JUDGMENT : Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J. By filing the present appeal the appellant called in question the legality and validity of the judgment and order of conviction dated 18.12.2014 passed by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I Court at Alipore in Special Case No. 24 of 1994 whereby the learned Trial Court has convicted the accused/appellant. 2. Filtering out unnecessary details, the prosecution case in a capsulated form is such that one Somnath Naha Roy came for refund of a ticket issued at Calcutta Airport on 10.06.1994 the said ticket pertained to Delhi - Madras - Delhi Sector issued in the name of Shri. Somnath Naha Roy. When the ticket was presented for refund, some suspicion arose and passenger (Somnath Naha Roy) was advised to come on the next day. But on that day the said Somnath Naha Roy did not turn up the other hand he obtained refund of the ticket from Indira Gandhi International Airport Booking Office on the same day i.e 10.06.1994 Preliminary investigation conducted by the Indian Airlines revealed that office coupon of this ticket was issued for the Sector Calcutta - Bag Dogra - Calcutta in the name of an infant “Gupta” and the fare charge was Rs. 200/- only whereas in the ticket issued to the passenger shown it was Rs. 10,824/- and the Sector as mentioned above has been shown as Delhi - Madras - Delhi. In this way a sum of Rs. 10,624/- was pilferaged. They have raised their doubt against the present appellant for causing the mischief. Disclosing this incident F.I.R was lodged and the law was set into motion. After registration of F.I.R the Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C, collected material documents, obtained expert opinion in regard to the handwriting and signature and thereafter has submitted charge-sheet. 3. The defence case as it appears to me from the trend of cross-examination and examination of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C is his innocence and that he has been falsely implicated. 4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that he has been falsely implicated out of internal feud of the employees. According to him, practically he has become a scapegoat by the Indian Airlines authority and real culprits were released. 5. However, in the interest of effective adjudication evidence of the prosecution witnesses has to be considered meticulously. 4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that he has been falsely implicated out of internal feud of the employees. According to him, practically he has become a scapegoat by the Indian Airlines authority and real culprits were released. 5. However, in the interest of effective adjudication evidence of the prosecution witnesses has to be considered meticulously. P.W 1, was the Senior Vigilance Officer, New Delhi at the relevant point of time. He has informed the C.B.I authority regarding the alleged fraud case. He has disclosed the prosecution case in his examination-in-chief in detail. After getting the information that the pilferage took place he went to Delhi Airport Office and collected the ticket which the passenger produced before the counter and the money of the ticket was refunded. He also collected the office coupon of that ticket. He compared the original ticket of the office coupon ticket and found there is discrepancy in the amount. The ticket stood in the name of one Somnath Naha Roy and he got the refund by producing the ticket before the Indian Airlines Office at Connaught place. In course of cross-examination he has disclosed how he verified the ticket. He has also inspected the office coupon, audit coupon and two passengers coupon. He found that the audit coupon, office coupon and passengers coupon of the disputed ticket were written by the same person. He investigated but that was not concluded on that day. In course of cross-examination, he admitted that even after getting the fault he did not recommend any departmental proceeding against R.C Khaturia and S.S Blatia for not withholding the ticket with them. He failed to recollect whether the preliminary investigation report was submitted before the C.B.I or not. He categorically stated that he worked with that accused/appellant Dipankar Thakur. In Court he has identified one person claiming that he was Dipankar Thakur but actually he has identified one Mrinal Kanti Sen instead of Dipankar Thakur. His specific evidence is such that he worked with Dipankar Thakur and so he knows him but he failed to identify Dipankar Thakur on dock. He is very categorical in saying that he came to know that Dipankar Thakur was the person, who resorted to this fraudulent practice, while he was doing preliminary investigation. His specific evidence is such that he worked with Dipankar Thakur and so he knows him but he failed to identify Dipankar Thakur on dock. He is very categorical in saying that he came to know that Dipankar Thakur was the person, who resorted to this fraudulent practice, while he was doing preliminary investigation. He also admitted that before lodging the complaint with C.B.I Officer, he did not record the statement of Somnath Naha Roy. 6. The P.W 2, at the relevant point of time, was posted at Calcutta as Indian Airlines Traffic Assistant. On perusal of the flight coupon he identified the signature of Dipankar Thakur in the said coupon. The second flight coupon stands in the name of Somnath Naha Roy and that flight ticket was issued by the accused appellant Dipankar Thakur. Another coupon's route was Delhi - Madras - Delhi. That also stands in the name of Somnath Naha Roy and that passenger coupon is also signed by Dipankar Thakur. He has proved the relevant documents such as audit coupon, passenger coupon, relevant coupon etc. In his cross-examination, he stated that he worked in the issuing counter but not at a stretch. He has to work on different duties as per duty roaster. According to him, Exhibit 4 series i.e flight coupon, audit coupon and passenger coupon were not prepared in the same process. After that the said tickets were verified by the cashier, who received the money from the passenger and kept the audit and office coupon in the office. He has practically deposed about the procedure of collecting a ticket. He admitted that on the very particular date he was not detained on duty in the counter. He failed to say who has filled up the body of Exhibit 4 series. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the coupon although bears the signature of the accused appellant, but the entries made therein made by whom is unknown to him. He failed to say on that day in which shift Dipankar Thakur was detailed. For the first time, he came to know in 1994 about the signature of Dipankar Thakur. However, he has given an indication that Ratna Gupta was known to him and she was his senior colleague. He does not know the signature and handwriting of said Ratna Gupta. 7. For the first time, he came to know in 1994 about the signature of Dipankar Thakur. However, he has given an indication that Ratna Gupta was known to him and she was his senior colleague. He does not know the signature and handwriting of said Ratna Gupta. 7. The P.W 3, specifically stated that Dipankar Thakur and Mrinal Kanti Sen had to work in enquiry counter, excess baggage counter and passenger ticket counter. Both of them used to perform duties regarding issuing of the tickets to the passengers and other works as stated above. He proved the signature of the appellant in the documents which are marked Exhibit 4 to 4/4 and 5 to 6/1. In course of cross-examination he has given a detailed account stating that at the relevant point of time owing to pressure in the ticket counter, the body of the ticket was written by commercial staff in case of ticket for him and after preparation of the same the ticket was placed for authorization. In case of passenger ticket the person who is authorised to do such act used to prepare the ticket after putting his signature on the ticket. There was immense rush at the Airport ticket counter on 04.03.1994 and so it was not possible for him to say whether body of Exhibit 4 series was filled up by Ratna Gupta or not. He had a talk with Ratna Gupta, who was present in the ticket issuing counter on that day. How far credibility is to be given to this witness is to be considered first. He himself and Ratna Gupta and the accused used to work in the place. According to him, at that time there was immense rush at the Airport ticket counter. If it is not possible for him to say who has written the contents of Exhibit 4, then how could he say that it was by the present accused/appellant. The P.W 4, in his evidence clearly stated that the document was prepared by the cashier on duty and he found entries of ticket number, which were made by him. He has also produced the daily sales return prepared by him. In course of cross-examination, he candidly admitted that blank tickets are generally issued serially but sometimes there is exception. The P.W 4, in his evidence clearly stated that the document was prepared by the cashier on duty and he found entries of ticket number, which were made by him. He has also produced the daily sales return prepared by him. In course of cross-examination, he candidly admitted that blank tickets are generally issued serially but sometimes there is exception. He failed to recollect that he had given any statement to the Investigating Officer that he made entries of four tickets in the cash value documents sheet. He also admitted that entries were penned through but he could not say who has done it. He admitted that the person who had been on duty on 04.03.1994, was the custodian of cash value document register. But he could not say who has penned through the cash value document. He made it clear that one Eraamos and D. Chakraborty were the cashiers. He however admitted the endorsement appearing in the daily sales return “make good from pocket” and that was written by him. 8. The P.W 5, who happens to be the friend of Ratna Gupta stated that he cannot remember where Ratna Gupta had been residing or if Ratna Gupta lived in Calcutta or Delhi at the relevant point of time. P.W 6, is a witness to the seizure. In his evidence he said that he did not hand over the duty roaster of commercial and accounts staff showing the allocation of duty to the C.B.I officers. The prosecution case is flawed by such statement. Only duty roasters could reveal who were the persons detailed on that day to the counter. The P.W 7, had given sanction to prosecute and he claimed himself as the terminating authority. P.W 8 is the expert who opined that the documents were received by him for opinion and after examining the same he found that handwriting of Dipankar Thakur was there. In course of cross-examination he was asked whether he has compared the signature given in the Exhibit 12, with the body specimen signature documents in which the short signatures are marked as Exhibit 15. He made it clear that the C.B.I asked him for giving his opinion on examination of the body writing of those documents, then he would have examined the same and give his opinion. He made it clear that the C.B.I asked him for giving his opinion on examination of the body writing of those documents, then he would have examined the same and give his