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.01 of 2004 (State of Uttar Pradesh 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 (for short PCA 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 the written report Ext. Ka -2 submitted by complainant Surajpal Singh, Inspector Economic Offence Wing, Crunuba Investigation Department (in short EOW, C.I.D.), Headquarters Indira Bhawan, Fifth Floor, Lucknow and the order of Anti-Corruption Bureau, CID, UP Faizabad, the police station- Kotwali City, Distt- Faizabad lodged the FIR against the aforesaid accused persons in case crime number 122/1997, u/s 418,420,467,468,471,120B IPC and Section 7 read with Section 13(2) PCA, 1988. The aforesaid accused were tried under the above mentioned sections on the basis of the charge-sheet submitted after investigation by Anti-Corruption Bureau, UP, Lucknow. 4. The accused Smt. Shail Agarwal 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 in compliance of the demi official letter no. UO-80/25-8-96, dated 25.7.96, of Confidential Section-8, Government of Uttar Pradesh, an FIR was lodged at PS-Kotwali City, Faizabad by complainant Surajpal Singh, Inspector, EOW, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, on 09.01.97, at 19:40 hours, with this statement that the investigation regarding the inquiry report of Deputy Inspector General of Police, Faizabad Division and objections raised in the special audit report of the audit party about irregularities committed in payment of things taken on rent on the occasion of Chaitra Ram Navami Mela-93 (Ayodhya) organized during 22.03.93 - 07.04.93 was conducted by the Wing. During the investigation, relevant documents were collected and scrutinized and the statements of Shri Satsai Ram Prajapati, Senior Auditor, Sushil Kumar Srivastava, Auditor, Police Headquarters, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh, Sushil Kumar Jaiswal s/o Nand Kishor, H. N. 416/227 Khvaspura, Faizabad, Ashok Kumar Jaiswal s/o of Jamna Prasad, H. N. 1218, Kakarhi Market, Faizabad, Amarnath Jaiswal s/o Ramanand, H. N. 467, Khvaspura, Faizabad, Ramcharan s/o Ram Prasad, Niyanwa Chauraha, Machhali Mandi Raod, Gaurapatti, police station- Cantt., Faizabad, Jai Prakash s/o Ram Ujer Shukla, village Shrirampur (Khadbadepur), Mauza Adilpur, police station- Inayatnagar, Faizabad, Madan Kumar Agrawal s/o Baburam, H. N. 513/34A, Amaniganj, Faizabad, Nand Kishor Jaiswal s/o Puddan Lal, H.N. 787 Anguribag, Faizabad, Ashok Kumar Agrawal s/o Kishori Lal, H.N.562, Kyganj, Allahabad, Jagdish Kumar Agrawal s/o Bal Govind Das, Rambagh, Allahabad and the then Reserve Inspector, Faizabad were recorded. 6. After complete investigation, this fact came to light that in the year 1993, on 17.03.93, a tender notice was issued after a demand letter was given by the RI on 16.03.93 for taking tent furniture etc on rent for police arrangement in Chaitra Ram Navami Mela (Ayodhya). Rules were not followed even in invitation of the tender. Only four days time was prescribed to submit the tender. The tender notice was neither published in the newspaper nor adequately propagandized. Taking its advantage, along with his tender/ quotation, Mandan Kumar Agrawal s/o Baburam, House No. 513/34A, Amaniganj, Faizabad, the proprietor of M/s. Agrawal Tent House, Faizabad got written the forged tender/ quotation of M/s. New Jaiswal Tent House by his clerk (munshi) Jai Prakash s/o Ramujer Shukla, village Shrirampur (Khadbhadepur) Mauza Adilpur, PS- Inayat Nagar, Distt- Faizabad and himself prepared the forged tender/ quotation in the name of Abhinav Tent House and Sumit Tent House and submitted these in the Police Office, Faizabad on 20.03.93 at 12 o' clock in the day. Thus, all the four tenders were submitted by aforementioned Madan Kumar Agrawal himself, due to which competitive rates could not be raised. Despite having the extremely higher raters in comparison with the current market rates and that of previous years, under conspiracy, the then police officers/officials accepted the tender of aforementioned Madan Kumar Agrawal's firm M/s. Agrawal Tent House, Faizabad, which had been submitted under the forged signature of Ashok Kumar. While opening the tender, neither signatures of the present tenderers were obtained nor any note was written in this regard. While opening the tender, neither signatures of the present tenderers were obtained nor any note was written in this regard. With recommendation of the payment of expenditure submitted in the fake name of Ashok Kumar by Madan Kumar Agrawal, he was provided wrongful gain and wrongful loss was caused to the government. Thus, there is a prima facie case u/s 418,420,467,468,471,120B IPC against aforementioned Madan Kumar Agrawal, Jai Prakash Munshi and the then concerned police officers/officials. 