JUDGMENT : Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. Heard the parties through video conferencing. 2. These three appeals have been preferred against the common Judgment of Conviction and Order of Sentence dated 09.10.2015 passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad in R.C. Case No.14 (A) of 1995-D whereby and where under, the learned court below has held appellants-convicts guilty for the offence punishable under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months. The learned court below found the appellants-convicts not guilty so far as the charge for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 407, 471 of Indian Penal Code are concerned. The convicts-Baldin Ram and Ravi Shankar Jha have additionally been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (c) & (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-and in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The brief facts of the case is that upon the information from a reliable source, the First Information Report of this case was registered at the instance of B.K. Birdi, Inspector of Police, SPE, C.B.I., Dhanbad. In the FIR, it is alleged that the appellant-convict-Baldin Ram who has been referred to as B.D. Ram in the said FIR, while working as Senior Executive Engineer (Civil), Bhuli Town Administration, B.C.C.L., Dhanbad during the period of October, 1993 to January 1994 entered into a criminal conspiracy with the appellant-convict-Gopal Prasad Sinha-the Proprietor of M/s. Gopal Engineering, Pujari Prasad-a private person and the co-convict-Bhagwan Das who died during the pendency of the trial and others. In furtherance of said criminal conspiracy dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriation of 302.840 M.T. of non-coking coal, Grade-‘C’ worth Rs.1.50 lakhs which was meant for distribution amongst the employees of B.C.C.L. for domestic use was caused by the accused-persons of the case, causing a wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.1.50 lakhs to B.C.C.L., a Government of India Undertaking and wrongful gain to themselves. 4. 4. During the investigation of the case, it was found that the appellant-convict-Baldin Ram was working as Senior Executive Engineer (Civil), Bhuli Town Administration, B.C.C.L., Dhanbad from October, 1993 to January 1994 and awarded the job of transportation of coal from various collieries of B.C.C.L. to Bhuli Township to M/s. Gopal Engineering of which the appellant-convict-Gopal Prasad Sinha is the proprietor. The appellant-convict-Gopal Prasad Sinha has executed a power of attorney in favour of appellant-convict-Pujari Prasad. It is also alleged that the said power of attorney was acted upon by the appellant-convict-Baldin Ram for execution of contract between B.C.C.L. and the said M/s. Gopal Engineering. The deceased-Bhagwan Das created document in respect of transfer of the said contract in his favour by forging the signature of his brother-in-law-Pujari Prasad and the said document was fraudulently and dishonestly entertained by the appellant-convict-Badlin Ram. It was also found during the investigation that the appellants-convicts Pujari Prasad and R.S. Jha-who was the Auto Fitter in Sendra Auto Workshop, B.C.C.L., Dhanbad received 222.680 MT coal from various collieries of B.C.C.L. on the basis of said contract but dishonestly and fraudulently they did not deliver the said coal at Bhuli Township Coal Depot and thereby they misappropriated the coal entrusted to them for delivering at Bhuli Township Depot. The details of misappropriation of coal consignment found out is as follows :- Sl. No. Date of dispatch of coal from the colliery Coal Dispatch challan No. Quantity of coal steam Gr.-C dispatched in M.T. Mode of Transportation and vehicle No. (Trucks) Coal Received from the colliery by/on behalf of M/s Gopal Engineering 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. 11-11-93 East Basuria Colliery (EBC) 6051 15.450 BHX 7566 R.S. Jha 2. 15-11-93 EBC 6052 15.180 BR-17B-7566G R.S. Jha 3. 15-11-93 EBC 6053 16.280 BR-13-7566 R.S. Jha 4. 15-11-93 EBC 6054 15.560 BR-13H-7576 R.S. Jha 5. 20-11-93 Khas Kusunda (KKC) 13 13.780 BR-17B-7566G Pujari Prasad 6. 20-11-93 KKC 14 12.060 BR-17B-7566G Pujari Prasad 7. 22-11-93 EBC 6055 15.400 BHX-7566 R.S. Jha 8. 22-11-93 EBC 6056 16.700 BPW-455 R.S. Jha 9. 22-11-93 EBC 6057 15.820 BR-17B-7566G R.S. Jha 10. 22-11-93 EBC 6058 14.920 BHG-7559 R.S. Jha 11. 24-11-93 KKC 15 13.740 BPW-455 Pujari Prasad 12. 24-11-93 KKC 16 11.540 BHX-7566 Pujari Prasad 13. 25-11-93 EBC 6059 9.300 BPW-455 R.S. Jha 14. 17-01-94 EBC 6085 14.580 BPU-7243 R.S. Jha 15. 17-01-94 EBC 6086 13.720 BPW-9343 R.S. Jha 16. 22-11-93 EBC 6057 15.820 BR-17B-7566G R.S. Jha 10. 22-11-93 EBC 6058 14.920 BHG-7559 R.S. Jha 11. 24-11-93 KKC 15 13.740 BPW-455 Pujari Prasad 12. 24-11-93 KKC 16 11.540 BHX-7566 Pujari Prasad 13. 25-11-93 EBC 6059 9.300 BPW-455 R.S. Jha 14. 17-01-94 EBC 6085 14.580 BPU-7243 R.S. Jha 15. 17-01-94 EBC 6086 13.720 BPW-9343 R.S. Jha 16. 18-01-94 EBC 6087 14.880 BPW-9343 R.S. Jha 17. 18-01-94 EBC 6088 14.920 BPU-7243 R.S. Jha 18. 19-01-94 EBC 6089 14.980 BPW-9343 R.S. Jha 19. 19-01-94 EBC 6090 14.840 BPU-7243 R.S. Jha Total quantity of Coal 222.680 M.T. During the investigation, it was found that it was the duty of Baldin Ram to supervise the contract with M/s. Gopal Engineering but Baldin Ram in conspiracy with Gopal Prasad Sinha, Pujari Prasad, Bhagwan Das and Ravi Shankar Jha dishonestly and fraudulently omitted verification or reconciliation of the coal stock, which facilitated the misappropriation of coal stock to the tune of 222.680 M.T. worth Rs.1,28,174.60 paisa dispatched to Bhuli Township Depot. 5. After completion of Investigation, charge-sheet against the appellants-convicts as well as Bhagwan Das was submitted for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 407, 409, 465, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (c) & (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Separate charges for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 407, 409, 465, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against all the appellants-convicts besides Bhagwan Das who died on 05.01.2012 during the pendency of the case and accordingly the proceeding of the case against him was dropped on 16.03.2012. Separate charge for the offences punishable under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (c) & (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was framed against the appellant-convicts-Baldin Ram and Ravi Shankar Jha. The appellant-convicts pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. 6. In support of its case, the prosecution altogether examined 31 witnesses while one witness was examined on behalf of the defence. 7. Besides the oral testimonies, the prosecution also proved the relevant documents as well as the connected material objects. 8. Out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W.1-Praseenjeet Kumar Sengupta has proved the sanction for prosecution which was marked Ext. 1. 9. P.W.2-Ram Nath Singh was posted as clerk in Bhuli Township Administration. 7. Besides the oral testimonies, the prosecution also proved the relevant documents as well as the connected material objects. 