JUDGMENT : Feeling aggrieved by the judgment, dated 15.12.2006, passed by the Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Hyderabad in Calendar Case No.4 of 2001, the appellant - Accused Officer preferred the present appeal. 2. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the trial Court found the appellant-Accused Officer guilty of the charges under Section 13 (1) (c) and (d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) and Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and, accordingly convicted her of the said charges by sentencing her to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of ten (10) days under each count. However, the trial Court acquitted her of the charge under Section 201 IPC. 3. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the appellant-Accused Officer on or about 15.06.1993 and 30.02.1994 at Hyderabad worked as Director, National Institute of Nutrition, Tarnaka, Hyderabad and in such capacity she was entrusted with Rs.1,75,000/- by New Hope Leprosy Rural Trust, Muniguda, Orissa, to provide consultancy services to the financial agency i.e., New Hope Leprosy Rural Trust in respect of the project on consultancy services of vitamin A Project, Muniguda, Orissa. It is also alleged against her that she had submitted statements of expenditure incurred in connection with the said project on the said dates to the said Agency showing an amount of Rs.1,36,342.20ps., and thus the appellant–Accused Officer has claimed the said amount as TA/DA to the field staff which includes scientists and technical staff for their visit to Muniguda. 4. It was further alleged that during the said period, even though TA and DA of Rs.40,973/- which forms part of Rs.1,36,342.20ps. was already claimed from National Institute of Nutrition (NIN) from the funds of W.H.O. Rich Foods, and thus, the appellant - Accused Officer dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriated the said sum of Rs.40,973/- and thereby she has committed an offence under Section 13 (1) (d) of the Act punishable under Section 13 (2) of the Act. 5. was already claimed from National Institute of Nutrition (NIN) from the funds of W.H.O. Rich Foods, and thus, the appellant - Accused Officer dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriated the said sum of Rs.40,973/- and thereby she has committed an offence under Section 13 (1) (d) of the Act punishable under Section 13 (2) of the Act. 5. It is further alleged against the Accused Officer that during the period from 1st November to 3rd November of 1989 at Hyderabad while she was working as Director of National Institute of Nutrition (for short NIN), she has received an amount of Rs.3,36,200/- from the World Health Organization (WHO) Workshop on Food Safety and she has opened an account on 14.10.1989 in her name as ‘Dr. Vinodini Reddy, Director, NIN in SBH, Lallaguda Branch, Secunderabad’ without routing through the account section of NIN. It was further alleged that she has given a self-cheque No.00476422 dated 28.11.1989 for Rs.1,00,000/- and the amount was received by Dr. Madhavi Reddy, who is no other than the daughter-in-law of the Accused Officer who was working as Ophthalmologist at Lions Eye Hospital, Secunderabad and who has agreed to carry out a collaborative research project on ‘Corneal Vascularisatin’. The said amount was returned by her to the Accused Officer as she could not carry out the said project as she had gone to USA to join her husband and, thus, the Accused Officer has committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the said amount and punishable under Section 409 IPC. 6. It is also alleged against the Accused Officer that on or about 28.02.1995 which is Accused Officer’s date of retirement, knowing or having reason to believe that certain offence to wit criminal breach of trust punishable with imprisonment of ten (10) years under Section 409 IPC, has been committed and caused certain evidence of the said offence to disappear to wit did not hand over (09) files mentioned in the charge to her successor Dr. M. Mohan Rao in spite of his request with an intention to screen herself from legal punishment and, thereby the Accused Officer committed an offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC. 7. The CBI on receipt of reliable information, registered a case in Crime No.RC-28(A)/98-CBI/HYd., on 28.12.1998 against the appellant - Accused Officer and Mr. M. Mohan Rao in spite of his request with an intention to screen herself from legal punishment and, thereby the Accused Officer committed an offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC. 7. The CBI on receipt of reliable information, registered a case in Crime No.RC-28(A)/98-CBI/HYd., on 28.12.1998 against the appellant - Accused Officer and Mr. P. Venugopal under Sections 120B read with 409 IPC and Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (c) and (d) of the Act and investigated into. 8. After completion of investigation, the CBI filed charge sheet against the appellant alone for the offences under Sections 201 and 409 of IPC and Sections 13 (1) (c) and (d) read with 13 (2) of the Act. 9. Then the trial Court has taken cognizance and proceeded with trial. During trial, PWs.1 to 9 were examined and Exs.P1 to P15 were marked on behalf of the prosecution, while DWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.D1 and D2 were marked on behalf of the Accused Officer. 