7. The investigation in the aforesaid case was conducted by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and after completing all formalities, a charge-sheet was sent against accused Madan Kumar Agrawal, Smt. Navneeta Agrawal and Raghubeer Singh Badauriya in case crime number 122/97, u/s 418,420,467,468,471,120B IPC and Section 7/13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 8. On the basis of the charge-sheet and other documents, the cognizance was taken for the offence against accused Madan Kumar Agrawal, Smt. Navneeta Agrawal and Raghubeer Singh Bhadauriya, and in compliance of Section 207 of CrPC finding sufficient evidences, charged accused Madan Kumar Agrawal and Smt. Navneeta Agrawal on 23.11.06 and Raghubeer Singh Badauriya on 27.06.14 u/s 418,420,467,468,471,120B IPC and Section 7/13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 9. PW-1 C/ Devendra Singh, PW-2 Jagdish Kumar Agrawal, PW-3 Sushil Kumar Jaiswal, PW-4 Satsai Ram Prajapati, PW-5 Ram Prakash Tandon, PW-6 Ashok Kumar Jaiswal, PW-7 Amarnath Jaiswal, PW-8 Ram Charan Gupta, PW-9 Jai Prakash Shukla, PW-10 Jagdish Prasad Mishra, PW-11 Harbhajan Singh, retired Inspector General of Police, PW-12 Pro. Dr. Jagnnath Tripathi, PW-13 Bholaram Chaturvedi, retired inspector, PW-14 Suresh Chandra Sharma, PW-15 Grish Nandan Singh, retired IG Police were examined as oral evidences by the prosecution in order to support his case. 10. As documentary evidence, F.I.R. Ext. ka-1, complaint ka-2, quotation of several firms Ext. ka-3 to Ext. ka-10, comparative chart of articles given on rent by firms Ext. ka-11, affidavit given to D.I.G.P., A.C.B, Lucknow Ext. ka-12 to Ext. ka-14, list of articles for arrangement of light Ext. ka-15, letter of S.S.P., Faizabad Ext. ka-16 to Ext. ka-19, letter of description of articles given on rent by firms Ext. ka-20, letter sent by S.S.P., Faizabad Ext. ka-21 to Ext. ka-23, letter with respect to permission of articles given on rent by farms Ext. ka-24, letter sent by the then S.S.P., Faizabad Ext. ka-25 to Ext. ka-15, letter of S.S.P., Faizabad Ext. ka-16 to Ext. ka-19, letter of description of articles given on rent by firms Ext. ka-20, letter sent by S.S.P., Faizabad Ext. ka-21 to Ext. ka-23, letter with respect to permission of articles given on rent by farms Ext. ka-24, letter sent by the then S.S.P., Faizabad Ext. ka-25 to Ext. ka-27, letter sent by S.S.P., Faizabad to I.G.P., Faizabad Ext. ka-28, letter sent with respect to arrangement of light Ext. ka-29, letter sent by the then R.I. to S.S.P., Faizabad Ext. ka-30 to Ext. ka-32, report of forensic science laboratory Ext. ka-33 and charge-sheet Ext. ka-34, are available on file. 11. Statements of accused persons were recorded under section-313 Cr.P.C, wherein they have stated that the case was registered on the basis of false inquiry and false case was filed motivated by the conspiracy of Laluji & Sons to create illegal pressure and false statement was given under the pressure of vigilance. It is also the statement of accused Madan Kumar Agarwal that he had submitted true quotation, no forged document was prepared, nor any conspiracy was made and have been falsely named as accused. It is statement of accused Navneeta Agarwal that she has separate tent-house firm named as Sumit tent-house before three years of marriage with Madan Kumar Agarwal, and had separate business which was started by my father. Even after marriage, he independently ran my business at my firm and filed its tax separately; He has been falsely named as accused. It is statement of accused Raghuveer Singh Bhadauriya that he was posted as Reserve Inspector/R.I. he himself had not taken any article on rent. Reserve Inspector / R.I. is in-charge of police-line whose duties are proper maintenance of daily attendance, list of roster-duty and registers for all armed police, and maintenance and safety of gear, weapons, ammunition and tent, kanato. Work of inviting tender, opening and payment of tender do not come under my work profile. There is no my role in this procedure, nor it comes under my jurisdiction. No oral and documentary evidence have been adduced by the accused persons in their defence. 