8. Out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W.1-Praseenjeet Kumar Sengupta has proved the sanction for prosecution which was marked Ext. 1. 9. P.W.2-Ram Nath Singh was posted as clerk in Bhuli Township Administration. He used to bring the coal from Khas Kusunda colliery and East Baseria colliery. He deposed that at that time, the work of town administration was looked after by Triveni Prasad and after him Sharma Sahab. He used to bring coal till 16-17 of November, 1993. After that the work of coal transportation started by Gopal Engineering. Gopal Engineering used to drop the coal without informing the P.W.2. On 20.11.1993, P.W.2 came to know that coal was dropped in the night of 19th. The coal was dropped by U.K. Singh-Security Officer and Rajendra Prasad-Night Guard. P.W.2 informed to Triveni Prasad that until he is satisfied about the quantity of coal dropped, he will not distribute the same. On 25.11.1993, two trucks of coal were dropped in the presence of guard-Manzoor Khan. Except this, no other coal was dropped. Including these coals, a total of 46 tons 500 kgs coal was dropped. He proved the entries in the Stock Register which was marked Ext.2. On 08.12.1993, Bhagwan Das made signature of Pujari Prasad before R.C. Goswami (P.W.21)-Dispatch Clerk. P.W.2 objected to that. P.W.2 could identify the appellant-convicts Gopal Prasad Sinha and Baldin Ram but he could not identify rest of the appellant-convicts. In his cross-examination, P.W.2 has stated that on 07.12.1993 and 13.12.1993 respectively, he gave written information to Additional Chief Personnel Manager and Senior Executive Engineer that 46.500 tons of coal had been received. There was Vigilance enquiry against P.W.2 and others. P.W.2 was in-charge of E & D Depot. On 19th November, 1993 coal was not dropped in his presence but the challan of the same was given on 20.11.1993. P.W.2 denied the suggestion that he and the other senior officers did not want that any person or firm other than S.K. Singh supply the coal. 10. P.W.7-Arun Vyas had retired from his service with B.C.C.L. by the date of his examination in Court. He has stated that from 1991 till July 2002 he was posted as Dispatch clerk in East Basuriya Colliery. He has stated in details about the procedure of making of challans. 10. P.W.7-Arun Vyas had retired from his service with B.C.C.L. by the date of his examination in Court. He has stated that from 1991 till July 2002 he was posted as Dispatch clerk in East Basuriya Colliery. He has stated in details about the procedure of making of challans. He has further stated that after weighing of coal copy of challans came to him and he used to enter the same in the register. He has proved the dispatch register. At page no.74 of the said register, signature of R.S. Jha was appearing for receiving 135 M.T. coals. There were eight entries in page 75 in which 116.780 M.T. coals were received by R.S. Jha. R.S. Jha himself signed as Pujari Prasad. He identified R.S. Jha who came to pick up coal. He further stated that the work order was issued by B.D. Ram, Senior Executive Engineer, BTA but he does not know his signature. Letter no. BCCL BTA EE/L 93-1398-1413 dated 22.11.1993 was sent to agent Pujari Prasad and the agent gave the said letter to P.W.7. He claimed to identify R.S. Jha and his photograph which was marked ‘Y’. In his cross-examination, he has stated that page no. 1, 2, 7 to 72 of dispatch slip register was blank. When R.S. Jha came before him and signed in the name of Pujari Prasad then P.W.7 objected at which R.S. Jha told that he is Pujari Prasad and P.W.7 intimated this to the agent. The agent said to give it to whosoever has come as he is the men of Gopal Engineering. At that time, Ajay Dhar was the agent. P.W.7 was bound to follow the legal or illegal order of Ajay Dhar. He has further stated that earlier he did not know Pujari Prasad and R.S. Jha. He gave the challan to Pujari Prasad and he did not compare the photograph of Pujari Prasad. R.S. Jha and Pujari Prasad are different persons. The responsibility to supply the coal was completely on agent and Project Officer. Whatever wrong regarding coal was because of the laches of the agent sahab and Project Officer. 11. P.W.8-Laxmi Narayan Prasad Sinha was working as the loading babu from 1988 to 1994 at East Basuriya. He has stated about the procedure of preparation of loading slips on the basis of which coal is brought out. He has proved different documents which were marked exhibits. 11. P.W.8-Laxmi Narayan Prasad Sinha was working as the loading babu from 1988 to 1994 at East Basuriya. He has stated about the procedure of preparation of loading slips on the basis of which coal is brought out. He has proved different documents which were marked exhibits. R.S. Jha used to come to collect coal on behalf of Gopal Engineering. He also proved his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He also proved the photograph of R.S. Jha which was marked material Exhibit-1. He further stated that he identified photograph before the Magistrate who recorded the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as well. 12. P.W.9-Sri Narayan Singh joined Bhuli Town Administration, B.C.C.L., Dhanbad in January 1981 as Supervisor. P.W.9 and Ramnath Singh used to come to transporter for lifting the coal. The coal used to come to the depot of the township and the guard used to receive the same and thereafter, they used to make the necessary entry in the stock register. During October 1993 to January 1994, Gopal Transporter was engaged for transportation of coal. B.C.C.L. gave the contract for transportation of coal to Gopal Engineering. Bhuli Township was under the Additional C.P.M. (A). In his cross-examination, P.W.9 has stated that Baldin Ram was not the officer in Works Department of Bhuli Town Administration. He further stated that to his knowledge M/s. Gopal Engineering did not unload the coal. 13. P.W.10-Nityanand Dutta used to work as a Static Clerk in Kusumda Colliery from 1970 to 2002. He proved the relevant documents which were marked exhibits including the register for supply of household coal in Bhuli Township Area. Pujari Prasad received all eight challans mentioned in the register. Pujari Prasad was authorized by Gopal Engineering. 14. P.W.13-Indrajit Ghosh has stated that he was posted in BPA Bhuli from February 1998 to April 2001 as Deputy Chief Mining Engineer. Bhuli Township Administration was under the P.W.13. He has stated in detail about the process of procurement of coal for distribution in the Bhuli Township from the Kusumda Area. In his cross-examination, P.W.13 has stated he does not remember the name of personal manager. At that time, he was not there when the work order was issued. 15. P.W.14-Chandrika Prasad Singh was the personal manager in the Sijua Area in the year 1998. In his cross-examination, P.W.13 has stated he does not remember the name of personal manager. At that time, he was not there when the work order was issued. 15. P.W.14-Chandrika Prasad Singh was the personal manager in the Sijua Area in the year 1998. He has handed over the service file of Ravi Shankar Jha and has proved the joining report of Ravi Shankar Jha. 16. P.W.18-Sudhakar Sahay has stated that he was posted as Senior Executive Engineer in Vigilance Department of B.C.C.L. in the year 1993-94. He has proved certain correspondences. 