10. The trial Court after completion of trial and on consideration of entire evidence, both oral and documentary, convicted the Accused Officer for the offences under Section 13 (1) (c) and (d) read with 13 (2) of the Act and Section 409 of IPC, while acquitting her for the offence under Section 201 of IPC. Accordingly imposed the sentences in the manner stated above. 11. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the appellant preferred the present appeal. 12. Heard Mr. A. Sudarshan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. A. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the appellant - Accused Officer and Mr. K. Surender, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases. 13. Impugning the judgment, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Accused Officer would submit that there is abnormal delay in registering the FIR from the alleged date of commission of offence by the Accused Officer. In fact, there is no complaint of whatsoever against her and the CBI Officials registered a case on the ground of receipt of reliable information. According to him, there is no explanation for the said delay. 14. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the Accused Officer has retired from service as Director of NIN on 28.02.1995 and she has completed one year extended period by then. There is no evidence, much less direct evidence, to show that the Accused Officer committed breach of trust. 14. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the Accused Officer has retired from service as Director of NIN on 28.02.1995 and she has completed one year extended period by then. There is no evidence, much less direct evidence, to show that the Accused Officer committed breach of trust. He would further submit that PW.7 - Deputy Director, Senior Grade, NIN, deposed that in NIN, there was a publication in which Dr. Madhavi Reddy, daughter-in-law of the Accused Officer, is one of the Authors. He would further submit that there is no misappropriation of any amount and, in fact, the said Madhavi Reddy returned the said amount of Rs.1.00 lakh within one month. He would further submit that the trial Court despite giving a finding that Dr. Madhavi Reddy returned the entire amount on 02.09.1990 without utilizing the amount during one month period, convicted the Accused Officer for the offence under Section 409 IPC. 15. Even with regard to misappropriation, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that there is no evidence, much less direct evidence, let in by the prosecution to prove the said offence. The depositions of prosecution witnesses lack the ingredients of Section 13 (1) (c) and (d) of the Act and also Section 409 of IPC. 16. With the said contentions, the learned Senior Counsel prayed for acquittal of the Accused Officer by setting aside the impugned judgment. 17. Per contra, supporting the judgment, Sri K. Surender, learned Special Public Prosecutor would contend that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused Officer beyond reasonable doubt. The CBI has received reliable information with regard to misappropriation of the funds by the Accused Officer, and on such information, the CBI has registered a case by issuing Ex.P13 – FIR against the Accused Officer and Mr. Venu Gopal. After investigation, the charge sheet was laid only against the appellant - Accused Officer and there is no irregularity or illegality in the same. He would further submit that even as per the defence taken by the Accused Officer, an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh was re-deposited by Dr. Madhavi Reddy, daughter-in-law of the Accused Officer within one month thereafter which itself amounts to temporary misappropriation and, thus, the Accused Officer has committed the aforesaid offences. 18. He would further submit that even as per the defence taken by the Accused Officer, an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh was re-deposited by Dr. Madhavi Reddy, daughter-in-law of the Accused Officer within one month thereafter which itself amounts to temporary misappropriation and, thus, the Accused Officer has committed the aforesaid offences. 18. With the said contentions, the learned Special Public Prosecutor would contend that the trial Court has rightly recorded the conviction against the Accused Officer and it is a reasoned order. Therefore, there is no reason or circumstance that warrants interference by this Court. 19. In view of the above rival contentions, the following points that arise for consideration: (i) Whether the Accused Officer using her official position as a public servant, misappropriated the amount dishonestly and fraudulently and also committed criminal breach of trust? (ii) Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the Accused Officer under Sections 409 IPC and 13 (1) (c) and (d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988? (iii) Whether the judgment of the trial Court is sustainable factually and legally? POINT Nos. (i) to (iii): 20. Perused the material available on record, both oral and documentary. 21. In this case, it is relevant to note that the appellant - Accused Officer has retired from service on 28.02.1995 as Director, NIN after her extended period of one year, whereas, Ex.P13 - FIR was registered on 24.12.1998. It is also relevant to note that the prosecution has registered Ex.P13 based on the receipt of credible information. Thus, there is a delay of almost more than 3½ years in registering the FIR after retirement of the appellant and about five (05) years from the alleged commission of offence by the Accused Officer. The prosecution failed to explain the said delay. There is no explanation offered by the prosecution for the said delay by examining the relevant witnesses and by producing relevant documents. 