JUDGMENT : P.K. LOHRA, J. 1. Under challenge is a common judgment in these twin appeals, therefore, are heard together and disposed of by this unison judgment. By the impugned judgment dated 14th of May 1998, Sessions Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Jodhpur (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as ‘learned trial Court’) convicted original appellant Dashrath Raj (since deceased) of Criminal Appeal No. 379/1998 and two other appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 378/1998 for offences punishable under various sections of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and offence under Section 5(1)(d), 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (PC Act). 2. The learned trial Court indicted appellants for various offences of IPC and offence under the PC Act and sentenced them as follows: Sentences awarded to appellant Dasrath Raj (since deceased): U/s. 5(1)(d), 5(2) of the PC Act Simple imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment. U/s. 468 IPC Simple imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment. U/s. 467/109 IPC Simple imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 500/, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment. U/s. 409 IPC Simple imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 500/, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment. Sentences awarded to appellant Kishan Singh: U/s. 5(1)(d), 5(2) of the PC Act Simple imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment. 477-A IPC Simple imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment. 468 IPC Simple imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment. Sentences awarded to appellant Mohd. Yusuf: U/s. 5(1)(d), 5(2) of the PC Act Simple imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment. 467 IPC Simple imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment. 468 IPC Simple imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment. 467 IPC Simple imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment. 468 IPC Simple imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment. 409 IPC Simple imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment. 3. Scorning the checkered history of the case, facts apposite are that Public Works Department (PWD), Jodhpur carried out famine relief works for the year 1981-1982 and continued it for the next financial year, i.e. 1982-1983. When the famine relief work during the financial year 1982-1983 was in vogue, the then Executive Engineer, Division West, Mr. R.D. Vyas, Sub Engineer Mr. Kishan Singh (one of the appellants), Store-keeper Mr. Dashrath Raj (one of the appellants, since deceased), and Store Munshi Mr. Mohd. Yusuf (Appellant No. 2 in Criminal Appeal No. 378/1998) allegedly misused their official positions to cause wrongful pecuniary loss to the State Government. Precisely, all of them were castigated for preparing forged Muster Rolls on the information furnished by someone to Anti Corruption Department, Jodhpur. The information eventually culminated into FIR No. 107/86 against all named therein for offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 474 IPC and under Section 5(1)(d), 5(2) of the PC Act. 4. During investigation, some of the Muster Rolls of PWD West Division bearing Nos. 45 to 52, containing entries of about 10 labourers each, for entire month in respect of undertaking repairing work of tools, were prima facie found spurious. It also revealed that Muster Rolls issued for road repairing works were un-authorizedly utilized by all the accused persons allegedly for repairing of tools. The total wrongful gain to the accused persons was found to the tune of Rs. 34,720 at the cost of wrongful loss to the exchequer. A significant fact that fictitious names were entered in the Muster Rolls also unearthed in the course of investigation. 5. Upon completion of investigation, Anti Corruption Department, submitted charge-sheet against all the accused persons including the appellants for different offences under various Sections before the learned trial Court. 34,720 at the cost of wrongful loss to the exchequer. A significant fact that fictitious names were entered in the Muster Rolls also unearthed in the course of investigation. 5. Upon completion of investigation, Anti Corruption Department, submitted charge-sheet against all the accused persons including the appellants for different offences under various Sections before the learned trial Court. At the stage of framing charges, learned trial Court heard arguments of the prosecution as well as defence and vide its order dated 18th of June 1993 discharged Executive Engineer Mr. R.D. Vyas. However, considering prima facie case against the appellants framed following charges against each appellant: Appellant Dashrath Raj (since deceased)—Offence under Sections 409, 467 r/w 109 IPC and Section 5(1)(d), 5(2) of the PC Act Appellant Kishan Singh—Offence under Sections 477A, 409 IPC and Section 5(1)(d), 5(2) of the PC Act. Appellant Mohd. Yusuf - Offence under Sections 467, 468, 409 IPC and Section 5(1)(d), 5(2) of the PC Act. Upon denial to all the charges, the learned trial Court put them on trial. 