12. We heard learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for accused and perused the lower court record. 13. Learned A.G.A. submits that the trial Court has misread the evidence on record and has acquitted the accused persons. No oral and documentary evidence have been adduced by the accused persons in their defence. 12. We heard learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for accused and perused the lower court record. 13. 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 appreciated 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 judgement and order passed by the trial Court deserves to be set aside. 14. 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 summarised below: Devendra Singh has been examined as P.W.-1 who has stated that on 09.01.97, he was posted as constable in P.S.- Kotwali Sadar, Faizabad. On that day, C.C.No.- 123/97, u/s.- 418, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B against Madan Kumar Agarwal and others was registered by Head Moharir Tej Bhaduar Singh in the office of Suraj Pal Singh, Inspector, Economic Offences Research Department, U.P., Lucknow. He was acquainted with writing and signature of Tej Bhadur Singh who was posted alongwith me. Chik report is Ext.ka-1. Complaint of Suraj Pal Singh on the basis of which the case was registered is Ext.ka-2, and he his acquainted with his signature. Jagdish Kumar Agarwal has been examined as P.W.-2 who has stated in his statement that Lallu Ji & Tent-house is situated in Rambagh itself, and he is partner of the said firm. Tent is installed in government and private fair, election, festival by my tent-house. Jagdish Kumar Agarwal has been examined as P.W.-2 who has stated in his statement that Lallu Ji & Tent-house is situated in Rambagh itself, and he is partner of the said firm. Tent is installed in government and private fair, election, festival by my tent-house. In kartik fair, 1992, quotation was invited by S.P., Faizabad, in compliance of which he had filed my tender. My representative namely Mata Charan Pandey had gone taking this tender. Tender was opened before him and other contractors. Three tenders were received in which one was mine, second was from Agarwal Tent-House and third one was from Sumit Tent-House. On the basis of rates of tender, total amount of my work was Rs. 1,36,060/- and Sumit Tent-House had offered the rate in the unit of nag per day on the basis of which it amounts to Rs. 59,650/-. On this basis, the work was given to Sumit Ten-House. In 1993, payment of our firm was received in police-line, Faizabad and we had gone to take it. There, we got an opportunity to see bills of Sumit-Tent House and Agarwal Tent-House. On seeing, it was noticed that Sumit Tent-House gave bills on the basis of per square feet in place of unit of per nag, due to which amount of bill increased. Similarly, work of third Kaar Sewa and Ram Navami was got done by Sumit Tent-House and Agarwal Tent-House, for which no quotation was invited. In this regard, complaint dated 19.07.73 was sent to Inspector General of Police (in short I.G.P.), U.P., Lucknow, in which loss of whole amount incurred by department due to alteration in the aforesaid rates was apprised of. Due to alteration of rates, amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- was given to those contractors. All these loss were caused by officers doing conspiracy of alteration in rates of tender. Having altered the rates offered in the unit of nag per day in Kartik Mela 1992, the bill was sent at the rate per square feet/day, due to which amount of bill increased. It has also been stated that regarding this, he had sent complaint alongwith other enclosure to the I.G.P., U.P., Lucknow, on the basis of which this case was inquired. Photocopy of that