22. It is also relevant to note that though the FIR was registered against the appellant and Mr. P. Venugopal, P.A. to Director, NIN, Hyderabad, but charge sheet was laid only against the Accused Officer. 23. As per the charge sheet, according to the prosecution, the Accused Officer has committed the following offences. 22. It is also relevant to note that though the FIR was registered against the appellant and Mr. P. Venugopal, P.A. to Director, NIN, Hyderabad, but charge sheet was laid only against the Accused Officer. 23. As per the charge sheet, according to the prosecution, the Accused Officer has committed the following offences. (i) Dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriated an amount of Rs.40,973, and committed the offence under Section 13 (1) (c) and (d) read with 13 (2) of the Act; (ii) Paying an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh vide self-cheque No.00476422, dated 28.11.1989 to Dr. Madhavi Reddy, daughter-in-law of the Accused Officer from out of an amount of Rs.3,36,200/- received from WHO Workshop on Food Safety, opened account on 14.10.1989 in her name in SBH, Lallaguda, Secundeerabad without routing through the Account Section of NIN and, thus, committed criminal breach of trust. (iii) Failed to hand over nine (09) files on her retirement on 28.02.1995 knowing or having reason to believe that certain offence to wit., criminal breach of trust punishable under Section 409 of IPC with an intention of screening herself from legal punishment and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC. 24. To prove the said charges, the prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses i.e., PWs.1 to 7. 25. PW.1 - Mr. S. Panduranga Rao, Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Lallaguda Branch deposed about opening of savings account No.4447 in their bank by the appellant in her name as ‘W.H.O., Workshop Director, NIN, Hyderabad and that the appellant had withdrawn an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh on 28.11.1989 through self-cheque. During crossexamination, PW.1 has admitted that Ex.P1 contains the name of the account holder as “WHO, Workshop Director, NIN, Hyderabad”. 26. PW.2 - Mr. Jaising, Administrative Officer in Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) deposed about procedures for conducting Workshops, Training Programmes by NIN and issuance of Ex.P2 - Circular dated 11.02.1993. He has deposed about the discretion of Director of NIN to grant honorarium of Rs.2,000/- each to the Subordinates. However, during cross-examination, he has admitted that when he saw the records, he could notice administrative irregularities but not any specific instances of financial misappropriation. 27. PW.3 - Accounts Officer, NIN, Hyderabad, deposed about conducting of Work Shops etc., and receipt of funds from various Agencies. He has further deposed that NIN is having accounts in SBH, Lallaguda Branch, Canara Bank, Mettuguda Branch, Secunderabad. 27. PW.3 - Accounts Officer, NIN, Hyderabad, deposed about conducting of Work Shops etc., and receipt of funds from various Agencies. He has further deposed that NIN is having accounts in SBH, Lallaguda Branch, Canara Bank, Mettuguda Branch, Secunderabad. However, during cross-examining, he has admitted that by the time of inquiry conducted by CBI, TA bills were destroyed and that without looking the TA bills, it is not possible to say the places visited by the Scientists. As per bye-laws of NIN, Director has power to sanction honorarium to Scientists and the said power is limited to Rs.2,500/- each for each project. 28. PW.4 - Purchase Officer, NIN, deposed about non-handling of nine (09) files relating to NIN Workshops and the said files were not handed over by the appellant to her successor. 29. During cross-examination, he has admitted that the appellant got an extension of one year service after the age of superannuation, Dr. Mohan Ram, succeeded as Director, NIN and that he cannot say whether the said Dr. Mohan Ram was frustrated due to extension of one year service given to the appellant. 30. PW.5 - Accounts Officer (Retired), NIN, Hyderabad deposed about various Projects, Work Shops, Training Programmes etc., conducted by NIN and the funds received by it. He has further deposed that he was asked by the then Director Dr. M. Mohan Ram in confidential note dated 05.10.1995 to mention about the accounts of a project titled as “Vitamin ‘A’, Leaf Concentrate” with financial support from IDRC through “NEW HOPE” Rural Leprosy Trust, Muniguda. The said accounts were not maintained at the Institute and these were handled directly at the Director’s Office. In reply, he stated to the Director, on 09.10.1995, that accounts relating to this project were not available at the Institute and these were obviously handled by the Director’s Office. 31. PW.6 - Director, NIN, deposed that the appellant worked as Director, NIN from August, 1988 to February, 1995 and that as a Director, the appellant was overall In-charge of the Institute which includes both Scientific and Administration and Accounts. During her tenure, 9 workshops/training programmes/consultancy services were conducted in NIN which were not routed through official channel of Accounts Section and that the appellant has not handed over the files relating to 9 Workshops on her retirement. During her tenure, 9 workshops/training programmes/consultancy services were conducted in NIN which were not routed through official channel of Accounts Section and that the appellant has not handed over the files relating to 9 Workshops on her retirement. He has further deposed about receipt of funds from various Agencies and conducting of audits by the Internal Auditors from ICMR and also external Auditors from Principal Director, Audit Office of Scientific Department, Government of India. 