opinion. Therefore, during the investigation stage this examiner was not asked to ascertain the handwriting in the body of the documents. Evidence of P.W 9 is not relevant for the purpose of adjudication of this appeal. P.W 10, was the Senior Superintendent of Police, C.B.I He had examined two witnesses namely Ratna Gupta and the mother of Ratna Gupta. He failed to recollect whether the Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of Ratna Gupta or her mother. He admitted that he put the following questions to Ratna Gupta during his interrogation that if Dipankar Thakur had any grudge against Ratna Gupta and what prompted that Dipankar Thakur to take the plea that Ratna Gupta has obtained blank ticket and filled it. He came to know that the accused Dipankar Thakur raised his fingers against Ratna Gupta and so he wanted to obtain her statement. The P.W 11, is the Principal Investigating Officer of this case. In his examination-in-chief he has stated as to how he conducted the investigation. In course of cross-examination, he stated that Somnath Naha Roy was not the servant of Ratna Gupta but he rendered the domestic service in the house of that Ratna Gupta. He failed to say if ‘infant Gupta’ was a child of that Ratna Gupa or not. He even did not verify during his investigation as to why the said disputed ticket was purchased from the Indian Airlines Office at Calcutta. He could not say whether the said Ratna Gupta left her job as soon as the case was instituted. He also stated that the D.S.P did not give any supplementary C.D to him, that Ratna Gupta did it. He did not examine Angshuman Chatterjee, who happens to be the friend of Somnath Naha Roy. He did not interrogate Somnath Naha Roy as to why he purchased the ticket of Executive Class. He, however, candidly stated that during the period of 4th March, 1994, Somnath Naha Roy was the Hawker by profession in Calcutta and he also worked as domestic help of Ratna Gupta. He did not interrogate Somnath Naha Roy as to why he purchased the ticket of Executive Class. He, however, candidly stated that during the period of 4th March, 1994, Somnath Naha Roy was the Hawker by profession in Calcutta and he also worked as domestic help of Ratna Gupta. Be it mentioned, that Ratna Gupta was an employee and worked in the Indian Airlines Office and her office was the same office where the appellant had been working. Her domestic help is Somnath Naha Roy and she got the refund of the ticket which was in the name of ‘infant Gupta’. It was the specific suggestion of the appellant that said ‘infant Gupta’ is the daughter of Ratna Gupta. He did not seize any duty roasters register dated 4th March, 1994 to ascertain whether the present accused appellant was on duty on that day or not.He could not ascertain who has penned through Exhibit 7 and made overwriting therein. He also stated that he did not ascertain as to who actually prepared Exhibit 21 i.e refund memo, which bears the signature of Somnath Naha Roy. He candidly stated that he had recorded the statement of Ratna Gupta. Curiously enough, that Ratna Gupta has not been cited as a witness in this case. The person who has got the refund of the ticket is the domestic help of Ratna Gupta. The accused himself had given a statement to the Investigating Officer disclosing that the contents of the disputed tickets were written by that Ratna Gupta. In spite of that the Investigating Officer did not take specimen signature and handwriting of Ratna Gupta to ascertain who has filled up the contents of the disputed tickets. 9. A cumulative consideration of the overall evidence on the facets of corruption leaves me to hold that the statements of Somnath Naha Roy and statement of Ratna Gupta were supposed to be produced before the Court or they ought to depose on behalf of the prosecution. Somnath Naha Roy had got the refund money at Delhi and he had been working as domestic help in the house of Ratna Gupta. That Ratna Gupta was also on duty at the relevant point of time of Airlines office with the accused. The beneficiary, if any is either Somnath Naha Roy or Ratna Gupta. Therefore, their evidence could have dispelled the cloud. That Ratna Gupta was also on duty at the relevant point of time of Airlines office with the accused. The beneficiary, if any is either Somnath Naha Roy or Ratna Gupta. Therefore, their evidence could have dispelled the cloud. But why Investigating Officer did not produce them or at least cite them as witnesses is a mystery. When the accused/appellant specifically claimed that the contents of Exhibit 4 series were written by Ratna Gupta, duty of the prosecution was to make a detail investigation about the same by procuring the signature and handwriting of Ratna Gupta and to send the same to the handwriting expert for opinion along with the handwriting and signature of the accused/appellant. Tested on the judicially adumbrated parameters as above and after making an overall scrutiny of the evidence as a whole, I am of the view that the prosecution could not establish the ingredients of Section 420/467/468/471 read with Section 465 of I.P.C and an offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C Act 1988. 10. In my considered view, the accused/appellant deserves acquittal under the canopy of benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order of conviction is hereby set aside. The appellant be set at liberty at once. He be discharged from his bail bond too. The criminal appeal is allowed. 11. Let a copy of this Judgment and LCR be sent down to the learned Court below at once for information and taking necessary action. 12. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.