JUDGMENT : MIR ALFAZ ALI, J. 1. All these 9 appeals being against the common judgment and order dated 06.10.2004, passed by the learned Special Judge in Spl. Case No. 39/2004 are taken together for hearing and disposal. By the said judgment, the learned Special Judge convicted all the appellants, namely, 1. A.J Tayeng 2. H. Kanjamba, 3. H Jogeswar Singh, 4. R. K. Ranjit Singh, 5. Lalit Kumar Singh, 6. Arun Sukhlani, 7. Katu Ram Choudhry, 8. Om Prakash Singh, 9. Iswar Singh Bagga, (hereinafter referred to as A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7, A-8 & A-9 respectively) under Section 120(B) IPC and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and fine of Rs. 5000/- with default stipulation. The appellants A-1 to A-5 were also convicted under Section 5(2) R/W Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (P.C. Act), 1947 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 5000/-. The substantive sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently in respect of all the 9 appellants. 2. As per prosecution case, the Government of India, Ministry of Shipping and Transport vide gazette notification dated 19.12.1977 authorized each of the State Governments and Union Territories to issue 50 National Tourist Bus Permits, having validity throughout India. Accordingly, the State of Manipur was authorized to issue 50 such All India Tourist Bus Permits. The Government of Manipur, Transport Department already issued 50 such All India National Tourist Bus Permit till 02.05.1981. However, the appellants A-1 to A-5 being public servant entered into criminal conspiracy with the A-6 to A-9 and three others, namely, S.N. Shetty (since acquitted), Nanda Kumar Bhatia (since acquitted) and Inder Prakash Chhabra (since acquitted) and one A.W. Vorei (since deceased), the then Director, Transport Department, Government of Manipur, to do some illegal acts and offences, with intention to cheat the Government of Manipur, as well as, to issue National Tourist Bus Permits illegally, beyond the permissible quota of 50, fixed by the Government of India and in the process of such criminal conspiracy, the appellants A-1 to A-5 acquired for themselves huge amount of money by issuing false and illegal permits to the bus operators, in violation of the provision of Motor Vehicle Act and Rules. 3. An FIR was lodged in the year 1985 alleging the above mentioned illegal acts and the matter was investigated by the CBI. 3. An FIR was lodged in the year 1985 alleging the above mentioned illegal acts and the matter was investigated by the CBI. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted on 04.09.1999 against 12 persons including the present appellants, alleging commission of various offences under the Indian Penal Code, as well as the Prevention of Corruption Act. Initially charge sheet was filed before the Court in Bombay. Later, on prayer of the appellants, the case was transferred to the court of the Special Judge, Assam by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. During investigation, one of the accused, namely, A.W. Vorei died. 4. The charges were framed against all the remaining accused persons under Section 120(B)/420 IPC. Moreover, the charge under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d)(1)(ii)(iii) were also framed against the appellants A-1 to A-5. All the charges were denied by the appellants. 5. In the course of trial, prosecution examined 92 witnesses and proved huge number of documents. On appreciation of evidence, learned Special Judge acquitted all the accused persons of the charge under Section 420 IPC. The present appellants were however, convicted under Section 120(B). Besides, the appellants A-1 to A-5 were also convicted under Section 5(2) of the PC Act, 1947 and awarded sentence as indicted earlier. Learned Special Judge, however, acquitted the accused, namely, S.N. Shetty, Nanda Kumar Bhatia and Inder Prakash Chhabra of all the charges framed against them. 6. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, each of the appellants have individually preferred appeal. 7. Learned Sr. Counsel, Mr. A.K. Bhattacharjee, Mr. P. Kataki, Mr. Z. Kamar, Mr. D. Talukdar, Mr. B.M. Choudhury and learned amicus curiae Mr. N. Ahmed for the appellants and the learned ASGI, Mr. S.C. Keyal for the CBI were heard at length. 8. Learned defence counsel assailed the impugned judgment, interalia, on the following preliminary legal questions. (i) Whether the conviction and sentence of the appellants A-1 to A-5 under Section 5(2) of the PC Act, 1947 was illegal in absence of proper charge under the said provision of law, inasmuch as, charge was framed against the A-1 to A- 5 under Section 13(1)(d)(1)(ii)(iii) of the PC Act of 1988, whereas, they were convicted under Section 5(2) of the PC Act, 1947. (ii) The appellants having been acquitted of the charge under Section 420 IPC, could they be convicted under Section 120(B) IPC. 9. (ii) The appellants having been acquitted of the charge under Section 420 IPC, could they be convicted under Section 120(B) IPC. 9. Before adverting to the factual aspects of the impugned judgment, it is deemed appropriate to deal with the above legal issues raised by the learned defence counsel. 10. One of the legal issue raised in the instant case is that the appellants A-1 to A-5 were convicted under Section 5(2) of the PC Act, 1947, though, no charge was framed under the said penal provision against them, rather, charges were framed under Section 13(1)(d)(1)(ii) (iii) of the PC Act, 1988. Such irregularity in framing charges vitiates the trial, submits learned defence counsel Mr. Z. Kamar. To buttress the submission, Mr. Kamar placed reliance on Devi Lal & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, reported in (1971) 3 SCC 471 and Mohindra Singh v. State reported in AIR 1953 (SC) 415 . 11. Sub-section 1 of section 464 CrPC, 1973 lays down that no finding, sentence or order by a court of competent jurisdiction shall be deemed invalid, merely on the ground, that no charge was framed or on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the charge, including any misjoinder of charges, unless, in the opinion of the court of appeal, confirmation or revision, a failure of justice has, in fact, been occasioned thereby. section 215 of the CrPC, 1973 provides, that no error in stating either the offence or the particulars required to be stated in the charge, and no omission to state the offence or those particulars, shall be regarded at any stage of the case as material, unless the accused was, in fact, misled by such error or omission, and it has occasioned a failure of justice. What therefore follows from the above legal proposition is that non-framing of charge or misjoinder of charge or any irregularity in framing charge, ipso facto, does not vitiate the trial, unless, it occasions failure of justice or miscarriage of justice or serious prejudice is caused to the accused. 12. Learned Trial Court while addressing the above issue observed, that the text of Section 13(1)(d)(1)(ii)(iii) of the PC Act, 1988 and that of Section 5(a)(d) of 1947 Act were the same. Therefore, accused persons had the full knowledge of the accusation brought against them, and as such, there was no question of prejudice being caused. 12. Learned Trial Court while addressing the above issue observed, that the text of Section 13(1)(d)(1)(ii)(iii) of the PC Act, 1988 and that of Section 5(a)(d) of 1947 Act were the same. Therefore, accused persons had the full knowledge of the accusation brought against them, and as such, there was no question of prejudice being caused. Though charges were framed under Section 13(1)(d)(1)(ii)(iii) of the PC Act, 1988, the offence having been committed before 1988 Act coming into force, invariably the accused were liable under the provision of the old Act. 13. One has to bear in mind the object & purpose of framing charge before coming to a conclusion, whether non-framing or error in framing charge occasioned failure of justice or prejudice to the accused person. The basic object of charge is to give notice to the accused of the precise and specific accusation against him, which he is required, to defend himself. The accused is entitled to know with certainty and accuracy, the exact charge or ingredients of the charges brought against him, reason being that unless he has the knowledge about the charge or nature of the charge, it may not be possible for him to prepare his defence, and in such case, there may be possibility of the defence of the accused being prejudiced. The Apex Court in Main Pal v. State of Haryana reported in (2010) 10 SCC 130 dealing with the importance of charge held as under: "The following principles relating to Sections 212, 215 and 464 of the Code, relevant to this case, become evident from the said enunciations: (i) The object of framing a charge is to enable an accused to have a clear idea of what he is being tried for and of the essential facts that he has to meet. The charge must also contain the particulars of date, time, place and person against whom the offence was committed, as are reasonably sufficient to give the accused notice of the matter with which he is charged. (ii) The accused is entitled to know with certainty and accuracy, the exact nature of the charge against him, and unless he has such knowledge, his defence will be prejudiced. (ii) The accused is entitled to know with certainty and accuracy, the exact nature of the charge against him, and unless he has such knowledge, his defence will be prejudiced. Where an accused is charged with having committed offence against one person but on the evidence led, he is convicted for committing offence against another person, without a charge being framed in respect of it, the accused will be prejudiced, resulting in a failure of justice. But there will be no prejudice or failure of justice where there was an error in the charge and the accused was aware of the error. Such knowledge can be inferred from the defence, that is, if the defence of the accused showed that he was defending himself against the real and actual charge and not the erroneous charge. (iii) In judging a question of prejudice, as of guilt, the courts must act with a broad vision and look to the substance and not to the technicalities, and their main concern should be to see whether the accused had a fair trial, whether he knew what he was being tried for, whether the main facts sought to be established against him were explained to him fairly and clearly, and whether he was given a full and fair chance to defend himself." 14. If the basic object of charge is fulfilled and the charge or charges framed against the accused contains all the necessary particulars of the accusation, which the accused is required to defend, there is no question of prejudice being caused to the accused. Therefore, the basic question is whether because of framing charge under Section 13(1)(d)(1)(ii)(iii) of the PC Act, 1988, and conviction under section 5(2) of the old Act, accused persons were deprived of knowing the exact nature of the charge and accusation brought against them. It is to be borne in mind, that prejudice is a question of fact and the one, who alleges prejudice, needs to prove it. There cannot be any presumption of prejudice on mere surmises and conjecture, it is necessary to be proved, how the prejudice is caused. 15. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was amended in 1988. The text of Section 5 of the 1947 Act and Section 13 of the 1988 Act as rightly held by the learned Trial Court are almost the same. 15. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was amended in 1988. The text of Section 5 of the 1947 Act and Section 13 of the 1988 Act as rightly held by the learned Trial Court are almost the same. The contents of Section 5 of the 1947 Act has been incorporated in Section 13 of the new Act, almost in verbatim, except the words "is mentioned in section 161 of the Indian Penal Code" appearing in Section 5 (1)(a), which was replaced in Section 13 (1)(a) by the words "is mentioned in Section 7". Section 7 of the 1988 Act reproduces the provision of Section 161 of the IPC, and as such, the contents of the provision of Section 161 IPC and the provision of Section 7 of 1988 Act are the same, and in fact, after amendment of PC Act in 1988 Act, the provision of Section 161 IPC was deleted from the IPC. Therefore, so far the content is concerned, both the provisions i.e. Section 5 under the 1947 Act and the provision of Section 13 of the new Act of 1988, are almost perimeteria. Though clause (d) of Section 13(1) of the 1988 Act is more elaborative, all the ingredients of clause (d) of Section 5(2) of the 1947 Act were incorporated in Clause (d) of Section 13(1) of the 1988 Act. Since the content of the offence under Section 5 (2) under the old Act of 1947 and Section 13(2) of the new Act of 1988 are identical and the ingredients are also exactly same, there was no question of accused being prejudiced, inasmuch as, the accused got the opportunity to know the charge and the nature of the charge brought against him, though, the numeric of the particular provision may be different in the two Acts. Evidently, the basic object of framing charge was fully satisfied in the present case. Therefore, on factual matrix, the decision of the Apex Court in Devilal and others v. State of Rajasthan reported in 1971 (3) SCC 471 as well as Mohindra Singh v. State reported in AIR 1953 SC 415 (1) are of no help to the defence in the present case. 16. Since the object of framing charge was fully satisfied and accused persons had the knowledge of the accusation brought and charge framed against them, there was no question of prejudice. 