6. The prosecution, in order to authenticate charges against appellants, examined in all 13 witnesses, which are PW1 Ramswaroop Solanki, PW2 Mohd. Saddique, PW3 Laxmi Mal Singhvi, PW4 Hari Ram, PW5 Parmeshwar Vyas, PW6 Ratan Raj, PW7 Surendra Pal Singh, PW8 Narendra Kumar, PW9 Murad Ali Abda (I.O.), PW10 Sumer Singh, PW10 Hari Shanker Tondon, PW11 Amar Singh, and PW12 Ashok Kumar respectively. Besides ocular evidence, 62 documents were produced by the prosecution, which were exhibited, including the Muster Rolls and FSL Report pertaining to contentious Muster Rolls. Conclusion of prosecution evidence is followed by examination of all the accused-appellants under Section 313 Cr. PC. For substantiating their defence, accused-appellants examined six defence witnesses; namely, DW1 Vijay Mal, DW2 Narsingh, DW3 Manoharlal Vaishnav, DW4 Manroopram Choudhary, DW5 Rakesh and DW6 Bhanwarlal Sharma. 7. After conclusion of the defence evidence, learned trial Court heard final arguments and convicted appellants for various offences with sentences of different durations mentioned to supra. 8. At the threshold, when the appeals came up for admission both were admitted for hearing and sentences awarded to respective appellants are suspended. In Criminal Appeal No. 379/98, sentence of original appellant Dashrath Raj was suspended on 02.06.1998 but unfortunately he passed away during pendency of appeal on 03.10.2013. 8. At the threshold, when the appeals came up for admission both were admitted for hearing and sentences awarded to respective appellants are suspended. In Criminal Appeal No. 379/98, sentence of original appellant Dashrath Raj was suspended on 02.06.1998 but unfortunately he passed away during pendency of appeal on 03.10.2013. Upon death of appellant Dashrath Raj, his legal representatives/near relatives made endeavour for craving leave to continue the appeal by laying application under Section 394 Cr.PC. The application aforesaid was allowed on 26.11.2013 and being LRs of the deceased, they are permitted to continue the appeal. 9. Mr. Manoj Bhandari, learned counsel for LRs of appellant Dashrath Raj, submits that payment of requisite amount, upon verifying the entries made in Muster Rolls, was made by the then Executive Engineer R.D. Vyas, therefore, after his discharge, indictment of Dashrath Raj for charged offences is per se vulnerable. Learned counsel Mr. Bhandari would contend that not floating a tender for the work by itself cannot constitute a criminal offence much less grave and serious charges with which appellant is indicted when accomplishment of requisite work is proved during trial. Learned counsel urged that mere procedural irregularity cannot constitute offence of criminal breach of trust, forgery or criminal misconduct of a public servant sans mensrea. Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel, while referring to the statements of PW4 Shri Hasimal Saxena, submits that there is candid admission of the witness during cross-examination about power of Executive Engineer to execute work upto Rs. 1 lakh without prior sanction, is completely eschewed by the learned trial Court in adjudging alleged criminal delinquencies of the appellant. Learned counsel further submits that exoneration of the then Executive Engineer R.D. Vyas and appellants Dashrath Mal and Kishan Singh in the enquiry on the same set of allegations has direct ramification on the trial, which the learned trial Court has completely overlooked. 10. Learned counsel, Mr. Bhandari, has vehemently argued that cogent proof about completion of repairing work of tools during trial and no investigation by I.O. from individual labourer mentioned in the disputed Muster Rolls to verify entries ought to have been considered by learned trial Court objectively before recording adverse finding against the appellant. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on following judgment: Videocon Industries Limited v. State of Maharashtra [ (2016) 12 SCC 315 ] 11. Mr. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on following judgment: Videocon Industries Limited v. State of Maharashtra [ (2016) 12 SCC 315 ] 11. Mr. Pradeep Shah, espousing cause of the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 378/98, has vehemently argued that findings of the learned trial Court are based on mere conjectures and surmises, and therefore, cannot withstand the test of legal foothold. Mr. Shah, learned counsel, would contend that charge-sheet filed by the prosecuting agency in the instant case initially arraigned all the three appellants with the then Executive Engineer R.D. Vyas castigating them for criminal misconduct under Section 5(1)(d), 5(2) of the PC Act and offences of IPC, viz., criminal conspiracy, preparation of forged Muster Rolls, criminal breach of trust, and thereby gaining wrongfully at the cost of loss to the exchequer but from the prosecution evidence no wrongful gain is deducible. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that sans any wrongful loss to the exchequer in turn fructifying wrongful gain to them, obviously rendered their indictment for the offences vulnerable. Learned counsel has further contended that discharge of the then Executive Engineer R.D. Vyas for offence under Section 5(1)(d), 5(2) of the PC Act and Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 & 474 IPC was a significant fact having direct ramification on the trial of appellants for various offences but the learned trial Court while passing the impugned order has completely overlooked the same. 12. Learned counsel, Mr. Shah, has strenuously urged that most of the prosecution witnesses have admitted repairing work of the tools of department to facilitate requisite payment to the labourers is sufficient to dispel dishonest intention of the appellants simply on the pretext that Muster Rolls issued for road repairing works are utilized for repairing of tools. Mr. Shah, learned counsel, strenuously urged that at the best utilization of Muster Rolls for the purpose other than what is intended by competent authority, its issuance cannot be termed an action of the appellants actuated by a dishonest intention to obtain undue pecuniary advantage. Mr. Shah has argued that learned trial Court has seriously erred in indicting the appellants for charged offences inasmuch as it has not pressed into service fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence which envisage proof about any forbidden act by an accused. While referring to alleged inculpatory statements of PW1 Ramswaroop Solanki, Mr. Mr. Shah has argued that learned trial Court has seriously erred in indicting the appellants for charged offences inasmuch as it has not pressed into service fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence which envisage proof about any forbidden act by an accused. While referring to alleged inculpatory statements of PW1 Ramswaroop Solanki, Mr. Shah would urge that his testimony is not worth credence inasmuch as at the relevant point of time he was posted in PWD Division West, Jodhpur. 13. Learned counsel has also submitted that during cross-examination witness has candidly admitted that to issue note of articles is well within the competence of Executive Engineer and the same requires indent for articles. Relying on the statement of other prosecution witness PW3 Laxmi Mal Singhvi, learned counsel submits that his clear admission during cross-examination that work is carried out in accordance with disputed Muster Rolls and payment to the labourers in adherence of the orders of the Executive Engineer is sufficient to discredit is testimony. Likewise, learned counsel has also relied upon the statements of Accountant Hari Ram Saxena (PW4) wherein he has admitted that labourers were paid their wages on the basis of Muster Rolls Ex. P/21 to P/28 at the prescribed rates on verification of the requisite entries. Learned counsel has also argued that very important witness of the prosecution, PW5 Executive Engineer Parmeshwar Dayal Singhal, has turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. Learned counsel, while taking dig at the testimony of PW7 Surendra Pal Singh submits that though the witness has admitted payment of requisite amount to appellant Kishan Singh, Sub Engineer, but clearly stated that he did not check the works mentioned in Muster Rolls Ex. P/21 to P/28 as the same were not related to him besides admitting during his cross-examination that he received no complaint regarding payment and repairing work of tools undertaken. 14. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that witness PW10 Sumer Singh has turned hostile and thereby has not supported the prosecution case. Taking serious exception to the investigation carried out in the matter, learned counsel has urged that I.O. Amer Singh (PW11) has not at all cared to investigate the individuals mentioned in the Muster Rolls by visiting their respective villages. Learned counsel further submits that the I.O. has not even cared to record statements of Beldar, Chowkidar, Mistry etc. Taking serious exception to the investigation carried out in the matter, learned counsel has urged that I.O. Amer Singh (PW11) has not at all cared to investigate the individuals mentioned in the Muster Rolls by visiting their respective villages. Learned counsel further submits that the I.O. has not even cared to record statements of Beldar, Chowkidar, Mistry etc. serving in Store to unearth true facts, is sufficient to prove that the very edifice of charge-sheet was incomplete investigation. Lastly, learned counsel has further contended that I.O. has also admitted during his cross-examination that he did not receive complaint from any individual labourrer mentioned in Muster Rolls Ex. P/21 to P/25 regarding non-receipt of their wages. Lastly, learned counsel contends that the learned trial Court, while passing the impugned judgment, has placed undue reliance on fractured testimony of some of the prosecution witnesses and completely eschewed the defence evidence. 