application which was got copied from the original copy is before me and bears my signature and is paper number-61ka-1 to 61ka-9 and was marked as Ext. ka-1. It has also been stated that regarding this, he had sent complaint alongwith other enclosure to the I.G.P., U.P., Lucknow, on the basis of which this case was inquired. Photocopy of that application which was got copied from the original copy is before me and bears my signature and is paper number-61ka-1 to 61ka-9 and was marked as Ext. ka-1. Tender is paper number-61ka-6 to 61ka-7 which bears his signature. It was marked as Ext. ka-2 and Ext. ka-3. Sushil Kumar Jaiswal has been examined as P.W.-3 who has stated that he had a firm with the name of Shivam Tent House which was working in 1993-94. His father's firm Suneel-Mahesh Tent house used to look after the work. He had submitted that my tender in 1992 Kar Sewa in 1993 Ram Navami fair, on the advertisement by police office. His father, on behalf of his firm, had submitted these tenders. He looked after the works of firm. Neither tender, nor comparative chart were opened before me. He had also given an affidavit through his advocate. The witness seeing 7ka-29 stated that it is photocopy of his original affidavit and original photocopy is on this file. Proprietor of New Jaiswal Tent-House was his father and after his death, he became proprietor. The tender was not filed by me rather it was filed by anyone else after affixing my forged signature, because he lived at Varanasi. He came to know about this forgery that Agrawal Tent-House and others in association with police officers got forged tender filed in order to get order in their favour, in which quotation of his firm was submitted. Having seen all documents therein, he stated this to I.O. and had given affidavit also. Satayee Ram Prajapati, Rtd. Senior Auditor has been examined as P.W-4 who has stated that "he was posted as Senior Audit Officer in Police Headquarter Allahabad from year 1976 to Nov 2003. Related to this case, he had audited payments of tender related to Kartik Mela and Ram navami Mela etc organized in Ayodhya Faizabad. While the audit done by me in 1994, two members of his head quarter Awadhesh Kumar Shrivastava and Susheel Kumar Shrivastava accompanied him. Tender notice was issued by office of S.S.P. Faizabad. Information of the tender was not publicized as per rule-11 Appendix-19 of Financial Hand Book Part(5) and it was violated. While the audit done by me in 1994, two members of his head quarter Awadhesh Kumar Shrivastava and Susheel Kumar Shrivastava accompanied him. Tender notice was issued by office of S.S.P. Faizabad. Information of the tender was not publicized as per rule-11 Appendix-19 of Financial Hand Book Part(5) and it was violated. The tender notice was floated for firms and it was related to goods like bamboo columns, chairs, shamiyanas etc required for Kartik Ram Navami Mela and Kaar Sewa. The comparative-chart was prepared by S.S.P. D.K. Rai and the tender was opened by him. The tender notice was given by S.S.P. Faizabad to some firms interested in applying the tender and some were not. Tender of that person was accepted who was not given the tender notice. The tender was applied with inflated rates taking the base of rates fixed in Kartik Mela, 1992. While auditing, he found that the manual wasn't followed and loss in revenue was caused by the office doing irregularities in payments. he had gone to audit by the written order of D.I.G., Police Headquarter. he had conducted the audit taking the rates of goods supplied in previous year as standard. Having the audit report got prepared by his assistant, it was forwarded through his superior officers with their signatures thereon. After that, he had obtained signatures of higher officers of Finance Control and the audit report was sent to the office of S.S.P. Faizabad." Ram Prakash Tandon, Rtd. C.O. has been examined as P.W.-5 who, supporting the prosecution story on oath, has proved Ex.Ka-3 & Ex.Ka-4 as tender quotation of tent house and Ex.Ka-5 as quotation from firms and comparative-chart. Ashok Kumar Jaisawal has been examined as P.W.