16. Since the object of framing charge was fully satisfied and accused persons had the knowledge of the accusation brought and charge framed against them, there was no question of prejudice. When the plea of being prejudice is taken, one has to show how prejudice is caused, inasmuch as, there cannot be an automatic presumption of prejudice for any irregularity in framing charge, more particularly, when the accused persons get to know the nature of accusation and all the particulars of the charges framed against them. When the contents and ingredients of both the sections under the 1947 Act and 1988 Act are same, there was no question of prejudice. Merely because the conviction was recorded under the provision of the old Act, though charge was framed under the provision of the new Act, such variance in framing of charge and recording conviction in absence of proof of prejudice to the accused would not vitiate the trial. Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion, that the irregularity in framing charge in the present case as indicated above did not render the trial vitiated. 17. It was the contention of the learned defence counsel, that conviction of the appellants under Section 120(B) IPC was bad, in view of their acquittal of the charge under Section 420 IPC. Learned defence counsel submitted that charges having been framed for criminal conspiracy to commit the offence of cheating, and charge of cheating having not been proved, the appellants could not have been convicted under Section 120B IPC for criminal conspiracy. The offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120(B) IPC, has been defined in Section 120(A) IPC as under: "Section 120(A) IPC. Definition of criminal conspiracy - When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done, - (1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy. Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof." 18. Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof." 18. A plain reading of the above provision would show, that when two or more persons entered into an agreement to do or cause to be done an illegal act or an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated criminal conspiracy, and therefore, under Section 120(A) IPC it is not necessary, that the act agreed to be done must be an offence. The proviso to Section 120(A) IPC makes it more clear, by making a distinction between criminal conspiracy to commit an offence and criminal conspiracy to do an act, which may not necessarily be illegal act or an offence, but by illegal means. In case of criminal conspiracy to commit an offence, mere agreement to commit offence is sufficient to constitute the offence, whereas, in case of criminal conspiracy to do any act, not being an offence, some overt act is necessary to constitute the offence, besides the agreement. In order to appreciate the fact of the instant case, it would be appropriate to have a look at the charges framed in the instant case. 19. The charges framed against the accused persons were as follows: "Special -1 Case No. 11(c)1991 Charge With Two Heads I, Shri P.G. Agarwal, Special Judge, Assam, Guwahati, hereby charge you A. James Tayeng -A1 H. Kanjamba Sigh-A2 H. Jugeswar Singh -A3 R.K. Ranjit Singh - A4 N. Lalit Kr. Singh - A5 Arun Gokhlani -A6 Kalu Ram Choudhury - A7 Om Prakash Singh - A8 Iswar Singh Bagga - A9 S.N. Shetty - A 10 Nanda Kr. Bhatia- A 11 Inder Prakash Chhabra - A 12 as follows :- Firstly - During the period from September, 1982 to August, 1983, at Imphal, in the State of Manipur and other places all of you entered into a criminal conspiracy and agreed to do illegal acts, to wit, cheating and issuing illegal bus permits and in pursuance of the said criminal agreement, committed the following acts: During the relevant time A1 was posted and functioning as Commissioner of Transport, Govt. of Manipur and A2 was the Minister of State for Transport, Govt. of Manipur. of Manipur and A2 was the Minister of State for Transport, Govt. of Manipur. The State of Manipur was allotted a quota of 50 permits for All Indi Tourist Bus (for short- AITB). The said quota was exhausted by October, 1981 by issuing permits. This fact was known to all the above mentioned accused persons. In spite of above knowledge and information, A1 forced the then Director of Transport, Manipur to issue as many as twenty three numbers of AITB to different person, permit numbers being T-1/82 to T-6/82 and T-7/83 to T-23/83 to various persons. The above permits were issued illegally in violation of all rules and regulations and in order to obtain pecuniary advantage/gain for themselves and others. In pursuance of the said conspiracy, A3, A4 and A5 by their overt and covert illegal acts granted registration assignment and fitness certificates to the illegal permit holders so that these persons ply their buses elsewhere to get pecuniary advantage. The permits were required to be issued to the residents of Manipur for plying in the State of Manipur. But the permit holders had never seen the State of Manipur or put their foot on the soils of Manipur. Further, for the purpose of registration and fitness certificates the vehicles were required to be physically produced before the A3, A4 and A5. But these vehicles were never produced. They never entered the State of Manipur and in some cases the vehicles were lying at body manufacturing unit on the date of issue of registration certificate/fitness certificates. Further, all the above acts were done by A1-A5 for their pecuniary benefits, otherwise their legal remuneration. A6, A7, A8 and A10 acted as broker and they misappropriated and induced bus owners/transporters to obtain AITB permits from the State of Manipur by expending money and by bribing including A1- A5 through them. A3 collected gratification directly and also through his sons Chittaranjan Singh. A4 also collected gratification from the co-accused directly and also through his brother R.K. Surendrajit Singh. A6 collected a sum of Rs. 5,39,000/- from as many as 17 persons by way of drafts, cheque and cash to illegally obtain permit for those persons through co-accused. A7 also collected a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs from nine other persons and the sum of Rs. 1,64,000/- from the coaccused. A 6 and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from co-accused A 10. 5,39,000/- from as many as 17 persons by way of drafts, cheque and cash to illegally obtain permit for those persons through co-accused. A7 also collected a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs from nine other persons and the sum of Rs. 1,64,000/- from the coaccused. A 6 and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from co-accused A 10. A 6 and A7 even signed the permit holders that too within the knowledge of the accused. A8 also collected a sum of Rs. 65,000/- and another sum of Rs. 1,11,000/- from different persons and another permit. Likewise A10 collected a sum of Rs. 1,5,000/-from as many as ten persons for obtaining illegal AITB permit from the co-accused. A9, A11 and A 12 also obtained AITB permit in their own names or associates and friends by paying huge sum of money through co-accused. All of you further conspired to cheat the Govt. of Manipur to a tune of Rs. 1,69,000/-. Thus all of you committed an offence punishable under section 120B of the IPC and within the cognizance of this court. Secondly-During the above time and place cheated the Govt. of Manipur by dishonestly depriving the State of Manipur to a sum of Rs. 1,69,000/- which amount is payable to the State Govt. as security and registration fees etc in respect of AITB permits. The above cheating was done in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy as detailed in first count of the charge. In pursuance of the criminal conspiracy, A1, A2, A3, A4 and A 5 intends fraudulently to collect a sum of Rs. 1,69,000/- from the permit holders to whom the illegal AITB permits were issued by them. Thus they caused wrongful loss of Rs, 1,69,000/- to the State Govt. of Manipur. A9 did not deposit fees and security money for twelve numbers of permit collected by his amounting to Rs. 21,600/-. A10 also did not deposit security money and permit fee for fourteen persons amounting to Rs. 25,000/-. A11 did not pay security money and permit fee for four numbers of permit amounting to Rs. 17,200/-. A12 also did not pay Rs, 1800/- (Rupees eighteen hundred) against permit No. T-12/83 and further a sum of Rs. 5400/- against other permit. By cheating the State Govt., you have committed an offence punishable under section 420 of the IPV and within the cognizance of this court. 17,200/-. A12 also did not pay Rs, 1800/- (Rupees eighteen hundred) against permit No. T-12/83 and further a sum of Rs. 5400/- against other permit. By cheating the State Govt., you have committed an offence punishable under section 420 of the IPV and within the cognizance of this court. AND I hereby direct that you be tried on the said charges. The charges are read over and explained and interpreted to 5 accused persons personally and they (A1, A3, A4, A11, and A12) pleaded not guilty. The charges are read over and explained and interpreted to 7 other accused persons (A2, A5, A6, A7, A9 and A10, through their advocates and pleaded not guilty. Special Case No. 11(c)1993 Charge With One Head I, Shri P.G. Agarwal, Special Judge, Assam, Guwahati, hereby charge you 1. A. James Tayeng -A1 2. H. Janjamba Sigh-A2 3. H. Jugeswar Singh -A3 4. R.K. Ranjit Singh - A4 5. N. Lalit Kr. Singh - A5 as follows :- Firstly - During the period from September, 1982 to August, 1983, at Imphal, in the State of Manipur, all of you being a public servant, posted and functioning in the Transport Department, Govt. of Manipur in the following capacity : (1) A.J. Tayeng as Commissioner of Transport and State Transport Authority. (2) H. Kanjamba Singh, Minister of State, Ministry of Transport, Manipur. (3) H. Jugeswar Singh, District Transport Officer, North Kongpokpi, Manipur. (4) R.K. Ranjit Singh, Motor Vehicle Inspector, (Mech) in the Office of the DTO, North Kongpokpi. (5) N. Lalit Kr. Singh, Motor Vehicle Inspector, (Mech), North Kongpokpi. While holding the office as Public Servants, by abuse of corrupt or illegal means and also by abusing your position as public servants obtained valuable thing/pecuniary advantage owners to whom All India Tourist Permits were issued illegally in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy as detailed in count No. of the charge. Accused A.J. Tayeng by illegal means and by abusing his position as public servants obtained 23 numbers of All India Tourist Bus Permits being T- 1/84, T-6/82 and T-83 to T-23/83. Accused No. 2 H. Kanjamba Singh by illegal means and by abusing his position as public servants obtained 10 (ten) number of AITB permits being No. -t-24/83 to T-33/83 to the bus owners. Accused No. 2 H. Kanjamba Singh by illegal means and by abusing his position as public servants obtained 10 (ten) number of AITB permits being No. -t-24/83 to T-33/83 to the bus owners. Accused No. H. Jugeswar Singh by corrupt and illegal means and by abusing your position as public servants help these bus owners/permit holders to obtain registration certificates, assignment certificates, illegally and also pecuniary advantage for himself as follows : Accused No. 4 R.K. Ranjit Singh by corrupt or illegal means and by abusing your position as public servants helped the bus owners/permit holders to obtain fitness certificates illegally and also to obtain advantage for yourself as follows : (1) Rs. 10,000/- taken from co-accused Arun Gokhalani. Accused No. 5, N. Lalit Kumar Singh by corrupt or illegal means and by abusing your position as public servant helped the co-accused and bus owners/permit holders to obtain fitness certificates etc illegally . All the 5 (five) public servants also defrauded the State of Manipur to a tune of Rs, 1,69,000/- by not realizing the same as security money and permit fee from the permit holders/bus owners. Thus you all committed an offence, under Section 13 (1) (d) (i) (ii) (iii) of the PC Act, 1988 punishable under section 13(2) of the said Act and within the cognizance this Court. AND I, thereby direct that you be tried on the said charges. The charge is read over and explained and interpreted to accused persons and to the counsel representing the absentee accused persons and they all pleaded not guilty." 