15. E. converso, Mr. O.P. Rathi, learned Public Prosecutor, submits that learned trial Court has meticulously scrutinized the prosecution evidence while indicting appellants for various offences including the offence of criminal misconduct. Learned Public Prosecutor would urge that simply because one of the accused, Executive Engineer Mr. R.D. Vyas, is discharged, appellants cannot be absolved of their criminal accountability for some of the charged offences which are duly substantiated by ocular as well as documentary evidence. Learned Public Prosecutor has strenuously urged that statements of PW1 Ramswaroop Solanki, PW3 Laxmi Mal Singhvi and I.O. Amar Singh (PW11) are clear and unequivocal to bring home guilt for the charged offences against the appellants. It is further submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that the learned trial Court has rightly placed reliance on the testimony of these witnesses for recording conviction of the appellants. Mr. Rathi, learned Public Prosecutor, has placed heavy reliance on Ex. P/62, Report of Finger Print Bureau (FSL Report), showing thumb impressions of Prabhu Ram and Jagdish in Muster Rolls Ex. P/21 to P/28 similar and identical. Likewise, similarity in thumb impressions of Champa Ram with alleged thumb impression of Ashu Ram and Santa Ram with Shanker is sufficient to prove manipulations and maneuvering of the Muster Rolls by the appellants to establish charge under Section 467, 468 and 477A IPC and therefore due consideration of the FSL Report by the learned trial Court for castigating appellants pertaining to these offences cannot be faulted. 16. Mr. 16. Mr. Rathi submits that disputed Muster Rolls of Division West were issued by the competent authority for road repairing work but the accused-appellants un-authorizedly utilized those Muster Rolls for alleged repairing work of tools for their wrongful gains at the cost of causing wrongful loss to the exchequer clearly and unambiguously proves charge against them for offence under Section 409 IPC as well as 5(1)(d), 5(2) of the PC Act. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the statements of PW4 Hari Ram Saxena, Divisional Accountant, has to be read in cumulative inasmuch as the witness in his examination-in-chief has pointed out many infirmities in Muster Rolls Ex. P/21 to P/28 besides admitting that in AG Report these Muster Rolls were not found to be genuine one. Elaborating his submissions in this behalf, learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the patent defects pointed out by witness PW4 in Muster Rolls Ex. P/21 to P/28 are sufficient to draw an irresistible conclusion that it was a handy work of appellants to gain wrongfully at the cost of causing wrongful loss to the exchequer. Learned Public Prosecutor has, therefore, submitted that findings and conclusions of the learned trial Court are unassailable. 17. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently argued that corruption is a menace to the society and every action of a public servant is required to be transparent but in the instant case overall scenario which has emerged from the prosecution evidence and the documents placed on record in support thereof, has undeniably exposed corrupt deeds of the appellants. He, there-fore, submits that learned trial Court has not committed any error much less manifest error in appreciation of evidence in recording finding of guilt against the appellants and then passing consequential conviction order. Learned Public Prosecutor further contends that, in the backdrop of peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, findings recorded by the learned trial Court are infallible and require no interference in these appeals. Lastly, learned Public Prosecutor, while countering arguments of the appellants, has urged that exoneration of the appellants in enquiry cannot be cited as a plausible reason to render the well reasoned finding of learned trial Court vulnerable. 18. I have bestowed my considerations to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment and scanned the materials available on record. 19. 18. I have bestowed my considerations to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment and scanned the materials available on record. 19. The entire prosecution case set up against the appellants plainly rests on allegation of dishonest use of Muster Rolls Ex. P/1 to P/28 by them in connivance to cause wrongful loss to the exchequer. The charge framed by the Court further castigated appellants for gain by unlawful means of property to which they were not entitled as public servants. That apart, appellants are also insinuated for criminal breach of trust as public servants, forgery of valuable security for the purpose of cheating and falsification of accounts. With all these allegations, being public servants, appellants are also prosecuted for criminal misconduct of obtaining pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means within the four corners of Sec. 5(1)(d) of the PC Act. 20. While it is true that upon appreciation of evidence, learned trial Court has convicted appellants for various offences and handed down sentences of different durations mentioned to supra, but then the cardinal issue which requires judicial scrutiny is appraisal of evidence by the learned trial Court in the light of various contentions put-forth by their counsels. In order to examine findings and conclusions recorded by the learned trial Court, it would be just and appropriate to critically scrutinize the evidence in some detail. Right of appeal against conviction is indisputably a statutory right of an accused, therefore also, warrants re-appreciation of evidence by the appellate Court, keeping in view the expansive connotation of term “life & liberty” enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution inasmuch as conviction too affects the liberty of a person. 