17. P.W.22-Dev Kumar Dutta was posted in the Sales Department of Kusumda Area office in the year 1993-94. He typed the order by which Gopal Engineering was entrusted the work of transportation of coal. Two messenger of Gopal Engineering used to come to office, one was R.S. Jha and the P.W.22 does not remember the name of the other messenger. He has proved the personal file of Ravi Shankar Jha. In his cross-examination, P.W.22 has stated that only the authorized agent can lift the coal from the coal depot but nobody on the basis of any letter or message can do that. 18. P.W.23-Gupteshwar Singh has stated that he was posted as loading clerk in Khas Kusunda Colliery since 1988. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the loading work is done in one shift only. Pujari Prasad used to come to him with the advice. After verification of the genuineness of the loading slip, challan, loading advice; coal used to be loaded in the truck. On seeing the challan, he can say that coal was sent to Gopal Engineering. 19. P.W.24-Md. Hasim Khan is the owner of trucks. P.W.24 gave his vehicle to Bhagwan Das through Lalita Prasad. The occurrence of giving the vehicle on rent was of the year 1992 or 1993 December. Thereafter, P.W.24 sold his vehicle bearing registration no. BR 13-7566 to Lalita Prasad. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he has no agreement to show that he give the truck to Lalita Prasad. 20. P.W.25-Jageshwar Prasad Singh was posted as Assistant Colliery Manager in the year 1993-94. He proved six challans regarding lifting of coal from East Basuriya Colliery which were marked exhibits. The representative of Gopal Engineering used to come to lift the coal. He signed upon the challan as per the verbal order of the then Colliery Agent-A. Dhar. 21. 20. P.W.25-Jageshwar Prasad Singh was posted as Assistant Colliery Manager in the year 1993-94. He proved six challans regarding lifting of coal from East Basuriya Colliery which were marked exhibits. The representative of Gopal Engineering used to come to lift the coal. He signed upon the challan as per the verbal order of the then Colliery Agent-A. Dhar. 21. P.W.26-Kali Prasad Shukla proved the letters sent to Project Manager of East Basuriya and Khas Kusunda with a copy of the same to the G.M. of the colliery. He does not know Pujari Prasad. 22. P.W.27-Uma Kant Singh was the Senior Security Officer of Bhuli Township from 1993 to October 1994. Shri B.D. Ram-Senior Superintending Engineer issued one work order for distribution of coal in favour of M/s Gopal Engineering. Bhagwan Das and R.S. Jha used to come on behalf of M/s. Gopal Engineering. On 20.01.1994 at about 12 midnight when P.W.27 was in his quarters, the security guard deployed at D Block came to P.W.27 along with R.S. Jha and Bhagwan Das accompanied by A.S.I. Mahesh Singh. Mahesh Singh at the relevant time was posted at Bhuli O.P. They requested the P.W.27 to issue order for receiving of the coal which was brought by the representative of M/s Gopal Engineering. P.W.27 refused to receive the coal. In the morning, P.W.27 enquired about the unloaded coal near the D Block office and submitted his written report to Rameshwar Prasad-who was the Executive In-charge of Bhuli Town Administration. Then they reached the house of Shri A. Dhar who was the agent and from there, P.W.27 could know that many other trucks filled with coal from the Kusunda and Basuria have been issued with challan which have not reached Bhuli Town Administration. Then they reached G.M. Administration of B.C.C.L. headquarters and apprised him about the situation. P.W.27 identified the photograph of R.S. Jha who came to him in the night of 20.01.1994. In his cross-examination, P.W.27 has stated that he used to know R.S. Jha as he was coming to the office of P.W.27 on several occasions. Mr. T. Prasad of the Town Administrator gave the verbal order to P.W.27 that without the security guard no coal would be transported. 23. P.W.28-Harendra Kumar Singh was a contractor of B.C.C.L. in the year 1993-94 also. He proved the agreement relating to the work of transportation of coal from Bhuli Township to M/s. Gopal Engineering. Mr. T. Prasad of the Town Administrator gave the verbal order to P.W.27 that without the security guard no coal would be transported. 23. P.W.28-Harendra Kumar Singh was a contractor of B.C.C.L. in the year 1993-94 also. He proved the agreement relating to the work of transportation of coal from Bhuli Township to M/s. Gopal Engineering. Gopal Prasad Sinha was the proprietor of M/s. Gopal Engineering. Gopal Prasad Sinha executed a power of attorney in favour of Pujari Prasad over which P.W.28 also signed. P.W.28 also proved the power of attorney marked Ext.13/9. Gopal Prasad Sinha introduced Pujari Prasad to P.W.28. 24. P.W.29-Balkrishn Birdi was an Inspector of C.B.I. at Dhanbad Branch in the year 1995. He has proved the FIR of this case. He is the part I.O. of this case. He handed over the investigation of the case on 03.05.1998 to P.W.30. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he dictated the contents of the FIR and verified the genuineness of the source of information on the basis of which the FIR has been lodged but no report was prepared by P.W.29. He was entrusted with the investigation of the case on 04.08.1995 after 05:00 pm. 25. P.W.30-Arunoday Sit has stated that he was the Inspector with C.B.I. on deputation from 1996 to 2000. He received the charge for investigation of the case from P.W.29 on 30.05.1998. He inter alia collected the specimen as well as numerical specimen of the signature put by R.S. Jha as Pujari Prasad. He also obtained the admitted writing and signature of R.S. Jha. He further obtained the admitted signature and purported signature of different persons and sent the same to the expert for opinion and he received the report of GEQD on 30.06.1999 and he received the special opinion on 16.11.1999. He obtained the signature put by R.S. Jha as Pujari Prasad which was of S-79 to S-88 marked Ext. 38 to 38/9 and the specimen writing of R.S. Jha was taken as S-77 to S-78. After completion of investigation, he submitted charge sheet against the appellant-accused persons. In his cross-examination, P.W.30 has stated that he did not receive any report of preliminary enquiry from P.W.29. 