20. From the contents of the above charges, it is abundantly clear, that charges were framed against the accused persons for criminal conspiracy to commit the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC, as well as for issuance of All India Tourist Bus Permits by illegal means, in violation of the provision of law. The contents of the charges makes it abundantly clear, that charge under Section 120(B) IPC, for criminal conspiracy to commit the offence of cheating and also to issue All India Permits by illegal means have been distinctly spelt out, and as such, the failure of the charge under Section 420 IPC, could not affect the charge under Section 120(B) IPC, which is an independent and substantive offence by itself. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that there was no evidence of criminal conspiracy to commit the offence of cheating, then also 2nd limb of the charge to commit an act i.e. issue of All India Tourist Bus Permit by illegal means, remains. 21. Looking from another angle, the criminal conspiracy being an independent offence, the very fact of agreement to commit an offence, itself constitute the offence of criminal conspiracy, irrespective of whether the offence in respect of which conspiracy was hatched, was in fact, committed or not. The act of cheating being an offence under Section 420 IPC, the agreement to commit the offence of cheating itself is sufficient to constitute the offence of criminal conspiracy even without commission of the offence of cheating. Therefore, acquittal of the accused in respect of the charge under Section 420 IPC, ipso facto, would not exonerate the accused persons from the charge of criminal conspiracy, if the agreement to commit the offence is proved, reason being that in case of criminal conspiracy to commit an offence, it is the agreement by two or more persons to commit an offence, which itself is punishable as substantive offence. The observation of the Apex Court in Bimbadhar Pradhan v. State of Orissa reported in AIR 1956 (SC) 469 can profitably be referred here. The Apex Court observed thus: "It has further been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the High Court having acquitted him in respect of the two substantive charges of criminal breach of trust and of falsification of documents he should not have been convicted of the offence of criminal conspiracy because the conspiracy was alleged to have been for those very purposes. It is a sufficient answer to this contention to say that the offence of criminal conspiracy consists in the very agreement between two or more persons to commit a criminal offence irrespective of the further consideration whether or not those offences have actually been committed. The very fact of the conspiracy constitutes the offence and it is immaterial whether anything has been done in pursuance of the unlawful agreement." 22. The very fact of the conspiracy constitutes the offence and it is immaterial whether anything has been done in pursuance of the unlawful agreement." 22. What therefore follows is that acquittal of the appellants of the substantive charge under Section 420 IPC, ipso facto, could not have exonerated the appellants from the charge under Section 120B IPC, which was a substantive charge by itself, inasmuch as, the essence of the offence of criminal conspiracy to commit an offence is the agreement between two or more to commit the offence irrespective of the fact, whether the offence is actually committed or not. Having held so, the next point to be considered on the basis of evidence brought on record is whether the offence of criminal conspiracy was established against the appellants. 23. In order to prove a charge of criminal conspiracy, prosecution needs to establish the following ingredients. (i) an agreement between two or more persons (ii) the agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either (a) an illegal act or an offence or (b) an act which is not illegal itself but is done by illegal means. 24. The most important ingredient of the offence of criminal conspiracy is the agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act or a lawful act by illegal or unlawful means. The agreement may be established by direct or circumstantial evidence or by both. It is also true that direct evidence of criminal conspiracy is seldom available, and as such, the conspiracy or agreement to do the illegal act or offence may be inferred from the conduct of the parties or the circumstances. In the present case also, there was no direct evidence of criminal conspiracy, and as such, learned Trial Court convicted the accused appellants, relying on the circumstantial evidence. 25. It is now the time to scan the evidence, in order to see whether prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Out of the 92 witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW-42, PW-50 & PW-72 deposed about the sanction for prosecuting the public servant, A-1 to A-5. The sanction accorded by the competent authority to prosecute the public servants, involved in this case, has not been challenged before this court, and as such, discussion of oral testimony of these prosecution witnesses is not felt necessary. 26. The sanction accorded by the competent authority to prosecute the public servants, involved in this case, has not been challenged before this court, and as such, discussion of oral testimony of these prosecution witnesses is not felt necessary. 26. PW-3, a caretaker of the circuit house at Imphal, testified that one S.K. Chibber from Delhi, who was very close to the then Chief Minister frequently visited Imphal and stayed in the circuit house and as such he knew him. He further deposed that Arun Gokhlani also used to visit said Chibber and in that way, he also knew Arun Gokhlani (A-6). PW-8, who was an employee in the office of the Director of Transport stated that at the relevant time, one A.W. Vaweri was the Director of Transport, who joined in place of his predecessor S. Kipjen. He also stated that Mr. A.J. Tayeng (A-1) was the Commissioner of Transport at that time. According to PW-8, only the Director of Transport could issue permit. He also stated that at the relevant time, R.K. Ranjit Singh (A-4) and N. Lalit Singh were the Motor Vehicle Inspectors. He further testified that as per the dictation of the then Director, Vaweri, he issued letters to various persons. 27. PW-10, Durgeswar Singh, a retired District Transport Officer (DTO), stated that at the relevant time, All India Tourist Bus Permits were issued and as a DTO he was to register the vehicles, collect taxes and issue licence to the parties. He stated that he gave assignment to many vehicles, which were initially registered outside the State of Manipur and he allotted assignment and registration numbers without the vehicle being brought to the State of Manipur, which was a requirement under the law. He also testified that during his tenure, Iswar Singh Bagra (A-9) came to Manipur for obtaining 5 All India Tourist Bus Permits. He proved Ext.94 and 95 being counter foils in the concerned book for issuing registration numbers against the vehicles bearing registration Nos. MNP/4064 and MNP/4047. He also proved the signature of the accused R.K. Ranjit Singh (A-4) therein. He proved Ext. 96 to 100 being counter foils of fitness certificates issued against the vehicle bearing registration Nos. MNP/3435, MNP/3436, MNP/3260, MNP/344 and MNP/3400 respectively. MNP/4064 and MNP/4047. He also proved the signature of the accused R.K. Ranjit Singh (A-4) therein. He proved Ext. 96 to 100 being counter foils of fitness certificates issued against the vehicle bearing registration Nos. MNP/3435, MNP/3436, MNP/3260, MNP/344 and MNP/3400 respectively. All those fitness certificates were said to have been issued by Motor Vehicle Inspector Lalit Kumar Singh (A-5) and he also proved the signature of said Lalit Kumar Singh as Ext 96 (1) to 100(1). During cross examination, however, this witness admitted that he did not state in his previous statement before the Investigating Officer that accused Iswar Singh Bagra had come to Manipur for obtaining All India Tourist Bus Permits for 5 vehicles. 28. According to PW-11, Mani Singh, only the Secretary, State Transport Authority was authorized to issue All India Permit. He further stated that special permits were issued by the DTO for special purposes for a duration of 2/3 months. PW-13, an employee of the Transport Department, proved a relevant file being Ext. 48 containing applications for assignment and a combined register in 5 volumes maintained in the office of the DTO, Sultanpur, showing applications for assignment of vehicle bearing registration No. MRL/9785, to which new registration number was assigned being MNP/4606 by the then DTO L. Hmar. He further testified that another vehicle bearing registration No. 9990 was assigned new registration number being MNP/4670 and the relevant entry to that effect was shown in the register as Ext. 110(3). He also testified about assignment to the vehicle being MNP/4718, MNP/4709 by the then DTO L. Hmar and proved the relevant entry and signature of the then DTO L. Hmar in the register being Ext. 110(4), 110(5) and 110(6). 29. PW-16, S.K. Roy, who was working as Deputy Regional Officer, Transport, Pondicherry, and was posted as DTO, Bombay, testified, that as a part of this duty while checking vehicle plying on the road of Bombay, he found large number of vehicles having All India Permit issued from the State of Manipur and according to him there were about 220 vehicles having Manipur registration. According to him maximum limit of issuing All India Tourist Bus Permit for each States was 50 at that time and as such, sensing foul play, he referred the matter to the Central Government and he was asked by the Central Government to carry out a census of the vehicles having All India Permit. Accordingly, he carried out a census and submitted report to the Commissioner of Transport, Maharastra for taking necessary action. On the basis of his report, the Commissioner of Transport send a letter to the Commissioner of Transport, Manipur for providing list of 50 vehicles in respect of which All India Permits were issued legally, but no response was received from the State of Manipur. When they started taking action against the owner/driver of such vehicles, who were mostly residents of Maharastra, the Transport Department of Manipur forwarded a list of 50 vehicles and further informed that permits of remaining 170 vehicles were cancelled. He also stated that against the said order, the owner of the vehicles filed writ petitions before the Gauhati High Court. During cross examination, he stated that no records were brought by him to substantiate the oral evidence. 30. PW-17, I.R. Kapoor, Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Surface Transport stated, that at the relevant time, Central Government authorized each States and Union territories to issue only 50 National permits for buses and the said quota of 50 national permit was never revised or increased. According to him, he received a complaint regarding harassment of the operators of All India Tourist Bus and he instructed to the States, for taking drastic action against the persons plying vehicles violating the Motor Vehicle Act. 31. PW-18, a Lower Division Clerk working under the DTO H. Jugeswar Singh (A-3) stated that his duty was to issue registration certificates and receive applications for issuance of registration certificates and the relevant registers, pertaining to assignment and registration on transfer of vehicles etc. were maintained by him and during that time OM Prakash (A-8), Inder Singh Bagra (A-9) and many other persons came to their office for registration of the vehicles, but he did not see any one bringing the vehicles to the office of the DTO, Kongpoki for registration of the vehicles. He also stated that fitness certificate with regard to some vehicles were issued without the vehicle being brought before the concerned authority. He also stated that fitness certificate with regard to some vehicles were issued without the vehicle being brought before the concerned authority. He also proved the relevant file being Ext. 113 and the applications for registration being Ext. 113(1) to 113(17). 32. PW-19. K.S. Singh, who was working as Lower Division Clerk in the office of the DTO, North Kongpoki, Manipur in the year 1981 stated that his duty was to give assignment of fresh mark to the vehicles registered in the State of Manipur, which were originally registered in another State. According to him, during the course of his duty, he met Kalu Ram Choudhury (A-7) and OM Prakash Singh (A-8). According to him, at the relevant time, the DTO was H. Jugeswar Singh (A-3). He also proved the applications for assignment being Ext. 113(18) to 113(22) in respect of vehicles bearing registration No. MNP/6710, MNP/8194, MNP/8010, MNP/8061 and MNP/8097 respectively. He further stated that those applications were written by him under the dictation of the then DTO H. Jugeswar Singh. 