21. Although prosecution has examined 12 witnesses to substantiate charges against appellants but, in my opinion, at the threshold, it is desirable to give credence to the testimony of some of the witnesses, which the learned trial Court has found incriminatory to establish the guilt of the accused-appellants for various offences. 22. The first witness, PW1 Ramswaroop Solanki, to some extent throw light on the alleged dubious conduct of the appellants to substantiate various charges. In his deposition, the witness has also highlighted various procedural irregularities including the entries in record showing outward movement of the tools allegedly repaired facilitating payment to the labourers. 22. The first witness, PW1 Ramswaroop Solanki, to some extent throw light on the alleged dubious conduct of the appellants to substantiate various charges. In his deposition, the witness has also highlighted various procedural irregularities including the entries in record showing outward movement of the tools allegedly repaired facilitating payment to the labourers. However, the witness has not whispered anything regarding genuineness of the entries made in Muster Rolls Ex. P/21 to P/28. While it is true that witness during his examination-in-chief has pointed out some procedural irregularities besides making available issue-vouchers but then solely on the basis of his such depositions, the testimony of witness cannot be relied upon. As a matter of fact, at the relevant point of time, witness was not posted with Division West, PWD, Jodhpur, and therefore, though his testimony seems to be sound on technical aspects but lacks authenticity on factual aspects. The relevant excerpts from his statements during cross-examination showing his ignorance about the factual aspects reads as under: ^^eSa ugha dg ldrk fd bu vkStkjksa dh okLro esa ejEer dh xbZ Fkh ;k ugha D;ksafd eSa ml le; if'peh [k.M ih-MCY;w-Mh- tks/kiqj esa rSukr ugha FkkA** Likewise, the witness has also admitted entries of repaired articles in Ex. P/3 to P/6, Ex. P/9, Ex. P/10 as welll as Ex. P/16 to P/19 besides verifying entries in Ex. D/1 to Ex. D/8 respectively. The witness has given a very evasive answer during cross-examination as to who is competent authority for passing appropriate order regarding payment of repairing charges, precisely by citing the reason that no such occasion arose during his service tenure. The relevant excerpt from cross-examination of the witness in this behalf reads as under: ^^fjisfjax ds pktZtst ds isesUV dk vkns'k lEcfU/kr vf/k'kklh vfHk;Urk gh nsrk gSA eq>s irk ugha fd fjis;j djokus dk vkns'k </font> ExeN nsrk gS ;k ughaA D;ksafd eq>s ,slk dke ugha iM+k gSA** 23. Witness PW4, Hari Ram Saxena, in his statements has pointed out over-writings and erasions in Muster Roll Nos. 45 to 52 respectively. Moreover, the witness has also testified that Muster Rolls were issued for repairing works of Osian temple and Osian-Phalodi road but allegedly utilized for repairing of tools. Witness PW4, Hari Ram Saxena, in his statements has pointed out over-writings and erasions in Muster Roll Nos. 45 to 52 respectively. Moreover, the witness has also testified that Muster Rolls were issued for repairing works of Osian temple and Osian-Phalodi road but allegedly utilized for repairing of tools. In addition to that, the witness has also pointed out that the works undertaken pursuant to those Muster Rolls was not preceded by issuance of tender and agreements besides sanction by the Superintending Engineer. In addition to that, the witness has also pointed out some other infirmities in the Muster Rolls. However, the witness during cross-examination has very candidly admitted that for carrying out work upto Rs. 1 Lakh Executive Engineer is competent and no sanction/approval of higher authority is necessary. At this stage, it would be just and appropriate to refer some of the statements of the witness having ramification on the case, which are not taken note of by the learned trial Court. The relevant excerpt from the statement of PW4, during cross-examination, reads as under: ^^;g lgh gS fd eLVj jksy izn'kZ ih&21 ls 28 esa ftu etnwjksa dks tks Hkqxrku fd;k x;k Fkk mudh etnwjh dh jsV o muds uke irs vkfn pSd fd;s x;s Fks vkSj lgh ik;s tkus ij ;g eLVj jksy Lohd`r fd;s x;s FksA ,-th- dh fujh{k.k fjiksVZ vkt U;k;ky; esa eSus ugha ns[kh vkSj u eSa vkt lkFk yk;k gWqA** In addition to the aforementioned statement of the witness, his following statements during cross-examination are also significant. ^^;g ckr lgh gS fd bl dk;Z ds fy;s vyx ls ,LVhesUV cukus dh vko';drk ugha Fkh D;ksafd ,d yk[k :i;s ls de dk dk;Z FkkA xxx eLVj jksy ij dk;Z gksus dk izek.k i= fn;k x;k Fkk ftldk vk/kkj ij dk;Z gqvk Fkk 24. The other witness PW7, Surendra Pal Singh, has though admitted payment of Rs. 34,720 to appellant Kishan Singh but has further fortified the entries made in Ex. P/30 showing adjustment of the aforesaid amount. Besides that, the witness has candidly admitted during his cross-examination that repairing work of tools was carried out. Another witness PW8 Narendra Kumar in his statements has disclosed that Muster Rolls No. 45 to 52 are shown to have been used for repairing of tools but in fact no material for repairing work was purchased. Besides that, the witness has candidly admitted during his cross-examination that repairing work of tools was carried out. Another witness PW8 Narendra Kumar in his statements has disclosed that Muster Rolls No. 45 to 52 are shown to