38 to 38/9 and the specimen writing of R.S. Jha was taken as S-77 to S-78. After completion of investigation, he submitted charge sheet against the appellant-accused persons. In his cross-examination, P.W.30 has stated that he did not receive any report of preliminary enquiry from P.W.29. In paragraph no.32, he has stated that in the work order issued by B.D. Ram-Senior Executive Engineer (Civil), it has been mentioned that the competent authority of Bhuli Township Administration (BTA) had given the approval for the same. In paragraph no.33, he stated that there were four members in the tender committee namely, D. Harghav-Personnel Manager Administration, Shri N. Chatopadhyay-Deputy Finance Manager, Shri S.N. Mehta-Executive Engineer, Civil and B.D. Ram-Senior Executive Engineer, Civil. The final approval of the tender committee was made by the Director Personnel. The work order was issued in the name of Gopal Engineering as its bid was the lowest. Triveni Prasad of B.T.A. in his statement before P.W.30 has stated that he recommended for allocation of the work of the L 3 and marked the file for review of the Senior Executive Engineer. Triveni Prasad gave verbal order to B.D. Ram to issue work order in favour of L 1 party. B.D. Ram was a subordinate officer of Triveni Prasad and the work order was issued as per the order of Triveni Prasad. During the investigation, he did not come across any fact to suggest that B.D. Ram emphasized for issuance of work order. Since the distribution of domestic coal is done in the Welfare scheme, the responsibility of the same is with the Personnel Manager but the same was entrusted to B.D. Ram. B.D. Ram was never the Personnel Manager but P.W.30 could not produce any document to show that the said work was entrusted to B.D. Ram. After investigation, it could be known that out of the total 302.840 metric ton of coal, 222.680 metric ton of coal has been misappropriated and rest 46 metric ton of coal was received in Bhuli. During the investigation, it was found that B.D. Ram sent one letter to Area Sales Manager, Kusumda Area in which he attested the signature of Pujari Prasad, a copy of which was given to G.M. Administration which was marked Ext. B. He did not make Ajay Dhar an accused as R.S. Jha was involved in the conspiracy and he lifted coal by impersonating as Pujari Prasad. B. He did not make Ajay Dhar an accused as R.S. Jha was involved in the conspiracy and he lifted coal by impersonating as Pujari Prasad. Shadow Register and other documents establish that R.S. Jha impersonated as Pujari Prasad. In paragraph no. 57, he expressed his ignorance as to whether in the vigilance enquiry, A. Dhar was found guilty and was charge sheeted. He also denied the suggestion that to save A. Dhar he has submitted charge sheet against the innocent persons. He denied the suggestion that as per the report of the expert, no impersonation could be found. He cannot say where the misappropriated coal went. 26. P.W.31-Narendra Kumar was the Deputy GEQD, Shimla. At the relevant time, he was posted at Calcutta. He proved the opinion submitted by him which was marked Exts. 47 and 48. 27. Apart from these witnesses, prosecution also examined other witnesses; P.W.3-Prabal Pratap Singh was the General Manager of Sijua Area No. 5. He has stated that coal was stolen. R.S. Jha used to work as Auto fitter in Sendra Workshop at that time. He has accorded the sanction for prosecution against R.S. Jha. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he has no connection with Bhuli Town Administration. P.W.4-Santosh Kumar Sexana was the G.Q.D. in G.E.Q.D., Calcutta. He deposed that he examined some questioned documents and submitted his opinion in respect of the signatures which have been marked Exts.5 to 5/5. In his cross-examination, he has stated that since he was a director of GQD, he has personally not examined the documents. P.W.5-Sriram Singh was working in stockyard of East Basuriya. He has proved the relevant documents which have been marked exhibits. P.W.6-Malay Choudhary was the Manager of Bhuli Branch of Bank of India from May 1997 to July 1999. He has stated about the signature of Pujari Prasad in connection with preparation of a demand draft being seized by the C.B.I. P.W.11-Hira Nand Thakur was the clerk in Bhuli Town. He deposed that B.D. Ram was the Civil Engineer in Town Administration in the year 1993-94. P.W.11 was working under him. Triveni Prasad was the Deputy CPM. He proved the dispatch register and other allied documents. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the work of coal transportation was of the personnel department and not of the civil engineering department. P.W.12-Dev Nandan Lal was a contractor. P.W.11 was working under him. Triveni Prasad was the Deputy CPM. He proved the dispatch register and other allied documents. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the work of coal transportation was of the personnel department and not of the civil engineering department. P.W.12-Dev Nandan Lal was a contractor. He has stated that Gopal Engineering got the white washing job in Bhuli Township and gave it to P.W.12 as the proprietor of Gopal Engineering namely Gopal Prasad Sinha was the friend of P.W.12. B.D. Ram was the Senior Engineer of Bhuli Town Administration. He proved the signature of Gopal Prasad Sinha and Pujari Prasad over the power of attorney. 28. P.W.15-Devi Sharan Sinha is an Advocate of Civil Court, Dhanbad. He prepared power of attorney dated 29.10.1993 executed by Gopal Prasad Sinha in favour of Pujari Prasad which was marked Ext. 13. P.W.16-Sadhan Kumar Namhata is the Notary Public who has authenticated the said power of attorney. P.W.17-Brahmadeo Singh Yadav was the Personal Assistant and he has signed on the seizure list. P.W.19-Isarafil Hussain was the guard in Bhuli Town Administration. He has stated that police came with a truck loaded with coal and told to unload the coal as the said coal belongs to BTA. Captain U.K. Singh on being approached directed P.W.19 to get the coal unloaded. P.W.20-Amrit Sao stated that he was posted in Khas Kusunda Colliery in the year 1993 as a coal dispatch clerk. P.W.21-Ramchandra Goswami was the dispatch clerk in B.T.A. in the year 1993-94. He has proved the dispatch register which was marked Ext.2. He has further stated that B.D. Ram was the Senior Executive Engineer. He has stated that one person was trying to take the letter of Pujari Prasad; he did not give the said letter to that person. Thereafter, B.D. Ram called him and enquired as to why he is not giving the letter. That person also reached B.D. Ram and signed as Bhagwas Das in presence of B.D. Ram. P.W. 21 delivered the said letter to him. That person again signed as Bhagwan Prasad in presence of B.D. Ram. 29. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the appellants-convicts were recorded. The appellant-convict Ravi Shankar Jha admitted that he was working in Sendra Auto Workshop. P.W. 21 delivered the said letter to him. That person again signed as Bhagwan Prasad in presence of B.D. Ram. 29. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the appellants-convicts were recorded. The appellant-convict Ravi Shankar Jha admitted that he was working in Sendra Auto Workshop. He expressed his ignorance about the prosecution case regarding other accused persons. He denied the suggestion that he has misappropriated the coal. Similarly, the appellants-convicts namely Gopal Prasad Sinha, Baldin Ram and Pujari Prasad have also expressed their ignorance about the questions relating to co-accused and denied the allegations against them. 30. In their defence, the appellants-convicts examined Unni Krishnai as D.W.1. He has proved the memorandum along with annexures, statement of articles of charges, statement of imputation of misconduct in shape of articles of charges and a list of documents by which articles of charges are prepared to be sustained against Ajay Dhar. He further stated that Annexure-1 reveals that the charge is against Ajay Dhar, the same was marked Ext.1 with objection. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he does not know what action was taken against Ajay Dhar. 31. Learned court below after taking into consideration the evidence in record observed that the prosecution proved the fact that the convict-Baldin Ram was entrusted with coal for distribution and he was authorized to make verification also. He was a public servant. The appellant-accused Ravi Shankar Jha was also a public servant but he was not concerned with the job of lifting of coal and supplying coal. The learned trial Court further observed that the prosecution proved the fact by cogent evidence that Ravi Shankar Jha lifted the coal and misappropriated it. Learned court below regarding appellants-convicts Gopal Prasad Sinha and Pujari Prasad observed that they were merchant and agent and the coal was entrusted to them with a valid contract and they had the dominion over the coal, after the same being lifted by the accused Ravi Shankar Jha, hence, the learned court below held all the appellants-convicts guilty as already indicated above. 32. At the hearing, it is submitted by Mr. 32. At the hearing, it is submitted by Mr. A.K.Kashyap, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants-convicts in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.941 of 2015 that the learned court below has failed to take into consideration that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law and against the weight of evidence in the record. It is next submitted by learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants-convicts in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.941 of 2015 that the learned court below has failed to take into consideration that in order to bring home the charge for the offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, the essential ingredients is entrustment with the property in question or with any dominion over it but the prosecution has miserably failed to prove either any entrustment or dominion over the coal was given to any of the appellants-convicts. It is further submitted by Mr. Kashyap, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants-convicts in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.941 of 2015 that the ingredients of Section 13 (1) (c) of Prevention of Corruption Act describes any property entrusted to the accused; which is similar to ingredients of Section 405 of Indian Penal Code and since the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges regarding entrustment or vesting dominion to appellant no.1 of Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.941 of 2015, hence, the learned court below ought to have held that the offence punishable under Section 13 (1) (c) & (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act is also not made out against the said appellant. No.1 of Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.941 of 2015. It is then submitted that in the absence of any evidence on record to show that the appellant no.1 of Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.941 of 2015 has received any pecuniary advantage as such, hence, he has not committed any criminal misconduct and he is not liable to be punished under Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is further submitted by Mr. It is further submitted by Mr. Kashyap, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants-convicts in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.941 of 2015 that S.K. Singh who was the contractor and the witnesses of the prosecution have stated that on 09.04.1993 to 18.11.1993, S.K. Singh was supplied coal but for reasons best known to the prosecution, the said S.K. Singh has not been made accused in this case by C.B.I. It is next submitted by learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants-convicts in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.941 of 2015 that the learned court below failed to take into consideration the fact that charge sheet has been submitted leading to a departmental proceeding for the offences involved in this case against Ajay Dhar-who was the agent at the relevant time, which is evident from the testimony of D.W.1 and the learned trial court has failed to accord the benefit which the defence is entitled under Section 114 Illustration (g) of the Evidence Act. So far as the appellant no.2 of Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.941 of 2015 is concerned, it is submitted by learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants-convicts in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.941 of 2015 that co-convict Gopal Prasad Sinha executed a power of attorney in his favour and there is no allegation that there is any fraud committed in respect of power of attorney. It is also submitted that there is no document to show any entrustment of any coal to the appellant no.2 of Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.941 of 2015 namely Pujari Prasad rather the allegation is that co-convict Ravi Shankar Jha lifted the coal impersonating as Pujari Prasad and Bhagwan Das who died during the trial put signature of the appellant no.2 of Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.941 of 2015 and as such for the acts of the co-convicts or the accused who died during the trial, the appellant-convict Pujari Prasad cannot be held responsible in any manner. It is then submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants-convicts in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.941 of 2015 that there is evidence in record that the job of distribution of coal and the works related to it in Bhuli Town Administration was of the personnel department and appellant no.1 of Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.941 of 2015 has no concern with the personnel department nor he was ever posted as Personnel Manager or the agent rather the evidence in the record shows that Shri Ajay Dhar was the agent so the learned court below ought to have come to the conclusion that the appellant no.1 of Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.941 of 2015 is no way responsible for the alleged misappropriation of coal in any manner. It is also submitted by Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants-convicts in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.941 of 2015 that though the charges were framed for the offence punishable under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code but the learned trial court held the appellants-convicts guilty for other offences without the aid of Section 120B of Indian Penal Code and in the absence of entrustment of any property to any of the appellants-convicts of Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.941 of 2015, learned court below ought not to have held them guilty of the charge for the offence punishable under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted by Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants-convicts in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.941 of 2015 that no loss has been caused to B.C.C.L. by these appellant-convicts and there is nothing in the record to suggest that appellants-convicts have got any pecuniary advantage or have received any illegal gratification to establish any quid pro quo. Relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Shashikant v. CBI and Others, reported in (2007) 1 SCC 630 , paragraph nos.19 and 25 of which reads as under:- “19. When an anonymous complaint is received, no investigating officer would initiate investigative process immediately thereupon. It may for good reasons carry out a preliminary enquiry to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations contained therein. 