33. PW-21, I. Singh, a retired Deputy Director, testified about the procedure for registration of vehicle etc. He stated that at the relevant time, Central Government authorized each of the State to issue 50 All India Tourist Bus Permit and such quota of 50 permits, was never enhanced. He also proved the counter foils of fitness certificate being Ext. 114 to 118 pertaining to vehicles bearing registration No. MAN/3317, MAN/3316, MAN/2791 and MAN/3327. He however, admitted in cross examination that he had no knowledge as to who prepared the Ext. 114 to 118. 34. PW-22, P. Kumar, who was working as Lower Division Clerk in the Transport Department during the year 1982-83, stated, that it was his duty to maintain assignment register and to issue permit on assignment. He also proved the tourist permit registration for the year 1982-83 being Ext. 119 and Ext. 119(1) to 119(4) being relevant entries showing issuance of permit in respect of MNP/1688. MNP/4216 and MNP/6093 and all those permits were said to have been issued for a tenure of one year. According to him, Ext.119(1) to 119(4) entries were made by N. Jugendra Singh, Personal Assistant to the then Director of Transport. He also proved Ext. 120, relevant file as well as Ext. 121, a note therein, prepared by him recommending issuance of temporary permit in respect of vehicle. According to him, Ext.119(1) to 119(4) entries were made by N. Jugendra Singh, Personal Assistant to the then Director of Transport. He also proved Ext. 120, relevant file as well as Ext. 121, a note therein, prepared by him recommending issuance of temporary permit in respect of vehicle. In cross examination, he admitted that there was some correction in Ext. 119, but he pleaded ignorance as to who made such correction. 35. PW-25, H. Singh, who worked under A.J. Tayeng (A-1), the then Commissioner of Transport, proved a relevant file being Ext. 123 maintained by him in the office of the Transport Department, Government of Manipur and a note being Ext. 123(1) under the caption 'most urgent' signed by A.J. Tayeng regarding issuance of temporary bus permit. He also proved a letter being Ext.123(2) dated 14.03.1983 signed by him as dictated by Transport Commissioner, A.J. Tayeng, whereby the authority concerned were asked to issue permit in respect of buses. He also proved another file being Ext. 124 and some letters, written by him and addressed to the Director of transport requesting to issue permit. According to him, all those letters were issued by him under the dictation of A.J. Tayeng. This witness also proved Ext. 119(5) to 119(9) being some entries made by Mr. Vaweri as well as Ext. 120(3) being a letter dated 11.03.1983 issued by Mr. A.J. Tayeng to the Director of Transport, asking him to issue temporary permit. He also proved the application for issuance of temporary permit being Ext. 120(5) to 120(11). This witness also proved Ext. 125 being a file and Ext. 125(1) being an application for issuing permit in respect of vehicle bearing registration No. MNP/8104, which contained a recommendation from the Minister of State, Transport Department, K. Kanjamba as well as Ext. 126(1) in the file Ext. 126 containing recommendation by A.J. Tayeng for issuance of temporary permit. However, during cross examination, he admitted that Ext. 112, 113, 119, 120, 123, 124, 125, 126 and 127 were not maintained by him and those files were maintained by the officials of the Director of Transport. 36. PW-28 Md. K. Ali, who worked as head Clerk in the office of the DTO, Konkopki, Manipur. According to him, his duty was to issue bus permit and to work as a cashier as well. At that time, DTO was H. Jugeswar Singh (A-3). 36. PW-28 Md. K. Ali, who worked as head Clerk in the office of the DTO, Konkopki, Manipur. According to him, his duty was to issue bus permit and to work as a cashier as well. At that time, DTO was H. Jugeswar Singh (A-3). He stated that DTO H. Jugeswar Singh never requested the bus owner to produce their vehicles nor the vehicles were inspected physically. PW-31 K. Singh stated that he worked under H. Jugeswar Singh, DTO from 1979 to 1983 as Inspector and his duty was to collect taxes and fees for the registration of tourist vehicles and to deposit the same by challan. He proved Ext. 148, fitness certificate book No. 1, maintained in the office of the DTO and relevant entries pertaining to issue of fitness certificate in respect of vehicles bearing registration No. MNP/6090, MNP/6084, MNP/6760, MNP/6049, MNP/4218, MNP/1688. 37. PW-35 H. Jelshyam, who worked as a Commissioner, Industries and other Departments in the year 1981 to 1982 proved Ext. 112, a letter where it was mentioned that each State is authorized to issue 50 permits. It was further mentioned in the said letter that issuance of additional permit had not been finalized till then. He further stated that said quota of 50 permits was not enhanced by Government of India. He also proved Ext. 120(5) to 120(11) being application addressed to the Commissioner, Transport Department and said applications contained notes given by A.J. Tayeng for issuing permit for one year. He also proved Ext. 125(3) being a letter from Under Secretary addressed to the Director, Transport, requesting to issue 10 permits in respect of vehicles mentioned therein. He also proved Ext. 125(3), a note written by Mr. A.J. Tayeng to A.W. Vaoeri requesting to issue 6 permits. He further stated that he was familiar with the signature of Mr. A.J. Tayeng, as he worked with him. During cross examination, he admitted that those permits contained conditions that it can be revoked at any point of time without assigning any reason. 38. PW-44, H. Shiru Rai, Under Secretary to the Government of Manipur stated that he worked in the District Transport Office till 1983. He proved Ext. 112(11), a letter written by the Under Secretary, Government of Manipur addressed to the Director of Transport, on the subject of granting All India Tourist Permit and Ext. 38. PW-44, H. Shiru Rai, Under Secretary to the Government of Manipur stated that he worked in the District Transport Office till 1983. He proved Ext. 112(11), a letter written by the Under Secretary, Government of Manipur addressed to the Director of Transport, on the subject of granting All India Tourist Permit and Ext. 112(12) note, showing total number of allotment of tourist vehicles and permits issued against such vehicles. He also proved Ext. 112(3), a letter issued by the Deputy Secretary P. Charat Ch. Singh requesting for issuance of All India Tourist Permit. According to PW-56, DSP, Manipur Police, who was in-charge of Mao Police Station checkgate, the CBI officials came to him to enquire about entry of certain vehicles into the State of Manipur. From the register maintained in the gate, it was found that none of those vehicles contained in the list given by CBI were found entering the State of Manipur. However, the list which was given by the CBI to PW-56, was not proved. According to PW-57, T. Jao, who worked as Assistant in the office of the DTO during the period 1980 to 1981, under DTO Jugeswar Singh, stated that during his time, the vehicles were not brought to the DTO office for inspection. He stated that one Om Prakash Singh used to visit DTO office and meet the DTO. He also proved two vehicle permits being Ext. 253 and 254 in respect of vehicles bearing registration No. MNP/8004 and MNP/8049. In cross examination, this witness, however, admitted that it was not his duty to inspect the vehicles. 39. PW-60, I Singh, who worked in the office of the DTO, North Konkopki in the year 1982 as cashier stated that MVI R.K. Ranjit Singh (A-4) was also posted in that office during said time. He also proved Ext. 256 (1) to 256 (3), the entries made therein by R.K. Ranjit Singh. PW-62, brother of R.K. Ranjit Singh proved a cheque of Rs. 10,000/- being Ext. 210 issued by his father in favour of R.K. Ranjit Singh. 40. According to PW-64, who was Minister in the year 1983, with additional charge of Transport Department stated that H. Kajamba Singh, who was also Transport Minister at the relevant time brought accused Om Prakash Singh to his official chamber and requested to make arrangement for issuing National Tourist Bus Permit for him. 40. According to PW-64, who was Minister in the year 1983, with additional charge of Transport Department stated that H. Kajamba Singh, who was also Transport Minister at the relevant time brought accused Om Prakash Singh to his official chamber and requested to make arrangement for issuing National Tourist Bus Permit for him. On his request, he enquired with the Additional Commissioner as to the procedure of issuing National Permit and the Commissioner told him that there was no problem in issuing such permit. He further stated, that on verification he came to know that the State of Manipur was given only a quota of 50 national permits, which was already exhausted, and immediately he instructed the Commissioner to stop issuing such permit. This witness further stated, that on being asked by the Chief Minister, he made an enquiry and suspended the then Transport Director Mr. Vawri (since deceased). He stated, that the relevant file pertaining to issue of permit was destroyed. According to him, he came to know that the then Director Mr. Vowri in collusion with Transport Commissioner issued large number of the National Permits beyond the quota allotted for the State of Manipur. PW-69, a member of Manipur Drivers Cooperative Association stated that during the relevant time, large number of All India Tourist Bus Permits were issued from Manipur favouring outsiders beyond the permissible quota of 50. 41. PW 9, one Sri. K. Uma Nath Sethi, Regional Manager of Vijaya Bank stated that the CBI officials seized some demand draft applications, telegraphic transfer order as well as demand drafts vide Ex. 54 seizure list. According to him, the demand draft and telegraphic transfer orders were issued in favour of Kalu Ram Choudhury (A-7) and were drawn at Imphal Branch of Vijaya Bank. The prosecution also proved through this witness, Ex. 55 to 59 being telegraphic transfer drawn at Imphal Branch of Vijaya Bank for the amount of Rs. 35,000/-, Rs. 30,000/-, Rs. 30,000/-, Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- respectively and the applications for those telegraphic transfer were made by Arun Goklani (A-6). He also stated that the said telegraphic transfers were credited to the account of Kalu Ram Choudhury (A-7) against the bank account maintained by him. This witness also proved demand draft applications being Ex. 60/62,64,68,70,72,74,76,78,80,82,84,86,88,90 and 92 drawn on Imphal Branch of Vijaya Bank in favour of Kalu Ram Choudhury. He also stated that the said telegraphic transfers were credited to the account of Kalu Ram Choudhury (A-7) against the bank account maintained by him. This witness also proved demand draft applications being Ex. 60/62,64,68,70,72,74,76,78,80,82,84,86,88,90 and 92 drawn on Imphal Branch of Vijaya Bank in favour of Kalu Ram Choudhury. He, however, stated in cross examination that he could not say who wrote the demand draft applications as well as the demand drafts 42. PW 12. P.V. Sethi, Manager of Bijaya Bank proved the demand draft application forms being Ex. 101 to 109 in favour of Arun Goklani (A-6), Kalu Ram Choudhury (A-7) and Om Prakash Singh (A-..). He however, failed to say as to who applied for those demand drafts. According to him all those drafts were drawn at Imphal Branch of Vijaya Bank. 43. PW 27 another bank official of Vijaya Bank proved demand drafts Exts. 128 to 140 issued and drawn at different branches of Vijaya Bank which were in favour of Arun Goklani (A-6), Kalu Ram Choudhury (A-7) and Chitta Ranjan Singh (A-..). These witnesses also failed to say as to who applied for those drafts. 44. PW 33 L.C. Singh, an official of the UBI, Imphal proved a cheque being Ex. 151 for amount of Rs. 15,000/- in favour of Kalu Ram Choudhury to be debited in the S/B Account No. 4743. According to him, the said cheque was issued by one H. Jugeswar Singh. During crossexamination, he stated that he did not know the signature of H. Jugeswar Singh. He also pleaded ignorance as to who presented the said cheque. 45. PW 34, Padam Sarma, an employee of UCO Bank, Imphal proved Exts. 152 to 160 being various demand drafts and slips maintained in the bank and according to him those demand drafts were in the name of Om Prakash Singh & Mahas Dutta Sarma. 46. PW 37, Sri. K.S. Shridharan, Chief Manager of Central Bank of India, Mumbai, deposed that some documents were seized vide Ext. 164 seizure list. He also proved Ex. 1165 to 170 being the applications for demand drafts which were issued in favour of Kalu Ram Choudhury, Arun Goklani and Om Prakash Singh. 47. PW 43, an officer of the Central Bank of India deposed, that while he was working at Kurla East Branch, Munbai, CBI officials seized some documents. He proved Ex. He also proved Ex. 1165 to 170 being the applications for demand drafts which were issued in favour of Kalu Ram Choudhury, Arun Goklani and Om Prakash Singh. 