ka-25 charge-sheet and he also identified and proved the handwriting and signatures of Akhilesh Mehrotra, the Addl. Superintendent of Police and Anju Gupta, Assistant Superintendent of Police then posted there, Maikhana Singh, the then S.S.P. Faizabad, P.P.S. Siddhu DIG, Faizabad and Uma Shankar Bajpai, retired Superintendent of Police and Suresh Khanna, then Reserve Inspector. Prof Dr. Jagannath Tripathi has been examined as PW-9 has testified that my house is situated at Reedganj intersection, Humdani Kothi Gali. He had let out two rooms in the upper storey of my house to Madan Kumar Agrawal from March 1991 to May 1995 where Madan Kumar Agrawal with his wife and maternal uncle Ashok Kumar resided. He had hoisted a board indicating Abhinav Tent House but he did not run tent or furniture business from my house or any nearby place but he caused the board to be removed. When he came to know about Madan Kumar Agrawal being a fraudulent person, he got my house vacated. He do not know anything about his material uncle Ashok Kumar Agrawal. Later, he came to know that Madan Kumar Agrawal was a resident of Bihar. He ran furniture and tent business. The Investigating Officer had recorded his statement. Shri Bholanath Chaturvedi, retired Inspector, has been examined as PW-10. has testified that he had been working as constable in Anti Corruption Organisation since 1992. In year, 2007, he was transferred from Lucknow unit to Faizabad unit. he has been working on the post of constable in the Faizabad unit, since then. In 1995, he worked with the Inspector Surajpal Singh at Faizabad unit. He has seen him writing and reading, and he can identify his writing and signature. Inspector Surajpal Singh, the complainant of the case, a typed application, on the basis of which the case was registered, was submitted to Inspector, Kotwali police Station, Faizabad, which is on record and marked as Ex.-ka-2. The tehrir (application) is before me, which bears the signature of Inspector Surajpal Singh and he verifies and confirms0 the same. Inspector Surajpal Singh died on 19.12.2004. His death report and death certificate in records of the health department is paper no. 21 kha, which is photocopy, and with respect to the death, the death certificate is attached. The tehrir (application) is before me, which bears the signature of Inspector Surajpal Singh and he verifies and confirms0 the same. Inspector Surajpal Singh died on 19.12.2004. His death report and death certificate in records of the health department is paper no. 21 kha, which is photocopy, and with respect to the death, the death certificate is attached. Shri Suresh Chandra Verma, retired Deputy Superintendent of Police has been examined as PW-11 who has stated: he was posted as Inspector at Anti Corruption Organisation at Faizabad unit from 2003. On the instruction of the then Inspector General of Police, he had received the investigation of the Case Crime No. 122/97 for the offences u/s 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and u/s 7/13 (2) of the Prevention of the Corruption Act registered at Kotwali Police Station, District Faizabad, which is mentioned in the General Diary. On 01.07.2003, he studied the case diary prepared by previous investigating officers in this case. On 21.08.2003, on the basis of reports sent by previous Investigating officers, discussions were held with senior police officers and instructions by them were taking into account. On 28.08.2003, the statements of Dr. Jagannath Prasad Tripathi, Gulab Chand Garg, Shriram Agrawal and Ayodhya Prasad were recorded. On 24.09.2003, seeking a report from the Assistant Commissioner with respect to concerned sale tax etc., a letter was sent. after investigation and approval of the last progress report by higher officers, the charge-sheet was filed before the court for trial there being sufficient evidence against Madan Kumar Agrawal, Smt. Navnita Agrawal and Raghubir Singh Bhadauria. The charge-sheet is on record (paper no. 3ka1 and 3ka2), which is marked as Ex.-Ka-30. Shri Girish Nandan Singh, retired IG of Police, has been examined as PW-12, who has adduced his evidence corroborating the prosecution story in his testimony; and according to rules, he has verified the writings and signatures of Shri Dharm Singh, Inspector and Investigating Officer, Shri Prabhat Kumar, SSP, Bhanu Pratap Singh, Deputy S.P., and B.B. Singh. 13. Shri Girish Nandan Singh, retired IG of Police, has been examined as PW-12, who has adduced his evidence corroborating the prosecution story in his testimony; and according to rules, he has verified the writings and signatures of Shri Dharm Singh, Inspector and Investigating Officer, Shri Prabhat Kumar, SSP, Bhanu Pratap Singh, Deputy S.P., and B.B. Singh. 13. The allegation has also been levelled against the accused persons by the prosecution that they, having prepared forged tenders in the name of M/s Sumit Tent house, had filed the same at the office of SSP, Faizabad; but the prosecution has not produced any evidence whereby the same can prove that any forged tender was filed by the accused persons in the name of M/s Sumit Tent House; and having got it approved in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy, the government fund was misappropriated. 14. On behalf of the accused persons, a citation of Indrajeet Singh and others Vs State of Punjab, ACRR 1995 621 (SC), has been presented before the trial Court wherein the Supreme Court has laid down the law that when there are charges for the offence u/s 466, 468, 471, 477A and 120B IPC for preparing forged documents in furtherance of criminal conspiracy, and when undue payment has been made for less work, and there is only circumstantial evidence in that respect; the accused cannot be declared guilty in such cases merely on the grounds of doubts or conjectures. 15. It was contended by the learned counsel for accused persons that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in the criminal case in question. In this circumstance, no charge stands proved against the accused persons and this warrants their acquittal. 16. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the prosecution case, appraisal of evidence by the trial Court and the grounds of acquittal of the accused by the trial Court. 17. We are conscious of the fact that we are dealing with an appeal filed against the order of acquittal. Learned counsel for the parties have invited our attention towards circumstances pointed out in the case of Chandrappa vs. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415 under which the finding of acquittal may be interfered with by the Appellate Court. 18. We are conscious of the fact that we are dealing with an appeal filed against the order of acquittal. Learned counsel for the parties have invited our attention towards circumstances pointed out in the case of Chandrappa vs. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415 under which the finding of acquittal may be interfered with by the Appellate Court. 18. The observations made in the aforesaid case was reiterated in a recent decision in Murugesan vs. State Through Inspector of Police (2012) 10 SCC 383 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court had the occasion to consider the broad principles of law governing the power of the High Court under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The summary of the relevant principles of law set out in para 21 of the judgment may be extracted hereinunder: "21. A concise statement of the law on the issue that had emerged after over half a century of evolution since Sheo Swarup Vs. King Emperor, (1933-34) 61 IA 398 : AIR 1934 PC 227 (2) is to be found in para 42 of the Report in Chandrappa Vs. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415 . The same may, therefore, be usefully noticed below: "42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: An appellate court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (ii) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (iii) Various expressions, such as, ''substantial and compelling reasons', ''good and sufficient grounds', ''very strong circumstances', ''distorted conclusions', ''glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of ''flourishes of language' to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (iv) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. (iv) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (v) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court." 19. Keeping in view the aforesaid settled position of law while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, we have delved into the evidence available on record and have come to the conclusion that the finding of acquittal recorded by learned trial court is fully borne out by the evidence on record and the view taken by the learned trial Judge is equally 'a possible view'. 20. Having considered the totality of the circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that the view taken by the trial Court in acquitting the accused-respondents is perverse or unreasonable. 21. We are of the opinion that the trial Judge has committed no illegality in recording the finding of acquittal, hence, no interference is called for in the judgment and order dated 12.6.2015 passed by the trial Court. 22. In view of the above, we are of opinion that neither the ground taken in the appeal nor the arguments advanced in support thereof are substantiated from the record. 23. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.