-6 who has stated "his father had been in tent-house business till 12-13 years from now. Name of his firm was Saket Tent-House Nahar Bagh Faizabad. HIs father and they were in tent-house business for about 15-20 years. A firm named Agarwal Tent House was started by Madan Kumar Agarwal in Faizabad. Madan Kr. Agarwal is of Bihar. Agarwal Tent House was run for 3-4 years. A tender was invited in daily news paper by S.S.P. Faizabad for supply of goods required for police administration in Chaitra Ram Navami and Kaar Sewa Mela. No tender application was submitted by him, his father or his firm in S.S.P. Office. Madan Kr. Agarwal is of Bihar. Agarwal Tent House was run for 3-4 years. A tender was invited in daily news paper by S.S.P. Faizabad for supply of goods required for police administration in Chaitra Ram Navami and Kaar Sewa Mela. No tender application was submitted by him, his father or his firm in S.S.P. Office. Apart from Agarwal Tent House, work was done by Abhinav tent house Reedganj and Sumit Tent House Faizabad. He does not know whether Madan Agarwal had submitted tender of the firms of Abhinav tent house Reedganj and Sumit Tent House Faizabad in S.S.P. Office or not. Government Tenders were mostly allotted to Madan Agarwal. Only he worked. Rate lists used to be tagged with the goods of our firm and we used to supply the goods according to the those rates itself. He know that firms namely Abhinav tent house Reedganj and Sumit Tent House Faizabad were not in demand earlier. Only sign boards of these firms were displayed in Civil Lines Reedganj Faizabad." Amarnath Jaisawal was examined as P.W.-7 who has stated " His ancestors and he have been in tent business. he had submitted an affidavit in D.I.G. Anti-Corruption Bureau Lucknow Branch on 27-10-97 in which he has stated on oath that Madan Kumar Agarwal is owner of Agarwal Tent House who undertakes government contracts. There are many big and small firms in his city who undertake government contracts and civil works. There is competition among these firms. Information of these tenders is published in daily news paper and advertisements displayed on notice boards of the department. On this information, all the firms file the tender. Higher officials of C.I.D. department had come at his firm also to inquire about rent etc of tent material supplied in Ayodhya Mela. There was no complain about his tent house nor he was asked about any other tent house. He was questioned about rates of tents etc and working style and behavior of the police officers regarding payments but he didn't know about working style of any police officer. He didn't know anything about government records. His signature was not obtained on any written paper after interogation. He had submitted the affidavit voluntarily. He was questioned about rates of tents etc and working style and behavior of the police officers regarding payments but he didn't know about working style of any police officer. He didn't know anything about government records. His signature was not obtained on any written paper after interogation. He had submitted the affidavit voluntarily. Paper no.-6ka14 to 6ka15 included in file is the original affidavit submitted by me which bears my signature and is marked as Ex.ka-6." Ram Charan Gupta has been examined as P.W.-8 who has stated "he have been doing work of installing private tents and electricity since long time. Before this, he was working as labourer in Delhi. Tarang Niyavan Road is at some distance from my house. Madan Agarwal used to do work of tent from a shop on rent. He does not know where does he belong to. The shop was in the name of Agarwal Tent House. He cannot tell about his relatives. He do not know about their family business. A firm from Allahabad Lalluji & Sons Faizabad used to undertake labuor work whenever they used to sign any contract nearby. Few days ago people of Lalluji & Sons Faizabad and C.I.D. came for inquiry. They had come to inquire about Madan Kumar Agarwal but he don't have any information about Madan Kumar Agarwal. They inquired about owner of Jaiswal Tent House Nand Kishor and his son Susheel Kumar Jaiswal. They also asked about Madan Kumar Jaiswal. The personnel of Lalluji and Sons obtained my signature on some papers. Something was written on those papers. He don't know what was written on those papers. When he asked about those papers, it was replied by the people of Lalluji and Sons that it was about accountancy. he had got that affidavit made having gone to Kachehari himself. The affidavit bears my photo and signature which is notified by notary. The paper no.