47. PW 43, an officer of the Central Bank of India deposed, that while he was working at Kurla East Branch, Munbai, CBI officials seized some documents. He proved Ex. 180 being a telegraphic transfer in favour of Kalu Ram Choudhury. He also proved exhibit 181s bankers cheque purchased by Kalu Ram Choudhury for an amount of Rs. 50,000/-. PW 46, A Krishnan Rai, a bank official of Bijaya Bank of Baroda Bank, Bangalore proved Ex. 182 to 184 being demand drafts dated 20/12/82, 24/12/82 and 16/12/82 in favour of Arun Goklani. 48. According to PW 48, the demand draft application Ext. 147 was seized by CBI from him. He further stated that the said application was in favour of Kalu Ram Choudhury, drawn at Central Bank of India, Imphal Branch, and the demand draft amount was Rs. 20,000/-. He also proved demand draft dated 20/05/1983 drawn in favour of Kalu Ram Choudhury for amount of Rs. 20,000/-. According to PW-49, CBI seized 13 documents from him. He proved Ext. 190 and 191 cheques, which were drawn in favour of Arun Goklani and M/S Abhishek Travels by Krishna Travels and Saravanu Travels, respectively. He also proved the pay-in-slip issued in favour of Arun Goklani and M/S Abhishek Travels being Exts. 192 to 202. 49. PW 51, an official of bank of Boroda deposed that vide Ext. 204 being pay-in-slip, an amount of Rs. 10,000/-was credited in the account of Kalu Ram Choudhury in his S/B Account No. 7937. He also proved the statement of S/B Account being Ex. 205. 50. PW 52, B.L. Biswanath, an official of Vijaya Bank stated that Exts. 206 to 230 cheques were of Vijaya Bank. He further stated that Ext. 206 was of S/B Account No. 2026 and Ext. 207 to 224 was that of S/B Account No. 1871 and Ext. 230 was of SB Account No. 279, but he pleaded ignorance as to, who were the holders of the account. 51. PW 79, B. Dhar, official of the Central Bank of India, who was working as Branch Manager, Imphal, stated that account No. 1000 stood in the name of Kalu Ram Choudhury. He also proved Ext. 230 was of SB Account No. 279, but he pleaded ignorance as to, who were the holders of the account. 51. PW 79, B. Dhar, official of the Central Bank of India, who was working as Branch Manager, Imphal, stated that account No. 1000 stood in the name of Kalu Ram Choudhury. He also proved Ext. 809, 810, 811 and 88 being drafts issued in the name of Kalu Ram Choudhury drawn at Central Bank of India, Imphal Branch. He also stated that S/B Account No. 105 stood in the name of Om Prakash Singh. This witness also proved Ext. 812 and 369 being drafts issued from Boribander Branch for Rs. 9,500/-, each and drawn at Central Bank of India. 52. PW 6 Sudhir Bagga Sethi being an employee of Syndicate Travels, Mumbai, deposed that, Arun Goklani and one T. Sethi were partners of the said firm and stated to be acquainted with the signature of Arun Goklani. He further stated that he also had acquaintance with Kalu Ram Choudhury. According to PW 6, he prepared Ext. 40 application for telegraphic transfer(TT) of Rs. 20,000/- under the instruction of Arun Goklani and the said TT was drawn in favour of Kalu Ram Choudhury. According to him, he proved the signature of Arun Goklani in Ext. 40. He also proved application for demand draft (Ex. 41) for an amount of Rs. 35,000/- in favour of Kalu Ram Choudhury and further deposed that in Ext. 41, signature of Arun Goklani was given by PW 6 himself. This witness proved another demand draft for Rs. 25,000/- dated 10/02/83, which according to him, was purchased by Sri. T. Sethi upon instruction of Arun Goklani. PW 6 also proved Ext. 43 to 47 applications for change of residence under section 29 of the MV Act and identified the signature of Arun Goklani therein as Ext. 43 (1) to 47 (1). He further proved the applications Ext. 49 to 53 and the signature of Arun Goklani. According to him, the Ext. 49 to 53 were filled up by Arun Goklani himself. According to him, Ext. 51 was in the name of Louis D. Souza and Ext. 52 and 53 were in the name of Pravin Bhai Chauhan. 53. PW 7 Suresh Kr. Das, who was working as clerk under J.K. Travels, Ahmedabad, deposed that the owner of J.K. Travels gave Rs. 49 to 53 were filled up by Arun Goklani himself. According to him, Ext. 51 was in the name of Louis D. Souza and Ext. 52 and 53 were in the name of Pravin Bhai Chauhan. 53. PW 7 Suresh Kr. Das, who was working as clerk under J.K. Travels, Ahmedabad, deposed that the owner of J.K. Travels gave Rs. 50,000/- for preparing a draft in favour of Arun Goklani, but no such draft was produced in the court. PW 14, M. G. Sha, a businessman stated that he purchased a new Tata vehicle bearing registration No. MMK 975. According to him, Arun Goklani arranged a National Tourist Permit for three months from Manipur for his vehicle and the Manipur Registration number was given as MNP 1600. According to him, he paid Rs. 25,000/- through a demand draft for such permit. This witness also stated, that later on, he could discover that the permit given by Arun Goklani was a forged one. According to him, he did not take his vehicle to Manipur. 54. PW 15, Ranjan Singh, owner of M/S Ranjan Travels, stated that he obtained All India Tourist Permit from the State of Manipur during the year 1988 through Arun Goklani for which he paid Rs. 25,000/- to him vide demand draft Ex. 70. 55. PW 20 stated that he purchased two tourist buses in 1982 and gave them on rent to Mr. SN Sethi. Later on he could come to know, that the permit procured against his vehicle were cancelled. 56. PW 23, R. Sarma Parag stated that he had vehicles No. RSV 6047 and 7757 registered in the State of Rajasthan. According to him, he went to Manipur on the advise of one Gopal Sarma, who stated that national permit could be arranged from Manipur, He met O.P. Singh there, who took him to the Commissioner's residence. According to him, they had discussion with the Commissioner about the permit. According to him, he was informed that the quota of national permit for the State of Manipur was already exhausted and there was possibility of issuing temporary permit in the month of November, 1982 in view of Asian Games and he paid Rs. 5,000/- to Gopal along with no objection certificate and the said Gopal Lal Sarma provided him the Manipur Registration no. MNP 6074 for his vehicle which was valid upto 16/12/83. 5,000/- to Gopal along with no objection certificate and the said Gopal Lal Sarma provided him the Manipur Registration no. MNP 6074 for his vehicle which was valid upto 16/12/83. According to him, subsequently, the said permit was cancelled. According to PW 24, one M. Agarwal had a bus plying at Jaipur bearing registration No. 2027 and Gopal Lal Sarma procured an All India Tourist Permit Ext. 122 for his vehicle and Manipur registration number of the vehicle was MNP 6139. According to him, Gopal Lal Sarma took Rs. 10,000/- from him for the said permit and the said permit was for a period of one month, which was issued on 27/11/82 and valid upto 25/12/83. 57. PW 29, Gopal Lal Sarma deposed that he owned a bus bearing registration No. RSG 2711 and he came to Manipur for obtaining an All India National Permit along with one Mahendra Singh and contacted one O.P. Singh for the permit and could obtain a permit for one year. He also stated that in order to regularize his All India Tourist Permit, he again came to Manipur on advice of O.P. Singh along with one Murarilal Parekh and met O.P. Singh as well as DTO Kongopgi and registered his vehicle along with three other vehicles in Manipur for which he paid Rs. 20,000/- for each vehicle. O.P. Singh provided him four temporary permits being Ex. 143, 144 and 145, which were in the name of Gopal Lal Sarma, Raghuveer Sarma and Murarilal Parekh and MN Agarwal and the vehicles were given the registration No. MNP 2607, MNP 2690, MNP 2674 and MNP 6139, respectively. According to him, after 2/3 months those permits were cancelled. He admitted that he did not receive any money from O.P. Singh. 58. PW 30, Mahendra Singh stated that he came to Manipur in the year 1982 for obtaining All India Tourist Bus Permit and met one Mr. Gopal. He also stated to have met Om Prakash Singh, who advised him to register his vehicle in Manipur. Accordingly, he got his vehicle registered in Manipur and he was given the Manipur Registration No. 2076 on making payment of necessary fees etc. He also stated to have obtained a temporary permit from Manipur. However, after 2/3 months the said permit was cancelled. Accordingly, he got his vehicle registered in Manipur and he was given the Manipur Registration No. 2076 on making payment of necessary fees etc. He also stated to have obtained a temporary permit from Manipur. However, after 2/3 months the said permit was cancelled. He admitted during crossexamination, that he was a resident of Rajasthan, and in order to get All India Permit from Manipur, he had shown his address at Tongal Bazar, Imphal, Manipur in the application for permit. 59. PW 38, Ratilal Havargola, who was running the Travel Agency, under the name & style M/S Bishat Travels, stated that Arun Goklani promised him to provide All India Tourist Permit from Manipur on payment of Rs. 30,000/- and accordingly, he obtained All India Tourist Bus Permit from Manipur being Ext. 171 and 172 and buses against such tourist permits were given the Manipur registration No. MNP 2660 and MNP 6166. According to him, those permits were procured by Arun Goklani. According to him, the tenure of the permits were five years. But the permits were cancelled much before the period of expiry. Having come to know that their permits were cancelled, he moved the Gauhati High Court, where initially a stay order was granted, but subsequently, it was vacated. This witness also stated that the permits given to them were genuine. He, however, stated that Arun Goklani did not give him any money receipt. 60. According to PW 39, Nabin Ch. Garacharia he had a bus in Maharashtra and Arun Goklani told him that he could arrange permanent permit from Manipur and demanded Rs. 60,000/- from him and he agreed to pay Rs. 45,000/-. He provided all the necessary papers to Arun Goklani and Arun Goklani gave a permit being Ex 173 and new vehicle registration number from Manipur as MNP 4209. Later on he came to know that the permit was cancelled. 61. PW 40, Sri. Mudulal Kabra, owner of M/S Srimal Travel Agency stated that, having come to know, that All India Tourist Bus Permits were issued from the State of Manipur, he along with Subhash Ch. Sarma, owner of M/S Pandit Motors came to Manipur and met one Mr. M. Das, who instructed him to meet Kalu Ram Choudhury. According to him, he met Kalu Ram Choudhury and paid him Rs. 6,000/- being fees etc. Sarma, owner of M/S Pandit Motors came to Manipur and met one Mr. M. Das, who instructed him to meet Kalu Ram Choudhury. According to him, he met Kalu Ram Choudhury and paid him Rs. 6,000/- being fees etc. Later on, Kalu Ram Choudhury informed that the permit was ready and asked them to collect the permit. They came to Imphal and met Kalu Ram Choudhury, where they had to pay Rs. 1, 20,000/- for three permits issued for three months and the vehicles were also given Manipur registration numbers being MNP 8121, MNP 8122 and MNP 8123. According to him, after some days those permits were cancelled. He also admitted that he had given false address in the application for permit on the instruction of Kalu Ram Choudhury. 62. PW 41, Hiralal Patel, owner of M/S Shakti Travels, Gujarat, deposed that having come to know regarding issuance of All India Tourist Bus Permit from Manipur, he came to Manipur, met Kalu Ram Choudhury and paid him Rs. 5,000/- and the relevant paper signed by him for procuring All India Tourist Bus Permit. Few days later, Kalu Ram Choudhury returned those papers along with two registration certificates and his vehicles were given Manipur registration numbers MNP 8010 and MNP 6679. He also admitted that in the application for registration of the vehicle he had shown his home address in the State of Manipur. He also stated to have sent Rs. 20,000/- through demand drafts in favour of Kalu Ram Choudhury. 63. PW 47, Ramesh Himmatlal Parekh, owner of Anukul Tours & Travels deposed that he had a vehicle bearing registration number 3000. According to him, one S.N. Sethi told him that he could arrange All India Tourist Bus Permit from Manipur on payment of Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- for each vehicle. Accordingly, he paid Rs. 20,000/- and the R.C. Book to said SN Sethi and said SN Sethi provided him two All India Tourist Bus Permits from Manipur after 15 to 20 days. He proved the permits as Ext. 185 to 186. He was also given the Manipur registration numbers, namely MNP 8050 and MNP 6705. After 2/3 months he came to know that the permits obtained from SN Sethi were illegal and cancelled. 64. According to PW 54, Surajit Singh, owner of M/S Punjab Travels and Garage, their business were run by Iswar Singh Bagga (A-9) till 1985. 185 to 186. He was also given the Manipur registration numbers, namely MNP 8050 and MNP 6705. After 2/3 months he came to know that the permits obtained from SN Sethi were illegal and cancelled. 