25. Only an anonymous complaint was made in June 2004. Evidently it was within the province of the first respondent to commence a preliminary inquiry. It may for good reasons carry out a preliminary enquiry to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations contained therein. 25. Only an anonymous complaint was made in June 2004. Evidently it was within the province of the first respondent to commence a preliminary inquiry. The procedure laid down in the CBI Manual and in particular when it was required to inquire into the allegation of the corruption on the part of some public servants, recourse to the provisions of the Manual cannot be said to be unfair. It did not find any reason to convert the preliminary inquiry into a regular case. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the recommendation made by the first respondent, which had received the imprimatur by the Central Vigilance Commission, departmental proceedings were initiated. The Central Vigilance Commission advised the Railway Board to initiate minor penalty proceedings against the delinquent officers by a letter dated 4-8-2005.” It is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants-convicts in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.941 of 2015 that the CBI ought not to have instituted this case without preliminary enquiry merely based upon anonymous information. It is then submitted that the trial court ought to have acquitted the appellants-convicts of Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.941 of 2015 by at least by giving them the benefit of doubt. 33. Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant-convict in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.943 of 2015 besides adopting the submissions of the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants-convicts in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.941 of 2015 further submits that the appellant-convict of Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.943 of 2015 is only a name lender and he has not done anything in connection with this case and there is no dispute that the appellant-convict Gopal Prasad Sinha has executed a power of attorney in favour of Pujari Prasad, the same has been proved and marked exhibit on behalf of the prosecution. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the appellant-convict in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.943 of 2015 that the evidence in record has come through the prosecution witnesses that the appellant-convict is an ailing person and there is absolutely no evidence against him of having been entrusted with any property or dominion over any property which ought to have been proved in this case to saddle this appellant for being held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and in the absence of any proof of that, which is the sine qua non essential ingredient for the offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, the said offence is not made out against the appellant-convict of Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.943 of 2015. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the appellant-convict in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.943 of 2015 that Section 409 of Indian Penal Code is also not made out against the appellant-convict of Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.943 of 2015 as he is not the public servant, banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent. Hence, it is submitted that the learned court below ought to have acquitted the appellant-convict of Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.943 of 2015 by at least giving him the benefit of doubt. 34. Mr. Anil Kumar Ganjhu, learned counsel for the appellant-convict in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.957 of 2015 besides adopting the submissions of the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants-convicts in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.941 of 2015 further submits that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the evidence that the appellant-convict of Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.957 of 2015 is in the job of a fitter in Sendra Auto Workshop in B.C.C.L., Dhanbad and the appellant-convict has no connection with the job of transportation of coal from the colliery to the depot at Bhuli Township. It is next submitted by Mr. Ganjhu, learned counsel for the appellant-convict in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.957 of 2015 that the learned court below has failed to consider that in the evidence of some of the prosecution witnesses, the name R.S. Jha has appeared but there is no material in the record to suggest that the said person is the appellant of this appeal whose name is Ravi Shankar Jha. It is then submitted that none of the prosecution witnesses has identified the appellant of this appeal whose name is Ravi Shankar Jha is the R.S.Jha whose photograph has allegedly been marked Material Exhibit-1, who has allegedly been entrusted with some coal nor there is any specific finding of even by the trial court that Material Exhibit-1 is the photograph of the appellant of this appeal whose name is Ravi Shankar Jha. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the appellant-convict in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.957 of 2015 that there is nothing in the opinion furnished by the experts, as to the signature or handwriting of the appellant-convict of Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.957 of 2015 was involved in the signatures appearing in any of the questioned document allegedly signed by him either impersonating as Pujari Prasad or otherwise. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant-convict in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.957 of 2015 that the prosecution has failed to establish the entrustment of property which is the essential ingredient to bring home the charge for the offence punishable under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code. Hence, it is submitted that the appellant-convict of Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.957 of 2015 be acquitted by at least giving him the benefit of doubt. 35. It is lastly submitted by the counsels appearing for all the appellants-convicts in these three appeals that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence being not sustainable in law be set aside and the appellants-convicts be acquitted of all the charges. 