32. He further deposed that he took charge in 1995, found that many extra mural projects for which funds were received by the Institute were neither communicated to ICMR nor accounts of the Project were reflected in the Institutes Official Accounts. He further deposed that Ex.P4 cheque was issued by the appellant for Rs.1.00 lakh from the Account of SBH, Lallaguda Savings Bank to Dr. Madhavi Reddy. 33. During cross-examination, PW.6 has admitted that the appellant was given extension of service for one year after superannuation and that he made a representation to ICMR with regard to her extension, because in the history of 75 years of NIN, there was no such precedent. He denied the suggestion that he was not happy for the extension of service given to the appellant and that after he became In-charge Director, he started searching for irregularities committed by the appellant during her tenure. He has admitted that “the irregularities committed by the appellant during her tenure, which were noticed by him, were communicated to ICMR”. He also admits that he went to CBI Office when he was called for by the SP, CBI. He further admits that Ex.P1 shows that the account was opened in the name of WHO Work Shop, Director, NIN, Hyderabad. 34. PW.7 - Deputy Director, Senior Grade, NIN, Hyderabad, deposed about procedures for conducting of Projects, control of NIN, visit of places, submission of TA and DA bills. According to him, Director, NIN, is responsible for all the projects which will be conducted under her/his supervision and the Director along with supporting staff are accountable to the funds of NIN. 35. During cross-examination, he has admitted that in NIN, there was a publication in which Dr. Madhavi Reddy is one of the authors. This research was carried out at NIN. He does not know in what capacity she did the said research. 36. 35. During cross-examination, he has admitted that in NIN, there was a publication in which Dr. Madhavi Reddy is one of the authors. This research was carried out at NIN. He does not know in what capacity she did the said research. 36. PW.8 - Inspector of Police, CBI, Hyderabad, deposed about investigation conducted by him. According to him, on 24.12.1998, as per written orders of the SP, CBI, Hyderabad, he registered a case under Sections 120-B read with 409 IPC and Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (c) and (d) of P.C. Act, 1988 against the appellant and one P. Venugopal under Ex.P13 and thereafter he collected the original NIN files and bank statements and other bank documents. 37. PW.9 - DSP, CBI, Hyderabad Branch deposed about investigation conducted by him. He further deposed about collecting documents from SBH and other branches, conducting investigation and recording statements etc. 38. During cross-examination, he has admitted that in the absence of TA bills, it is difficult to say the particulars of the visits. He has further admitted that he has not investigated as to at which places WHO, Vitamin ‘A’ Rich Foods Project was undertaken by the Scientists of NIN and, thus, he cannot say whether it was undertaken in Ananthapur and Medak District and also at Muniguda. He further admitted that he has not examined Dr. Kamala Krishna Swamy, Director of NIN, but he collected from her some papers regarding Platinum Jubilee Celebrations. He further deposed that he is aware that Director, NIN has got power to appropriate and re-appropriate up to an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh from one Research Project to another Research Project. He has not collected office copy of Ex.D1 from PW.6. He has not examined Dr. Eliazar T Rose, Director, New Hope Leprosy Trust and that he also did not examine Dr. Madhavi Reddy as she was not available in India during investigation. He further admits that “Dr. Madhavi Reddy was entrusted with the Research work of Corneal Vascularisation – Clinical Trial under the guidance of Sri K. Sita Ram Bhat, Deputy Director, Bio-Chemistry Division, NIN for ten months”. However, he was not clear about the said aspect. Madhavi Reddy as she was not available in India during investigation. He further admits that “Dr. Madhavi Reddy was entrusted with the Research work of Corneal Vascularisation – Clinical Trial under the guidance of Sri K. Sita Ram Bhat, Deputy Director, Bio-Chemistry Division, NIN for ten months”. However, he was not clear about the said aspect. He investigated into the aspect that Rs.1.00 lakh given by the appellant through a cheque of SBH, Lallaguda Branch, Secunderabad with account No.4447 was credited to the account of Dr.Madhavi Reddy in the same bank and that it was returned by her within one month and that she did not withdraw the said amount during the said one month period. However, he denied the suggestion that he filed charge sheet against the appellant even though his investigation did not disclose any evidence on the aspects of misappropriation, abuse of official position, criminal breach of trust and destruction of evidence to escape law etc. 39. From the above said depositions including PW.6, successor of the Accused Officer as Director, NIN, who was having dissatisfaction with regard to extension of one year tenure to the Accused Officer, specifically deposed about the said misappropriation of an amount of Rs.40,973/-. It is relevant to note that PW.2 - Administrative Officer of ICMR categorically admitted during cross-examination that on perusal of records, he could notice administrative irregularities, but not any specific instances of financial misappropriation. It is also relevant to note that he is a prosecution witness and Administrative Officer of ICMR. Except PW.6, there is no other witness deposed about misappropriation of the said amount. In fact, the other prosecution witnesses including PW.1 deposed that Director of NIN has power to pay honorarium, In-charge of the entire Projects, Workshops to be conducted and accountable to the affairs of NIN. None of the prosecution witnesses deposed about the misappropriation of the said amount of Rs.40,973/- by the appellant - Accused Officer. 