have been used for repairing of tools but in fact no material for repairing work was purchased. At this stage, reliability of his testimony also merits examination upon cumulative reading of entire statement of the witness. The relevant part of the statement of witness during his examination-in-chief reads as under: ^^vfHk;qDr fd'kufalg us mDr eLVj jksy dh jkf'k 34720@& :i;s dk lek;kstu fglkc izn'kZ ih-30 gekjs dk;kZy; esa is'k fd;k Fkk & izn'kZ ih-30 ij , ls ch fd'kuflag ds gLrk{kj gS rFkk lh ls Mh esjs gLrk{kj gSA eSus eLVj jksy izn'kZ ih-21 ls ih-28 ds dk;Z dks pSd ugha fd;k D;ksfd ;g dk;Z esjs ls lacf/kr ugha FkkA Hkqxrku djus ds le; esa ekStwn ugh FkkA LVksj esa u;k lkeku vkrk Fkk ml eS pSd djrk FkkA izn'kZ ih-30 dh bckjr b ls ,Q- fd'kuflag tsb,u vfHk;qDr dh fy[kh gqoh gSA During his cross-examination, the witness has also admitted that repairing work of tools was carried out in May 1982, same reads as under: ebZ 1982 esa gekjs vkStkjksa dh ejEer dk dk;Z gqvk FkkA In later part of his cross-examination, witness has further reiterated that repairing work was carried out and he did not receive any complaint regarding payment. That part of the statement of witness reads as under: esjs ikl isesaV ds ckjs esa dksbZ f'kdk;r ugha vkbZA vkStkjks dk dke gqvk FkkA 25. The other important witness, the I.O. PW11, Amar Singh, has though placed reliance on report of Finger Print Bureau, Rajasthan (Ex. P/62), but a close scrutiny of his statements revealed many fissuers in his investigation. True it is that report of Director, Finger Print Bureau is worth reliance as evidence by virtue of sub-section (4) of Section 293 Cr.P.C. but then it was not expected of the investigating officer to carry out field investigation by locating the labourers named in the Muster Rolls to verify the facts more particularly in the wake of availability of material/evidence during investigation that repairing work was carried out. How shabbily the investigation was carried out is clearly discernible from the statements of PW11 during his cross-examination. How shabbily the investigation was carried out is clearly discernible from the statements of PW11 during his cross-examination. The following excerpt from the statement of witness is relevant to highlight the manner of investigation. ^^esjs dks ;kn ugha fd eSus mDr dk;kZy; dk pkj fMfotuksa dk ,d dkseu LVksj ns[kk ;k ughA ftu xokgku ds eSus c;ku fy;s Fks oks c;ku i=koyh esa layXu gSA i=koyh esa miyC/k c;kukr ds vykok vU; fdlh O;fDr dk c;ku eSus ugh fy;kA tgka tgak ls eSus fjdkMZ fy;k ml ckcr~ fooj.k eSus QnZ tIrh esa vafdr fd;k gSA LVksj ds csynkj] pkSdhnkj] feL=h] bR;kfn deZpkfj;ksa ds c;kukr nkSjkus rQrh'k bl ckcr ugh fy;s fd vkStkjksa dh ejEer okLro esa djokbZ xbZ ;k ughA eLVj jksyksa esa & iz-ih- 21 ls 28 esa ftu yksxks ds uke fy[ks gq;s Fks tks tks/kiqj esa Vªlscy ugha Fks blfy;s mu vknfe;ksa ls eSus rQrh'k ugha dhA mu vknfe;ksa ds xkaoks esa tkdj eSus rQrh'k ugh dh ftuds xkoksa dk uke izih-21 ls 28 esa vafdr fd;s gq;s gSA^^ The witness during his cross-examination has also admitted that none of the labourers whose names find mention in Ex. P/21 to P/28 made any complaint to him during investigation regarding non-payment of their wages. It is also noteworthy that the witness has clearly admitted incomplete investigation in this behalf for some reasons. The relevant part of the statement of the witness in this behalf reads as under: ^^;g lgh gS fd iz-ih- 21 ls 28 esa vafdr O;fDr;ksa esa ls fdlh us Hkh nkSjkus r¶rh'k esjs }kjk ugh dh xbZ gSA iz-ih-3] 4] 6] 19 dk bUnzkt LVksj ystj iz-Mh- 1 o 2 esa fd;k x;k gS ;k ugh eSusa r¶rh'k ugh dhA ejEer lqnk lkeku ftudks b';w fd;k x;k muls eSa r¶rh'k ugh dj ldk D;ksafd vkxs eSusa bl ekeys esa r¶rh'k ugh dh bl ekeys esa eSusa vkStkjksa dh dksbZ fjdojh ugh dhA^^ Some of the revelations of the witness during cross-examination cannot be shadowed to highlight serious loopholes and pitfalls in the investigation. The relevant part in this behalf reads as under: ^^eSusa fdlh ds f[kykQ pktZ 'khV is'k ugha dh eSus vuqla/kku chp esa gh NksM+ fn;kA eq>s tqckuh ;g Hkh ;kn ugh fd esjh r¶rh'k ds nkSjkus egs'ojh ds f[kykQ dksbZ tqeZ curk Fkk ;k ughaA^^ 26. The relevant part in this behalf reads as under: ^^eSusa fdlh ds f[kykQ pktZ 'khV is'k ugha dh eSus vuqla/kku chp esa gh NksM+ fn;kA eq>s tqckuh ;g Hkh ;kn ugh fd esjh r¶rh'k ds nkSjkus egs'ojh ds f[kykQ dksbZ tqeZ curk Fkk ;k ughaA^^ 26. In the backdrop of available ocular and documentary prosecution evidence, there remains no quarrel that repairing work of tools was carried out by employing labourers mentioned in Muster Rolls Ex. P/21 to P/28 respectively. The factum of carrying out repairing work of tools is also acknowledged by the learned trial Court. Thus, this affirmative finding of the learned trial Court has facilitated emergence of a mitigating circumstance vis-a-vis offences with which appellants are charged and found guilty. Be that as it may, the learned trial Court, while recording the finding of guilt has placed reliance on the report of Director, Finger Print Bureau (Ex. P/62). The learned trial Court made endeavour to scrutinize the report, wherein it was revealed that some of the thumb impressions of labourers whose names find mention in Muster Rolls were having identical thumb marks. There cannot be two opinions that report of Finger