36. Mr. Rohit Sinha, learned counsel for the C.B.I. on the other hand defended the impugned judgment and submitted that as rightly being held by the learned court below, the prosecution through the 31 witnesses examined by it has proved all the essential ingredients for the offence punishable under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 13 (2) read with Sections 13 (1) (c) & (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the appellant no.1 of Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.941 of 2015 and the appellant of Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.957 of 2015. It is further submitted by Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for the C.B.I. relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of R. Venkatkrishnan v. CBI reported in (2009) 11 SCC 737 , paragraph no.159 of which reads as under :- “159. It is further submitted by Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for the C.B.I. relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of R. Venkatkrishnan v. CBI reported in (2009) 11 SCC 737 , paragraph no.159 of which reads as under :- “159. We must also make reference to the following observations of the Supreme Court in Ram Narayan Popli [ (2003) 3 SCC 641 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 869] which was a case arising from the connected securities market scam, to bring home the point as to the impact of the transactions: (SCC p. 789, paras 380-82) “380. The offences in these cases were not of the conventional or traditional type. The ultimate objective was to use public money in a carefully planned manner for personal use with no right to do it. 381. Funds of the public bodies were utilised as if they were private funds. There was no legitimacy in the transactions. … Their acts had serious repercussions on the economic system of the country, and the magnitude of financial impact involved in the present appeal is only the tip of the iceberg. There were several connected cases and interestingly some of the prosecution witnesses in the present case are stated to be accused in those cases. That itself explains the thread of self-perseverance running through their testimony. Therefore, the need to pierce the facadial smokescreen to unravel the truth to lift the veil so that the apparent, which is not real, can be avoided. The proverbial red herrings are to be ignored, to find out the guilt of the accused. 382. The cause of the community deserves better treatment at the hands of the court in the discharge of its judicial functions. The community or the State is not a persona non grata whose cause may be treated with disdain. The entire community is aggrieved if economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of the moment upon passions being aroused. The community or the State is not a persona non grata whose cause may be treated with disdain. The entire community is aggrieved if economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of the moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community.” and submits that the offence involved in this case is not a conventional or a traditional one hence, the ultimate objective was to use the public money in a carefully planned manner for personal use with no right to do it in association with the co-convicts, hence, the learned trial court having rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants, these appeals being without any merit be dismissed. 37. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the evidence in record, it is pertinent to refer to Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code which reads as under: 409. Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent.-Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. In order to bring home the charge for the offence Punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code one of the essential ingredient to be established is that the accused was in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent. In other words it has to be established that the accused was entrusted with property in any manner; or that such property was in his dominion in his capacity of a servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent. 38. In other words it has to be established that the accused was entrusted with property in any manner; or that such property was in his dominion in his capacity of a servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent. 38. It is a settled the principle of law that “Public Servant” referred to in section 409 of the Indian Penal Code has the same meaning as defined under section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. The word “banker” referred to in section 409 of the Indian Penal Code means a banker who receives money to be drawn out again as the owner has occasion for it, the customer being lender and the banker, with the super added obligation of honouring the customer’s cheques up to the amount of money received and still in the bankers hands and the word banker includes a cashier also. The word “Merchant” referred to in section 409 of the Indian Penal Code means a person who traffics to remote countries. It also means anyone dealing in the purchase and sale of goods. The word “Factor” referred to in section 409 of the Indian Penal Code means a substitute in mercantile affairs; and agent employed to sell goods or merchandise consigned or delivered to him by or for his principal, for a compensation commonly called factorage or commission. The word “Broker”” referred to in section 409 of the Indian Penal Code means an agent employed to make bargains and contracts between other persons in matters of trade, commerce and navigation by explaining the intentions of both parties, and negotiating in such a manner as to put those who employ him in a condition to treat together personally. More commonly he is an agent employed by one party only to make a binding contract with another. The word “Attorney” referred to in section 409 of the Indian Penal Code means a person who is appointed by another to do something in his absence, and who has the authority to act in the place of the person who has appointed the attorney and such attorney can be revoked by the person who appoints him. The word “Agent” referred to in section 409 of the Indian Penal Code means a person employed to do any act for another, or to represent another in dealings with 3rd persons. 39. The word “Agent” referred to in section 409 of the Indian Penal Code means a person employed to do any act for another, or to represent another in dealings with 3rd persons. 