64. According to PW 54, Surajit Singh, owner of M/S Punjab Travels and Garage, their business were run by Iswar Singh Bagga (A-9) till 1985. PW 63, H.C. Singh stated that a demand draft (Ex 136) for Rs. 9,000/- was issued in his favour and drawn at Vijaya Bank, but failed to say as to how he could get the same. 65. PW 67 stated that he purchased a bus bearing registration No. RRY/7127 and all steps relating to registration of the said vehicles were taken by his brother Madanlal Kabra. according to him, his brother Madan Lal Kabra went to Imphal for obtaining a permit and they also got their vehicle registered in Manipur with registration No. MNP 8122 and got road permit vide Ext. 360. He also proved the signature of the Manipur State Transport Authority. This witness stated, that his vehicle was never taken to Manipur for registration. According to him, the permit obtained from Manipur was subsequently cancelled. 66. PW 68, Subhash Ch. Sarma, owner of M/S Pandit Motors Service stated to have come to Manipur for obtaining permit and met one R.K. Das agent of Regional Transport Authority, Imphal and on being referred by said R.K. Das, he met Kalu Ram Choudhury and Kalu Ram Choudhury advised him to file an application for obtaining permit and took Rs. 20,000/-. Thereafter, they went to Rajasthan. He purchased a vehicle bearing registration No. RRL.3771 and Kalu Ram Choudhury got his said vehicle registered at Manipur with Manipur Registration No. MNP/8096. He also stated that he never went to Manipur again, nor sent his vehicle to Manipur for registration. He further stated that the aforesaid permit was later on cancelled. 67. PW 70, N. Khan testified that he had a transport business under the name and Style "M/S National Travels". According to him, one Harnam Singh from Manipur arranged a temporary permit for him from the State of Manipur and the registration number allotted to his vehicle was MNP 6093. This witness also stated that he had not taken his vehicle to Manipur for assignment and getting registered there. He however stated to have paid Rs. According to him, one Harnam Singh from Manipur arranged a temporary permit for him from the State of Manipur and the registration number allotted to his vehicle was MNP 6093. This witness also stated that he had not taken his vehicle to Manipur for assignment and getting registered there. He however stated to have paid Rs. 5,000/- to said Harnam Singh in order to procure the permit from Manipur. 68. PW 71 stated that Harnam Singh arranged temporary permit for him for four months. According to him, said Harnam Singh took Rs. 7,000/- from him for arranging the permit which was subsequently found to be not genuine and was cancelled. The said permit was proved as Ext. 801. He further stated that the registration number given to his vehicle was MNP 670. He also proved the applications as Ex. 807(1) to 807 (22). 69. PW 73, A.B. Chauhan stated that he was working in M/S Punjab Travels, of which I.S. Bagga was one of the partner. He further stated that in the year 1984 he came to Imphal for renewal of permits of their buses which were plying at Ahmedabad. He also proved the eleven numbers of applications contained in the relevant file Ext. 807 which were submitted for renewal. All the applications were stated to have been signed by him. However, he pleaded ignorance as to whether the renewal was granted or not. During cross-examination, he admitted that, 807 (A) to 807 (H) were the envelopes addressed to the Secretary, State Transport Authority, Imphal and sent by the respective party. 70. PW 74 stated that he started a travel agency under the name and style of Jolaram Travels. According to him he paid Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 7,000/- to Arun Gokhlani, as permit tax for obtaining temporary permit and Arun Goklani arranged temporary permit for three months for his vehicle which was given the registration number MNP 6183. Subsequently, he purchased another vehicle for which also Arun Goklani arranged temporary permit from Manipur on payment of Rs. 6,000/- to Rs. 7,000/- and his vehicle was given Manipur registration number MNP 6687. 71. PW 75, TR Sethi stated that Arun Goklani used to obtain temporary permit from Manipur and said Arun Gokhlani also arranged two permits for his buses which were given the Manipur registration number MNP 6690 and MNP 8004, respectively. 6,000/- to Rs. 7,000/- and his vehicle was given Manipur registration number MNP 6687. 71. PW 75, TR Sethi stated that Arun Goklani used to obtain temporary permit from Manipur and said Arun Gokhlani also arranged two permits for his buses which were given the Manipur registration number MNP 6690 and MNP 8004, respectively. In cross examination he stated that he had no idea as to how those permits were obtained as he failed to contact Arun Gokhlani later on. According to PW 76, R. R. Rehizada, he came to know from one Ramesh that Arun Gokhlani could arrange All India Tourist Bus Permit from Manipur and accordingly, he met Arun Gokhlani, who demanded Rs. 50,000/- for arranging permit. However, the matter was settled at Rs. 25,000/-. He paid Rs. 5,000/- in advance to Arun Goglani along with necessary papers of the vehicle and thereafter, Arun Goglani gave him All India Tourist Bus Permit which was valid for three months. He also stated that subsequently the said permit was extended for five years on payment of Rs. 10,000/- to Arun Goglani. This witness also stated that he never visited the State of Manipur, nor his vehicle was ever taken to Manipur. He however stated that the permit was subsequently cancelled. According to him, Manipur registration number of his vehicle was MNP 4660. 72. PW 77 PN. Dabe stated that he was working as a clerk in the business establishment M/S J.K. Travels. According to him, he purchased a demand draft on being asked by Sri. Jayantilal Keshav Lal Chauhan, owner of J.K. Travels in favour of Arun Goklani from Ahmedabad and proved the same as Ex. 182. He further stated that he also purchased another demand draft for Rs. 50,000/- from Vijaya Bank, Ahmedabad in favour of Arun Goklani, which was proved as Ex. 184. However, during cross-examination he stated that he had no knowledge as to for what purpose those demand drafts were purchased. PW 78, owner of M/s. J.K. Travels, stated that he obtained permits for his vehicles which were given Manipur registration number MNP 4091 and MNP 4092 through Sri. Arun Goklani and he had to pay around Rs. 90,000/- to him for obtaining such permits. He further stated that his three vehicles were assigned and given three registration numbers from Manipur being MNP 9184, MNP 6003, MNP 6184 and MNP 6174. Arun Goklani and he had to pay around Rs. 90,000/- to him for obtaining such permits. He further stated that his three vehicles were assigned and given three registration numbers from Manipur being MNP 9184, MNP 6003, MNP 6184 and MNP 6174. He also stated to have paid money to Arun Goklani for getting the Manipur registration. He further stated that those permits were subsequently cancelled. According to PW 80, he purchased vehicles during the year 1983 and on the advice of Arun Goklani he obtained 4 (four) All India Tourist Bus Permits from Manipur which were issued by Transport Department, Govt. of Manipur. According to him, those permits were subsequently cancelled. 73. PW 81, one of the owner of M/S J.K. Travels deposed, that they obtained permits from Manipur through one Indra Mohan and paid Rs. 45,000/- to said Indra Mohan. He also proved the permit, Ext. 301, 304 and 305 in respect of the vehicle bearing registration number MNP 6184, MNP 6174. PW 81 also stated that he never took his vehicle to Manipur for obtaining permit. Another bus operator stated that in 1983 the travel agency run by them purchased one vehicle and the agency obtained all India Tourist Bus Permit from Manipur through Arun Goklani. He also stated that the registration number given to their vehicles from the State of Manipur was MNP 8007. 74. PW 84, an employee of M/S Bijayan Travels, Indore stated that the permits for their vehicles were obtained from Manipur with the help of one Md. Umar, Sri. Kalu Ram Choudhury and Nanda Kishore Bhatia. He also stated that money was paid to the above named persons for obtaining permit. 75. PW 85 was a partner of M/S Sind Travels. He stated to have obtained All India Bus Permits for their buses from Manipur and proved Ex. 1, 5, 6 and 8. He stated that the registration number given to their vehicle from Manipur was MNP 8131 and MNP 1804. This witness also proved All India Tourist Bus Permits Ext. 15 and 18 in respect of two other buses bearing registration No. MNP 8132 and MNP 8103 given by the Transport Department of Manipur. According to him, one Kamalesh Kumar procured the said permit from the State of Manipur, but he pleaded ignorance as to how the permits were obtained. 76. 15 and 18 in respect of two other buses bearing registration No. MNP 8132 and MNP 8103 given by the Transport Department of Manipur. According to him, one Kamalesh Kumar procured the said permit from the State of Manipur, but he pleaded ignorance as to how the permits were obtained. 76. PW 86 stated that he had three buses which he gave on hire to Travel Agency and All India Tourist Bus Permits for two of his buses were obtained from Manipur. He also stated that upon advice of one Khatian, he approached Mr. Goklani and paid him Rs. 25,000/- for procuring two permits for his vehicle from Manipur. 77. PW 87, a businessman, deposed that he had two buses in the year 1981 which were given on hire to Travel Agency. According to him, he came to know, that All India Tourist Bus Permits can be obtained from Manipur through Sri. Arun Goklani. Accordingly he met Arun Gokhlani, who demanded Rs. 50,000/- for each permit and ultimately Arun Goklani procured two permits from him on payment of Rs. 30,000/- He also stated that he never went to Manipur for obtaining permits, nor his vehicles were taken to Manipur. He also proved the permits as Ext. 312 and 319. According to him, having found some anomaly in the permits (Ext. 319), he asked Arun Goklani to rectify those defects but Arun Gokhlani refused to do so. 78. PW 88 deposed that in the year 1982 he purchased a bus and started transport business and he met one S.N. Sethi of M/S Southern Travels and requested him to provide All India Tourist Bus Permit and paid Rs. 75,000/- for that purpose and after 1? months said SN Sethi obtained permit from Manipur. He also deposed that for registration, he did not take his bus to Manipur and only sent the papers to SN Sethi. According to him, the registration number of his bus given from Manipur was MNP 6715. During cross-examination he had stated that he had no knowledge as to how SN Sethi obtained permit from Manipur. 79. PW 89, one of the proprietor of M/S Sri. Krishna Travels, Bombay, stated, that he met Arun Goklani for obtaining All India Tourist Bus Permit from Manipur and Arun Goklani demanded Rs. 50,000/- for obtaining All India Tourist Bus Permit but ultimately the deal was settled at Rs. 5,000/-. He paid Rs. 79. PW 89, one of the proprietor of M/S Sri. Krishna Travels, Bombay, stated, that he met Arun Goklani for obtaining All India Tourist Bus Permit from Manipur and Arun Goklani demanded Rs. 50,000/- for obtaining All India Tourist Bus Permit but ultimately the deal was settled at Rs. 5,000/-. He paid Rs. 5,000/- to Arun Goklani through a cheque proved as Ex. 90 and thereafter, Arun Goklani obtained All India Tourist Bus Permit from Manipur, which was proved as Ext. 331. The registration number of his vehicle given from Manipur was MNP 6094. According to him, the permit was valid for one year. He further stated that after two months the said permit was cancelled. According to PW-90, he obtained permit from Imphal through Mr. SN Sethi by paying Rs. 8,000/- and proved the permit as Ext. 310. He however, stated that after sometime the said permit was cancelled. 80. PW 91, Sri. Adil Abdul Salath stated that he purchased a bus in the year 1982 and gave it to Sri. SN Sethi on contract basis and SN Sethi obtained All India Tourist Bus Permit from Manipur for which SN Sethi was paid Rs. 8,000/- by him. He stated that he never went to Manipur, nor did he take the vehicle for registration to the State of Manipur. According to him, the registration number given to his vehicle from Manipur was MNP 6097. He pleaded ignorance as to how Sri. SN Sethi obtained the All India Tourist Bus Permit from Manipur. 