Print Bureau, authored by its Director, which shows that the opinion is based on observations which led to the conclusion then that opinion can be accepted even without examining the author of the report. However, should there be any doubt, it can always be decided by calling the author of the report. Law is very clear on the subject that at times report of handwriting expert is found to be faulty, evidence of a thumb impression expert is more reliable because with regard to finger prints it has never been found that two finger prints are identical in all respects. Without showing any indignation about report Ex. P/62, it would be just and appropriate to see the report in its entirety. In the report, the author has found similarity in thumb impression of Prabhu Ram and Jagdish, Champalal with Ashu Ram and Santa Ram with Shanker but has not made endeavour to examine other thumb impressions as is evident from concluding part III of the report, which reads as under: III. Rest of the disputed thumb prints of different persons can not be compared intersee being lacking in sufficient number of clear in ridge details in corresponding region. 27. Rest of the disputed thumb prints of different persons can not be compared intersee being lacking in sufficient number of clear in ridge details in corresponding region. 27. Therefore, even without expressing any doubt on the report Ex. P/62, in the backdrop of peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, I am of the view that prosecution, by not examining the author of report, has failed to clarify the position. Moreover, the concluding part of the report has also left some scope for the appellants to impeach the report by subjecting its author to cross-examination. In my considered opinion, learned trial Court has completely eschewed this sort of omission by the prosecution in the backdrop of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and while divorcing the factual aspect of completion of repairing work of tools, has placed undue reliance on report Ex. P/62 to convict the appellants. This sort of conclusion, therefore, requires threadbare examination on the touchstone of ingredients of various offences for which the appellants are indicted. 28. All the appellants are convicted for offence under Section 5(1)(d), 5(2) of the PC Act and offence under Section 468 IPC but for appellant Dashrath Raj (since deceased) also convicted for offence under Section 467/109, Section 409 IPC and Mohd. Yusuf is convicted for offence under Section 467 & 409 IPC. Solitarily, appellant Kishan Singh is also convicted for offence under Section 477A IPC. The learned trial Court, while acknowledging repairing work of the tools, which facilitated payment to labourers on the basis of their attendance in Muster Rolls Ex. P/21 to P/28, has expressed doubts about reliability of the evidence of departmental witnesses by spelling out the reason that being employees of Public Works Department they cannot be expected to depose against the accused-appellants. I am at loss to say that this finding of the learned trial Court is not based on sound reasonings because in the backdrop of criminal delinquencies attributed to the appellants none other than the employees of Public Works Department could have been formidable witnesses to prove the charges. 29. At this juncture, finding of the learned trial Court, that during investigation incumbents named in the Muster Rolls Ex. P/21 to P/28 ought to have been examined, is sufficient to create grave suspicion much less suspicion about involvement of the accused-appellants in commission of charged offence. 29. At this juncture, finding of the learned trial Court, that during investigation incumbents named in the Muster Rolls Ex. P/21 to P/28 ought to have been examined, is sufficient to create grave suspicion much less suspicion about involvement of the accused-appellants in commission of charged offence. The learned trial Court has although expressed doubt on the manner of investigation yet without clearing its doubt has recorded a finding of guilt against the appellants which has per se rendered the impugned judgment vulnerable. Therefore, the finding and conclusion of the learned trial Court that commission of charged offences was in furtherance of bonhomie or conspiracy of the appellants, by any stretch of imagination, cannot satisfy the test of cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence, ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’. The legal maxim, in re dubia magis inficiatio quam affirmatio intelligenda, i.e., in a doubtful matter negative is to be understood rather than affirmative, thus, ought to have been applied by the learned trial Court for extending benefit of doubt to the appellants. 