39. Coming to the facts of this case, the allegations against the appellants are that the appellant Gopal Prasad Sinha in capacity of the proprietor of M/s. Gopal Engineering was entrusted with the job of transportation of coal from the collieries to the Bhuli Township and during the transportation of coal instead of dumping the coal in the said township Gopal Prasad Sinha misappropriated the said coal. The allegations against the appellant Pujari Prasad is that he being the power of attorney holder of Gopal Prasad Sinha is also responsible for the said misappropriation. In view of the discussions made above this court is of the considered view that neither Gopal Prasad Sinha nor Pujari Prasad comes under either Public Servant or Banker, Merchant, Factor, Broker, Attorney or Agent as mentioned in Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, as though Pujari Prasad may be the attorney of Gopal Prasad Sinha but the said Gopal Prasad Sinha, having himself not coming under above categories, certainly Pujari Prasad cannot come under those categories so far as the misappropriation of the coal as alleged is concerned. Though Baldin Ram is undisputedly a Public Servant, but there is no allegation against him of being entrusted with any coal or any property or with any dominion over any property. It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant Baldin Ram has not been convicted with the aid of section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Similarly though the appellant Ravi Shankar Jha is also undisputedly a public servant but it is also undisputed that he was employed in a lowly placed post as a fitter in a different unit having got nothing to do with the said transportation of coal in respect of which this case has been instituted and did not have any authority to influence any decision in respect of the same. Hence it cannot be said that the said Ravi Shankar Jha was entrusted with any coal or any property or dominion over any property. Hence in this score, this Court finds that the charge for the offence punishable under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code is not sustainable against any of the appellants. Hence it cannot be said that the said Ravi Shankar Jha was entrusted with any coal or any property or dominion over any property. Hence in this score, this Court finds that the charge for the offence punishable under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code is not sustainable against any of the appellants. Further this Court also finds that there is absolutely no evidence in the record of entrustment of any property or with any dominion over any property against any of the appellants-convicts. True it is that by a tabular chart, it has been mentioned in the charge sheet that some of the accused persons have received the coal but there is no connecting evidence in the record to establish the entrustment of the coal to any of the appellants-convicts. Though the opinion of Government Examiner of Questioned Documents (GEQD) has been produced but the same no way indicates that the appellant-convict Ravi Shankar Jha has impersonated for anybody else. After carefully going through the statement recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure of the appellant-convict Ravi Shankar Jha, this Court finds that there is no question put in the statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure of his having impersonated for Pujari Prasad. It remains incongruous as where the coal went if the same was misappropriated. P.W.30 has simply answered that he has no idea to the question in this respect put by the defence to him in his cross-examination. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the evidence in the record is not sufficient to establish the entrustment of any property whatsoever to any of the appellants-convicts beyond reasonable doubt which is the standard of proof required to establish the charge in a criminal case. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the evidence in the record is not sufficient to establish the entrustment of any property whatsoever to any of the appellants-convicts beyond reasonable doubt which is the standard of proof required to establish the charge in a criminal case. So far as the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 13 (2) read with Sections 13 (1) (c) & (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the appellant no.1 of Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.941 of 2015 and the appellant of Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.957 of 2015 are concerned, this Court is of the considered view that though the appellant Ravi Shankar Jha is said to be a public servant but admittedly he was a fitter in some other establishment of B.C.C.L. which has not even remotely has any connection with the Bhuli Town Administration or the colliery from which coal was being transported by the transporter to the Bhuli Township, while the same were allegedly misappropriated. So far as the appellant no.1 of Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.941 of 2015 is concerned, as already indicated above both the PW7 and PW25 has categorically stated that the agent-Ajay Dhar was actively involved in ensuring coal being given to unauthorized persons, which is also corroborated by the DW1. PW9 has stated that Bhuli Township was under ACPM(Adm) while the appellant no.1 of Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.941 of 2015 was in the works department. PW30 stated that the Competent Authority of Bhuli Township Administration approved the work order issued by the appellant no.1 of Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.941 of 2015. The PW30 also stated that the appellant no.1 of Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.941 of 2015 issued the work order under the verbal direction of his superior officer namely Triveni Prasad to the Lowest 1 bidder Gopal Engineering. Hence, the ingredients of misappropriation or converting to their own use in respect of any property entrusted to them is not established against the appellant no.1-Baldin Ram of Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.941 of 2015 or the appellant-Ravi Shankar Jha of Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.957 of 2015 either. Hence, the ingredients of misappropriation or converting to their own use in respect of any property entrusted to them is not established against the appellant no.1-Baldin Ram of Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.941 of 2015 or the appellant-Ravi Shankar Jha of Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.957 of 2015 either. Similarly, there is no evidence against them of adopting corrupt means, illegal means or obtaining for themselves or any other person, any valuable or pecuniary advantage by abusing their position as public servants rather the evidence in the record suggests which also gets support from the testimony of D.W.1 that the then agent of Bhuli Township-Ajay Dhar was the real culprit and undisputedly departmental proceeding was initiated against him and not against any of these two accused persons being appellant no.1 of Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.941 of 2015 and the appellant of Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.957 of 2015. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the appellants-convicts be acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt. 40. Accordingly, the impugned Judgment of Conviction and Order of Sentence dated 09.10.2015 passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad in R.C. Case No.14 (A) of 1995-D being not sustainable in law is set aside and the appellant-convicts namely Baldin Ram, Gopal Prasad Sinha, Pujari Prasad and Ravi Shankar Jha are acquitted of all the charges by giving them the benefit of doubt. 41. Perusal of the record reveals that the appellants-convicts namely Baldin Ram, Gopal Prasad Sinha, Pujari Prasad and Ravi Shankar Jha are on bail. In view of their acquittal, the appellants-convicts are discharged of the liability of their bail bonds. 42. In the result, these appeals are allowed. 43. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the learned court below along with a copy of this judgment forthwith.