81. A dispassionate scrutiny of the oral testimony, more particularly, the oral testimony of PW-17, PW-21, PW-44 and PW-64 as well as the documentary evidence Ext.112, 114, 125, 126, 806 and 807 makes it appear that State of Manipur was authorized to issue only 50 number of All India Tourist Bus Permits and the said quota was stated to have been exhausted. The letter dated 10.08.1983, in Ext.112, the concerned file, shows that some temporary permits were issued due to mis-interpretation of the provision of Section 62 (c) with Section 63(7) of the M.V. Act, 1939 and all those permits were cancelled with effect from 01.08.1983. That all temporary permits were cancelled was also supported by evidence of PW- 16. The letter dated 10.08.1983, in Ext.112, the concerned file, shows that some temporary permits were issued due to mis-interpretation of the provision of Section 62 (c) with Section 63(7) of the M.V. Act, 1939 and all those permits were cancelled with effect from 01.08.1983. That all temporary permits were cancelled was also supported by evidence of PW- 16. No evidence was brought on record to show, exactly how many All India Permits were issued in excess of the permissible quota of 50, except the oral testimony of PW-16 one S.K. Ray, District Transport Officer, Bombay, who stated that 220 buses having Manipur registration were plying in the State of Maharastra. His further evidence was that Manipur Transport Authority forwarded a list of 50 buses and informed, that permit in respect of remaining 170 buses were cancelled. Except the oral testimony of PW-16, no other evidence was brought on record with regard to the detailed list of 50 buses, in respect of which, All India Permits were issued within the quota as well as the remaining 170 buses, in respect of which permits were alleged to have been issued beyond the permissible quota of 50. 82. The evidence brought on record revealed that 62 number of vehicles which were originally registered outside the State of Manipur were assigned and registered in the State of Manipur and National Permits were granted. Out of the said 62 permit, 16 permits pertaining to the vehicles Nos. viz. MNP-6139, MNP-2690, MNP-2670, MNP-2076, MNP-6183, MNP-6093, MNP-6074, MNP-6687, MNP-8007, MNP-8004, MNP-6690, MNP-8010, MNP-8121, MNP-8122, MNP-8123 and MNP-6000 were temporary permits. No specific evidence was brought on record to establish that temporary permits issued under Section 87 of the M.V. Act (Section 62 under old Act) for special reason also included in the quota of 50 National Permit. Evidently, all the temporary permits issued beyond the 50 permits were cancelled. 83. Section 80 (Section 57 under the old Act) provides the procedure to apply for granting permit. Section 87 (Section 62 under the old Act) provides, that a Regional Transport Authority and the State Transport Authority may, without following the procedure laid down in Section 80, grant permit to be effective for a limited period, which shall, not in any case exceed four months, to authorize the use of transport vehicles temporarily under the following circumstances. Section 87 (Section 62 under the old Act) provides, that a Regional Transport Authority and the State Transport Authority may, without following the procedure laid down in Section 80, grant permit to be effective for a limited period, which shall, not in any case exceed four months, to authorize the use of transport vehicles temporarily under the following circumstances. (a) for conveyance of passengers on special occasions such as to and from fairs, and religious gatherings, or (b) to meet a particular temporary need, or (c) pending decision on an application for the renewal of a permit, and may attach to any such permit such condition as it may think fit. 84. The above provision shows that temporary permits may be granted for special reason in addition to regular or permanent permit and for issuing temporary permits, the concerned authorities are not required to follow the procedure for issuing regular permit. This being the proposition of law, even if it is assumed for the sake of argument, that some temporary permits were issued without following the procedure, that itself could not amount to infraction of the procedure under the M.V. Act and Rules or the Government instruction. Therefore, prosecution evidence was hopelessly inadequate to prove beyond doubt that the temporary permit issued were in violation of the Government instruction vide notification (Ext.806) or how many All India Tourist Bus Permits were given in violation of the said Government guidelines. 85. Scrutiny of oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses, viz., PW-3, PW-8, PW-10, PW- 11, PW-13, PW-18, PW-19, PW-25, PW-28, PW-35 and PW-60 as well as the documentary evidence proved by them revealed the following facts so far A-1 to A-5 are concerned, which were taken as incriminating evidence by the learned Trial Court against A-1 to A-5. (i) A-3, H. Jugeswar Singh did not follow the procedure prescribed by the M.V. Act, while registering vehicles and/or assigning fresh marks to vehicles, which were originally registered in State other than Manipur, inasmuch as, the vehicles were not presented before him and all owners of the vehicles were not permanent residents of the State of Manipur. (ii) A-1, A.J. Tayeng and A-2, H, Khanjamba Singh recommended for issuing permit and such recommendations, according to the learned Trial Court were in the nature of direction having little scope for the officer to disobey. (ii) A-1, A.J. Tayeng and A-2, H, Khanjamba Singh recommended for issuing permit and such recommendations, according to the learned Trial Court were in the nature of direction having little scope for the officer to disobey. (iii) A-4, R.K. Ranjit Singh (MVI) issued two fitness certificates against the vehicle mentioned in Ext.94 & Ext. 95 without physical verification of the vehicle. (iv) A-5, N. Lalit Kumar Singh (MVI) issued 5 numbers of fitness certificates without physical verification of the vehicle. 86. The incriminating facts attributed to A-3 was that he registered the vehicles or assigned fresh mark to vehicles which were originally registered outside the State of Manipur, without production of the vehicles. Evidently, the vehicles in question were transport vehicle and production of the transport vehicles was not the requirement of law for registration, inasmuch as, transport vehicles were exempted from production before the authority for registration or assignment of fresh mark. Evidently, most of the bus owners were not permanent residents of the State of Manipur and they also did not present the application personally and did the same through various agents or middlemen including A-6 to A-9. The Motor Vehicle Act provides that application for registration may be presented by the bonafide resident of the State of Manipur. The law also provides that such application for registration may be presented by the applicant himself or through the agent duly authorized by them. No evidence was brought on record to show that the A-6 to A-9 or other persons, through whom, the bus operator or the owner presented the application for registration were not duly authorized. Evidently, most of the bus owners were not permanent residents of Manipur. The oral testimony of PW-30, PW-40 & PW- 41, the bus owners, who registered their vehicles in the State of Manipur, and obtained All India Tourist Bus Permits, clearly revealed, that they mentioned fake addresses of Manipur in their applications, in order to get the permit from Manipur. The oral testimony of the PW-1, PW-2 and PW-5, all being postal peons also shows that due to non-availability of the addressees i.e. at the particular address at Imphal, they could not deliver the mail, meaning thereby the addresses given by the bus owners were false and fake. The oral testimony of the PW-1, PW-2 and PW-5, all being postal peons also shows that due to non-availability of the addressees i.e. at the particular address at Imphal, they could not deliver the mail, meaning thereby the addresses given by the bus owners were false and fake. What therefore follows from the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 & PW-5, as well as PW-30, PW-40 & PW-41 is that in the applications for registration or permits the bus owners used fake address of Manipur in order to get the registration or permit from Manipur. Therefore, it cannot be said, in absence of evidence, that registering authority, registered the vehicles with the knowledge, that the particular applicant was not a bonafide resident of Manipur. Though, there can be a presumption, that the registering authority, more particularly A-3 did not properly verify the address of the applicant and such presumption can at best be attributable to negligence on the part of the officer concerned in discharging duties, which, though, may expose the officer to departmental proceeding, but not to criminal liability, unless the law makes such act an offence. 87. So far A-4 and A-5 are concerned, prosecution evidence revealed that A-4, R.K. Ranjit Singh issued two fitness certificates without physically verifying the vehicles. Similarly, A-5 Lalit Singh also issued 5 (five) fitness certificates without physically verifying the vehicles. Such act of A-4 and A-5 certainly could not be said to be bonafide and may be amenable to penal action under M.V. Act. The question is whether for such act of A-4 and A-5, though, may be, in violation of the provision of M.V. Rule, could A-4 and A-5 be held liable for criminal conspiracy for issuing All India Tourist Bus Permits in excess of permissible limit of 50, without any evidence to prove that before issuance of such fitness certificates there was agreement between A-4 & A-5 with other accused persons or meeting of minds to do any illegal act. Because the prior agreement or meeting of mind is, the essence of the offence of criminal conspiracy. Because the prior agreement or meeting of mind is, the essence of the offence of criminal conspiracy. If a person independently acts or pursues an act, which may enable the other accused to commit an illegal act or even different persons when independently acts pursuing the same end, in absence of evidence that they have came together to pursue the common end, the act cannot be held to have been done pursuant to an agreement to constitute the offence of criminal conspiracy. Apparently evidence of agreement between the accused to act or to carry out a common object is found totally absent in the instant case. 88. From the oral testimony of PW-23, it appears, that when he met A-1, he was informed that the permissible quota of All India Tourist Bus Permit was exhausted and he was also informed that temporary permit may be available after few months i.e. November, 1982 for Asian Games and he was also advised to contact at that time. He deposed to have obtained the permit No. T/5-82 dated 27.11.1982. Learned trial Court observed that condition for issuance of temporary permits were absent in the present case. Evidently, prosecution failed to adduce evidence to prove specifically beyond reasonable doubt, as to which of the permits were beyond the permissible quota. The prosecution evidence was also inadequate to prove beyond doubt as to how many All India Permits were issued and how many permits were temporary and how many permits were permanent. In absence of such evidence, the findings of the learned Trial Court, that the conditions for issuing temporary permit were absent does not appear to be backed by any evidence. The oral testimony of PW-23 also suggests that permit in excess of 50 buses were temporary permits and not regular or permanent permit. Therefore, the prosecution case with regard to issuance of All India Tourist Permits beyond the limit of 50 evidently remained at the stage "may be" for three reasons (I) prosecution evidence was hopelessly inadequate to prove beyond reasonable doubt as to how many buses were given national Tourist Bus Permit in excess of the limit of 50 buses (II) the temporary permit issued for special purpose would not be included in the quota of 50 permits vide Ext. 806 and (III) the evidence brought on record, shows that permits which were issued in excess of 50 permits were temporary permit. 806 and (III) the evidence brought on record, shows that permits which were issued in excess of 50 permits were temporary permit. 