30. If the finding of guilt, recorded by the learned trial Court for the offences, is examined on the touchstone of available material, then, it is clearly deducible that its entire basis is report of Finger Print Bureau Ex. P/62. As discussed hereinabove, prima facie, the report has unfurled serious discrepancies in the thumb impressions of labourers whose names find mention therein but a cumulative reading of Ex. P/62 makes it abundantly clear that in the report similarity of thumb impressions of 3-4 incumbents with other labourers is unearthed while showing reservations to tender any opinion in relation to other thumb impressions. Therefore, in the wake of report being not clear and unequivocal regarding thumb impressions of all the labourers, it would be unsafe to indict appellants for the charged offences solely on the basis of report Ex. P/62. Lack of any cogent incriminating evidence against the appellants for the charged offences much less any corroborating evidence too has rendered finding of guilt sloppy. The learned trial Court has, therefore, seriously erred in recording finding of guilt against the accused-appellants by solely relying on solitary evidence of an expert. 31. P/62. Lack of any cogent incriminating evidence against the appellants for the charged offences much less any corroborating evidence too has rendered finding of guilt sloppy. The learned trial Court has, therefore, seriously erred in recording finding of guilt against the accused-appellants by solely relying on solitary evidence of an expert. 31. The discharge of the then Executive Engineer R.D. Vyas at the threshold of trial for offences under Section 5(1)(d), 5(2) of the PC Act and Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 & 474 IPC and his exoneration along with appellants Kishan Singh and Dashrath Raj (since deceased) in the enquiry for the same charges also cannot be completely overlooked by treating the same altogether irrelevant or insignificant having nugatory ramification on the trial. However, the learned trial Court has not considered all these facts to clear its doubts and suspicion much less recording its finding that these factors are not worth any credence vis-a-vis appellants. The law is crystal clear that in a criminal trial prosecution evidence as well as defence evidence is to be given equal treatment and therefore a trial Court cannot be allowed to glossed over the evidence of defence witnesses. To my utter surprise, the learned trial Court has not at all discussed the defence evidence including the vital testimony of DW6 Bhanwarlal Sharma and simply recorded finding of guilt against the appellants on mere ipse dixit. 32. I am at loss to say that learned trial Court, while convicting the appellants for various offences of IPC and PC Act has not even cared to record its satisfaction about proof of requisite ingredients constituting offences. Undeniably, wrongful gain to the accused-appellants or causing wrongful loss to the exchequer by their alleged acts and omissions is not forthcoming from the evidence and materials available on record, which are the basic ingredients for constituting offence under Section 409, 468 and 477A IPC. Therefore, finding of the learned trial Court regarding indictment of the appellants for the aforesaid offences is per se vulnerable. Likewise, there is no tangible evidence to prove criminal misconduct of the appellants within the meaning of Section 5(1)(d) of the PC Act that as public servants they have obtained any pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means or otherwise abusing their position as public servants. Simply because there is a report of expert (Ex. Likewise, there is no tangible evidence to prove criminal misconduct of the appellants within the meaning of Section 5(1)(d) of the PC Act that as public servants they have obtained any pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means or otherwise abusing their position as public servants. Simply because there is a report of expert (Ex. P/62) showing alleged manipulations and maneuvering of the Muster Rolls Ex. P/21 to P/28, it is rather difficult to comprehend that appellants have committed offence under Section 5(1)(d), 5(2) of the PC Act. 33. At this stage, I am constrained to observe that the learned trial Court has seriously erred in indicting the appellants for the aforesaid offences after recording its satisfaction about accomplishment of repairing work of tools and proof about payment of wages to the labourers from the disputed amount. On the face of it, this finding is self-contradictory and, therefore, legally not sustainable. Similarly, offence under Section 467 IPC, in my considered opinion, is not proved against appellant Mohd. Yusuf inasmuch as nothing has come on record to show that he has forged a document which purports to be a valuable security to receive any money. It goes without saying that there can be no crime without a guilty mind and no incumbent would commit crime ceremoniously without deriving any benefit out of it. Thus, even if report Ex. P/62 is to be relied upon, in absence of proof of sterling worth that accused-appellant Mohd. Yusuf has received any money for the alleged act of forgery of valuable security, his conviction for offence under Section 467 IPC cannot be sustained. In the same manner, when indictment of appellant Mohd. Yusuf for offence under Section 467 IPC is not tenable, conviction of Dashrath Raj (since deceased) for offence under Section 467 r/w 109 IPC too is not sustainable. In view of foregoing discussion, both these appeals are allowed, impugned judgment passed by learned trial Court is set aside and the accused-appellants Dashrath Raj (since deceased), Kishan Singh and Mohd. Yusuf are acquitted of all the offences by extending benefit of doubt. Appellants Kishan Singh and Mohd. Yusuf are on bail, therefore, their bail bonds are discharged.