-6Ka10 and 6Ka11 are copies of affidavit sent to D.I.G. Lucknow branch which bears his photo and signature which was marked as Ex.Ka-7." Jai Prakash Shukla has been examined as PW-9 who stated that "he is presently engaged in a private job. In the year 1990-91, he was having a tent house shop in a rented premises located on Jail road Sultanpur. He undertake civil work on a smaller scale. In the year 1990-91, he was having a tent house shop in a rented premises located on Jail road Sultanpur. He undertake civil work on a smaller scale. He has never worked in the tent house of Madan Agrawal, nor does he know anything about Madan Aggrawal Tent house. He is also not aware whether proprietorship of Abhinav Tent House, Sumit Tent House and New Jaiswal Tent house lies with Madan Agrawal or not. The firm of Lallu Ji and Sons undertook the tender of erecting tent for the Congress meeting held at Katora Sultanpur and I have worked in that tender. Employees of Lallu Ji and sons and employees of C.I.D. Department approached his. They obtained his signatures on previously drafted documents, contents of which were not read over to me. He myself got this affidavit prepared on arrival at the Kutchhery and affixed his photo as well as signature on it and my photo was verified by the advocate. He undertook the task of barricading at Sultanpur in Lallu Ji firm. He did not question the employees of firm while signing the document. He voluntarily submitted the affidavit to the Inspector General A.C.O. Lucknow unit, the affidavit is present in the file from paper no. 6Ka6 to 6Ka8 which is marked as Ex. Ka-8." Jagdish Prasad Mishra has been examined as PW-10 who stated that " no action was taken by him in files related to the Kar Seva and Chait Ram Navami Mela on 6th December 1992 and April 1993. He was posted as C.R. at that time as Radheyshyam Singh was the head clerk at that time. Later on he was transferred at Kumbh Mela Allahabad. Beche Lal Saxena was General clerk He at that time used to look after the proceedings in files related to the Kar Seva and Mela. All the files were in custody of Beche Lal Saxena and not in his custody. Investigating Officer recorded my statement." Harbhajan Singh, Retd. Inspector General of Police has been examined as PW-11 who stated that " he was posted as Senior Superintendent of Police Faizabad in the period between 1992-93. During his tenure, tender was floated for articles related to police as well as law and order arrangements for the Chait Ram Navami Mela in the year 1993 on the basis of request letter sent by Reserve Inspector, Police Line Faizabad. During his tenure, tender was floated for articles related to police as well as law and order arrangements for the Chait Ram Navami Mela in the year 1993 on the basis of request letter sent by Reserve Inspector, Police Line Faizabad. Tender was advertised on notice board and due to paucity of time firms were informed through special messengers who were also engaged to disperse information to nearby districts. Temporary telephone connection and other articles required as per the request letter of R.I. for the Chait Ram Navami Mela were sanctioned by me after approval of the D.I.G. Tender in the file were opened by R.P. Tandon C.O. ( Bhavan). This witness has as per rules proved the quotation of Abhinav Tent House marked as Ex. Ka-8, the quotation of Sumit Tent House marked as Ex. Ka-9, quotation of Aggrawal Tent House marked as Ex. Ka-10, comparative chart of articles provided on rent by the firms marked as Ex. Ka-11, Affidavit submitted to D.I.G. Anti Corruption Bureau marked as Ex Ka-12 to Ex. Ka-14, list of equipments for lighting arrangements marked as Ex. Ka-15, S.S.P. Letters from Ex. Ka-16 to Ka-19, description letter of the equipments taken on rent by the firms marked as Ex. Ka-20, letters dispatched by the then S.S.P. marked as Ex. Ka-21,Ka-22 and Ka-23, letter regarding approval of the articles to be taken on rent by firms marked as Ex. Ka-24, Letter sent by the then S.S.P. marked as Ex.Ka-25 to 27, letter