89. Evidently, the bus owner or the bus operators who got their buses registered in the State of Manipur and obtained All India Permit, permanent or temporary, as the case may, acted through various middle men or agents for which they also paid them. The appellants A-6 to A-9 were also some of them, who obtained permit for various bus owners. Evidently some of the bus owners sent their application by post as evident from the oral testimony of PW-73. Though the various bus owners or bus operators obtained permit though their middlemen/agents, such individual act, though, to avail the identical goal, cannot constitute criminal conspiracy, in absence of evidence to establish that all of them had come together or there was agreement among them to obtain permit by illegal means and they acted pursuant to such agreement. Issue of All India Tourist Permit or obtaining All India Tourist Permit ipso facto was obviously not an illegal act. But the evidence brought on record demonstrated certain instances of issuing fitness certificate, without physical verification of the vehicle concerned, which might amount to infraction of the provision of M.V. Act or Rules and the concerned officer might also be liable for his action. But in order to hold someone liable for criminal conspiracy, prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that such persons, who were liable for violation of the provision of M.V. Act or Rules agreed with other accused person or there was meeting of mind to do the particular act. Gist of the offence of criminal conspiracy being agreement between two or more person to do or cause to be done the illegal act, unless it is proved that there was some agreement between them to achieve a common object, one cannot be convicted for the offence of criminal conspiracy. Apparently there was no direct evidence to prove that all the accused persons agreed to violate the provision of the M.V. Act or Rule, or to do any other illegal act and the learned Trial Court relied on the following circumstances to convict the appellants. Apparently there was no direct evidence to prove that all the accused persons agreed to violate the provision of the M.V. Act or Rule, or to do any other illegal act and the learned Trial Court relied on the following circumstances to convict the appellants. (i) During the time in question, appellants A-6 to A-9 maintained extremely good relations with officials of Transport Department, Government of Manipur, (ii) They used to visit the State of Manipur quite frequently and met accused No. 1 to 5 at a regular interval, (iii) During the same time, appellants A-6 to A-9 collected huge sum of money from different bus owners, bus operators and persons, connected with such business, (iv) Those accused collected money with the promise of providing among other things, National Tourist Bus Permits from the State of Manipur, (v) However, none of the States of India had any authority to issue such National Tourist Bus Permits during the time in question and (vi) Part of the money, so collected by appellants A-6 to A-9, made a flight to the State of Manipur only to be got deposited in the hands of some of the Ministers, Officers and Officials of Transport Department. (vii) The appellant A-6 to A-9 materialised the promise they made to their client and secured National Permit from the State of Manipur. (viii) The vehicles, concerned were registered/assigned in the State of Manipur hugely violating the law and procedure. (ix) Permits were issued paying no regard to the law framed and the permits were subsequently cancelled. (x) Issuance of permits in question were done after exchanging huge amount of money. 90. It is settled position of law that in order to prove the guilt of the accused in a criminal trial by circumstantial evidence, prosecution needs to prove all the circumstance solidly beyond reasonable doubt and the chain of circumstances should be such, that there should not be any missing link and it should lead only and only to the conclusion, consistent with the guilt of the accused. The Apex Court in Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1953 (SC) 343 : 1953 Cr. The Apex Court in Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1953 (SC) 343 : 1953 Cr. L.J. dealing with the nature of proof required in a criminal case which rests on circumstantial evidence observed as under: "It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence in of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and pendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused." 91. The above decision has been uniformly followed and applied by the Apex Court in many other subsequent decisions including Sharad Birdhichand Sara v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1984 (SC) 1622 , wherein the Apex Court laid down the following five golden principles for proof of a case by circumstantial evidence. "152. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved' as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra where the following observations were made: "Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions." (2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say. they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 153. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence." 92. Keeping in view of the above proposition of law, let me now see whether the circumstances relied by the learned Trial Court were proved solidly beyond reasonable doubt. With regard to the two most vital circumstances, i.e. circumstance No. 1 & 2, the only evidence brought on record was the oral testimony of PW-57 and PW-64. The PW-57, working as Head Clerk during the period of 1980-81 under the A-3, H. Jugeswar Singh, who was DTO at the relevant time, sated in his evidence that he knew Om Prakash Singh (A-8) and according to him, Om Prakash Singh (A-8) used to come to the office of the DTO and sit with the DTO, H. Jugeswar Singh (A-3). During cross examination, he stated that a large number of people used to visit DTO office and meet the DTO. He further stated that he was not present in the chamber of (A-3) Jugeswar Singh, the DTO, when Om Prakash came to meet him. Apparently, the evidence of PW-57 relates to the period till 1981. From the evidence of PW-57, it cannot be presumed that Om Prakash Singh frequently met (A-3) all the time to come, inasmuch as, there was no evidence to show that A-8 met the A-3 after 1981. 93. PW-64, H. Hokey, who was the Minister at the relevant time stated that Om Prakash was brought to his chamber by Kajanamba Singh, once in connection with the National Permit of bus. Besides this evidence, there was absolutely no evidence to show that A-6 to A-9 frequently met A-1 to A-5 or they maintained a good relationship with the officials of Transport Department. Besides this evidence, there was absolutely no evidence to show that A-6 to A-9 frequently met A-1 to A-5 or they maintained a good relationship with the officials of Transport Department. So far A-6, A-7 and A-9 are concerned, not to speak of meeting A-1 to A-5 or any of the official frequently or maintaining good relationship with them, there was even no iota of evidence to show that they met A-1 to A-5 even casually. Therefore, the finding of the learned Trial Court that A-6 to A-9 frequently met A-1 to A-5 or maintained good relationship with the officials of the Transport Department of the Government of Manipur does not appear to have any basis in the evidence brought on record. In view of the above evidence, it can by no stretch of imagination be held that the circumstances 1 & 2 were proved solidly for enabling the court to draw any inference therefrom. 94. The sixth circumstance relied by the learned Trial Court was that the appellants Nos. 6 to 9 (A-6 to A-9) collected huge amount of money from different bus owners and bus operators for obtaining permit. PW-14, 15, 38, 74, 76, 77, 78, 80, 81, 86, 87, 89 deposed that they obtained National Tourist Bus Permit through, Arun Gokhlani (A-6). PW-23 & 24 stated that they obtained the permit through Gopal Lal Shama (not accused). PW-68 & 84 stated that they obtained the permit through Kaluram Choudhury (A-7). PW-88, 96 & 91 stated that they obtained the bus permit through S.M. Sethy (since acquitted). PW-81 stated that he obtained the permit through one Inder Mohan (not accused). PW-11 & PW-72 deposed that they obtained permit from Manipur through one Harnam Singh (not accused). According to PW-67 his brother Madanlal Kabra (not accused) went to Manipur and obtained permit. According to PW-85 one Kamalesh Kumar obtained permit for him. From the oral evidence of all these witnesses it transpires, that none of them visited the State of Manipur and the All India Tourist Bus Permits were obtained by them through various middleman/agent including A-6 to A-9, for which they had to pay money to them. 95. The oral testimony of PW-9, 12, 27, 33, 34, 37, 43, 46, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 59 & 79 as well as Ext. 95. The oral testimony of PW-9, 12, 27, 33, 34, 37, 43, 46, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 59 & 79 as well as Ext. 60, 62, 64, 68, 70, 72, 74, 76, 78, 80, 82, 84, 86, 88, 90 & 92 being the applications for demand draft and Ext. 61, 63, 65, 67, 69, 71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, 83, 85, 89 & 91 being the demand drafts in favour of the accused Arun Gokhlani, Kalluram Choudhury, Om Prakash etc. revealed some transaction of money, though it is not clear from the testimony of all these witnesses, as to what was the purpose of such transaction. From the oral testimony of PW-6, PW-7, PW-14, PW-15, PW-20, PW-23, PW-24, PW-29, PW-30, PW-39, PW-40, PW-41, PW-47, PW-54, PW-67, PW-68, PW-70, PW-71, PW-73, PW-74, PW-75, PW-77, PW-78, PW-80, PW-81, PW-84, PW-85, PW-86, PW-87, PW-88, PW-89 and PW-91, who were either bus owners or bus operators or their employees revealed that they obtained All India Tourist Bus Permits for their vehicles and also registered their vehicles in the State of Manipur. It was further revealed from their testimony that most of them obtained the permit from Manipur through various persons including A-6 to A-9, for which they also paid money to such middlemen or agents. Above evidence, though, could establish that the agent or middleman including A-6 to A-9, who obtained permits for different bus owners, took money from the bus owners as the bus owners themselves did not come personally to present their application or to obtain the permits or to get the registration of their vehicles, such evidence was not sufficient to prove that they also paid money to A-1 to A-5, inasmuch as, no evidence was brought on record to show that such middleman or the agent and more particularly A-6 to A-9 paid money to A-1 to A-5. In absence of evidence, there could not be any presumption of payment of money for the simple reason that no one can be condemned for having committed any offence on mere surmises and conjectures. 96. Admittedly, the bus owners or bus operators who obtained permit or registered their vehicles in the State of Manipur, used fake addresses of Manipur and no evidence was brought on record to show that the registering authority had the knowledge of such fake addresses used by the bus owners. 96. Admittedly, the bus owners or bus operators who obtained permit or registered their vehicles in the State of Manipur, used fake addresses of Manipur and no evidence was brought on record to show that the registering authority had the knowledge of such fake addresses used by the bus owners. Therefore, in the above facts and circumstances, though it could be sufficient to attribute negligence on the part of A-1 to A-5 in discharging their official function, but it hardly could raise presumption of criminal offence of taking bribe, in absence of evidence to that effect. 97. It is no doubt true, prosecution evidence established that various middlemen or agent obtained permits for their clients, the bus owners or bus operators and they also took money from them. But that itself was not sufficient to prove beyond doubt that they bribed the officials in the facts and circumstances of the case as indicated above. At best, it could be a probable hypothesis that the middlemen, more particularly A-6 to A-9 might have paid the officials. But, such hypothesis cannot take the place of proof beyond doubt. Therefore, the 6th circumstance is also not found to have been solidly proved. 98. What therefore crystallizes from the evidence brought on record is, that the most vital circumstances being circumstances No. 1, 2 & 6 sought to be relied by the learned trial court to establish criminal conspiracy between A-1 to A-5 with A-6 to A-9 as well as the criminal misconduct by A-1 to A-5 were not conclusively proved by evidence, meaning thereby the chain of circumstances remained incomplete. 99. Thus, evidently the circumstances relied by the learned Trial Court neither completed the chain nor the circumstances, so far proved were capable of leading to the conclusion consistent only with the guilt of the accused i.e. the accused A-1 to A-5 entered into criminal conspiracy with A-6 to A-9, to issue All India Tourist Bus Permit illegally. At best the circumstances might establish individual acts of aberration or deviation from the procedure of law, but such individual acts were not sufficient to constitute the act of criminal conspiracy in absence of proof beyond doubt that the accused appellants entered into agreement to do any illegal act or an act though, lawful by unlawful means. At best the circumstances might establish individual acts of aberration or deviation from the procedure of law, but such individual acts were not sufficient to constitute the act of criminal conspiracy in absence of proof beyond doubt that the accused appellants entered into agreement to do any illegal act or an act though, lawful by unlawful means. The entire evidence brought on record demonstrates that prosecution had relied upon few bits here and few bits there, which can by no stretch of imagination be held to be adequate to convict the appellants for the commission of offence of criminal conspiracy. 100. In view of the discussion made hereinbefore, this court is of the view that prosecution evidence was grossly inadequate to bring home the charges against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and as such, the appellants could not be convicted or at least they ought to have been given the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, all the appeals are allowed and the conviction and sentences are set aside. 101. Send down the LCR.