sent to Inspector General of Police regarding providing approval for the equipments taken on rent by firms marked as Ex. Ka-28, Letter of the then S.S.P. regarding lighting arrangements marked as Ex. Ka-29, The letters sent by the then Reserve Inspector to the S.S.P. marked as Ex. Ka-30,Ka-31 and Ka-32 and charge sheet marked as Ex. Ka-34 along with identifying and proving the writing and signatures of the then Additional S.P. Akhilesh Mehrotra as well as Assistant S.P. Anju Gupta with the then S.S.P. Faizabad Malkhana Singh, D.I.G. Faizabad P.P.S Sidhu and Umashankar Vajpayee along with Suresh Sharma, the then Reserve Inspector and retd Deputy Superintendent of Police respectively." Professor Dr. Jagannath Tripathi has been examined as PW-12 who stated that " his house is located at the lane of Hamdani Kothi on Reedganj Chauraha. He give my house on rent. Jagannath Tripathi has been examined as PW-12 who stated that " his house is located at the lane of Hamdani Kothi on Reedganj Chauraha. He give my house on rent. In the year 1991 he rented out my house to Madan Kumar Agrawal who is proprietor of Abhinav Tent house for a monthly rent of 2000 rupees to reside there with his family and he stayed there till 1995. His telephone was used occasionally by Madan Kumar Agrawal due to our terms with each other. Madan Kumar Agrawal resided in my house with his wife, parents and maternal uncle (Mama). Madan Kumar Agrawal had put a board of Abhinav Tent House on the boundary of my house without my permission, however he never carried out the business of tent or furniture from my house or nearby it. Later on he got the board removed and on learning about his fake and dubious nature of business, he made him vacate my house. He do not know anything about his maternal uncle Ashok Kumar Agrawal. My statement was recorded by the I.O." Bholanath Chauturvedi, retired Inspector has been examined as PW-13 who stated that "He was posted as constable at Anti Corruption Bureau in the year 1992. He was transferred from Lucknow unit to Faizabad Unit in the year 2007 and he am working as constable at Faizabad from then till now. He has worked with Inspector Surajpal Singh at Faizabad unit in the year 1995 and has witnessed him reading, writing due to which he recognise his writing and signature. The typed and signed complaint by complainant inspector Surajpal Singh which was submitted to inspector PS Kotwali Faizabad on the basis of which this case was registered and is present in the file as Ex. Ka-2 is in front of me on which he identify and verify the signature of inspector Surajpal Singh. Inspector Surajpal Singh died on 19-12-04, his death report and death certificate are enclosed in Health department file as paper no. 21Kha, which is photocopy and report regarding his death is enclosed at the back of the summon." Suresh Chand Sharma, Retired Deputy Superintendent of Police has been examined as PW-14 who stated that "he was posted as Inspector at the Faizabad unit of Anti corruption Bureau in the year 2003. 21Kha, which is photocopy and report regarding his death is enclosed at the back of the summon." Suresh Chand Sharma, Retired Deputy Superintendent of Police has been examined as PW-14 who stated that "he was posted as Inspector at the Faizabad unit of Anti corruption Bureau in the year 2003. The investigation of case having case crime number-122/97 under Sec. 420,467,468,471,120B IPC and Sec. 7/13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, PS Kotwali city, district Faizabad was handed over to me under the order of the then Inspector General of police and has been entered in the General Diary. he perused the case diaries prepared by previous investigating officers in this case on 01-07-03. On the basis of reports dispatched by previous investigating officers, case was discussed with senior police officers and their directions were perused on 21-08-03. The statements of Dr. Jagannath Prasad Tripathi, Gulab Chand Garg, Shriram Agrawal and Ayodhya Prasad were recorded on 28-08-03. Letter requesting report regarding related sales tax was sent to Assistant Commissioner on 24-09-03. Thereafter on receiving the approval of superior officers on the investigation and final progress report, chargesheet was filed before the court against Madan Kumar Agrawal, Shrimati Navneeta Agrawal and Raghubir Singh Bhadauria on the basis of sufficient evidences collected against them. The charge sheet which is marked as Ex. Ka-32 is present in the file as paper no. 3Ka1 and 3Ka2." Girish Nandan Singh, Retired I.G. Police has been examined as PW-15 who has supported the prosecution version along with presenting his evidence and has as per rules proved the writing and signatures of Investigating Officers namely Inspector Dharm Singh with S.S.P. Prabhat Kumar as well as Deputy S.P. Bhanu Pratap Singh and B.B. Singh. 15. 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. 16. 16. On behalf of the accused persons, Citation of Indra Jeet Singh and other Versus State of Punjab and others ACRR 1995 Page 621 (SC) has been presented by the accused in which it has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that nobody can be convicted U/s 466, 468, 471, 477A and 120B IPC, only on the basis of doubt or conjecture or circumstantial evidences. Further Citation of Guru Bipin Singh Versus C. Manihar Singh ACC 1997 9340 Page 283 (SC) has been presented by the accused in which it has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that if there is an allegation forgery or cheating in any case, the (case of) cheating gets null & void itself if the forgery is not proved. 17. On basis of above investigation, it is concluded that on basis of the story presented, the prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused Madan Kumar Agrawal, Mrs. Navneeta Agarwaland Raghubeer Singh Bhadauriya U/s 418, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC and Section 7/13(2) Anti Corruption Act, beyond doubt and the accused deserve the benefit of doubt. 18. 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. 19. 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. 20. As far as aforesaid contentions adduced by learned counsels for both parties in respect of accused persons', role in the instant criminal case. At relevant point of time accused Devendra was posted as Assistant Engineer and Indrajeet was posted as peshkar. Permission for sale of the land in question has not been granted by these accused persons; rather, it has been granted by the competent officer. But it is surprising that no permission for prosecuting the competent officer Jagdish Singh Sirohi in the criminal case has been granted. Accordingly, granting permission for sale of land in question by accused Devendra and Indrajeet by way of hatching a conspiracy does not seem reliable. Not only this but also the act of misplacing the file in the instant case could not be proved against the accused persons. Accordingly, granting permission for sale of land in question by accused Devendra and Indrajeet by way of hatching a conspiracy does not seem reliable. Not only this but also the act of misplacing the file in the instant case could not be proved against the accused persons. Moreover, responsibility to maintain file related to said land has not been fixed. In this respect, if evidence of PW 1 Param Singh is perused, an enquiry of the criminal case in question is mentioned to have been carried out by the witness. But, this witness has not conducted a thorough enquiry in the instant case. The witness has stated in his cross examination: "A senior officer who ascertains ceiling related matters is a competent officer in the rank of P.C.S. or I.A.S. An Assistant Engineer is deputed in his staff. 21. 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. 22. 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: (i) An appellate court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. 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: (i) 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. 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." 23. 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'. 24. 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. 25. 24. 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. 25. 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 judgement and order dated 12.6.2015 passed by the trial Court. 26. 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. 27. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.