40. As discussed above, there is abnormal delay of about five years in registering a crime and issuing Ex.P13 - FIR after the alleged commission of offence by the Accused Officer and three and half years delay after her retirement on completion of one year extension period. Absolutely, there is no explanation from the prosecution for the said abnormal delay. It is also relevant to note that there is no complaint from any Official of NIN. Absolutely, there is no explanation from the prosecution for the said abnormal delay. It is also relevant to note that there is no complaint from any Official of NIN. CBI Officials have registered Ex.P13 - FIR on the ground of receipt of reliable information. PW.8 - Inspector of Police, CBI deposed that on 24.12.1998 as per the written orders of S.P., CBI, he has registered a crime and issued Ex.P13 - FIR. 41. PW.6 Successor Director, NIN of the appellant - Accused Officer, during cross-examination admitted that he made a representation to ICMR with regard to granting of one year extension to the Accused Officer on the ground that in the history of 75 years of NIN, there was no such incident. However, he has denied a suggestion that he was not happy to the said extension and started searching for irregularities committed by the Accused Officer. It is also relevant to note that he has further admitted that the irregularities committed by the appellant during her tenure, which were noticed by him, were communicated to ICMR. He has visited CBI Office. The above stated facts clearly reveal that PW.6 started searching files to verify the irregularities, both administrative and financial, if any, committed by the Accused Officer since he was denied of opportunity of becoming Director, NIN in the event of not granting one year extension to the Accused Officer. Thus, he was not happy with the said extension given to the Accused Officer and started searching for irregularities if any committed by the Accused Officer. However, he has admitted that he has communicated the irregularities noticed by him said to have committed by the Accused Officer to ICMR. He has also visited the CBI office. The said facts clearly reveal that PW.6 is behind the entire episode. 42. By referring to the above said depositions, more particularly, the depositions of PW.6 and PW.8, learned Senior Counsel, would contend that PW.6 hatched a plan to implicate the Accused Officer in the aforesaid case. In the said course of action, he has sent alleged irregularities to the ICMR and also visited CBI Office. But, PW.6 claims that he went to the CBI Office on receipt of information from SP, CBI. 43. In the said course of action, he has sent alleged irregularities to the ICMR and also visited CBI Office. But, PW.6 claims that he went to the CBI Office on receipt of information from SP, CBI. 43. PW.3 - Senior Administrative Officer deposed that by the time of CBI Inquiry, TA bills were destroyed and that without looking the TA Bill, it is not possible to say which places were visited by the Scientists in connection with relevant projects. 44. PW.7 - Deputy Director admitted that there was a publication in NIN in which Dr. Madhavi Reddy is one of the Authors and the said Research was carried out at NIN. The deposition of PW.6 on the said aspect is quite contrary to the deposition of PW.7. Obviously, PW.6 is having grouse over the appellant -Accused Officer for getting extension of one year. 45. It is also relevant to note that PW.6 deposed about conducting of internal audits from ICMR and external audits from Principal Director, Audit Office of Scientific Department, Union of India, none of the responsible officials from the said Agencies were neither called for by the CBI during investigation, nor examined by the prosecution during trial. 46. PW.9 - DSP, CBI, during cross-examination, categorically admitted in the absence of TA bills, it is difficult to say particulars of the visits and he has not investigated as to places of visits and persons undertaken the project. He has further admitted that he has not examined Dr. Kamalkrishna Swamy, Director, NIN, but he has collected some papers regarding Platinum Jubilee Celebrations. He has further admitted that he has not examined Dr. Eliazar T Rose, Director, New Hope Leprosy Trust and also did not examine Dr. Madhavi Reddy. He has further admitted that as per his investigation, Director, NIN has got power to appropriate and reappropriate an amount up to Rs.1.00 lakh from one Research Project to another Research Project work. He has also admitted that as per his investigation, Dr. Madhavi Reddy was entrusted with Research work of Corneal Vasucularization - Clinical Trial under the guidance of Deputy Director, Biochemistry Division, NIN for ten (10) months. He has further admitted that Dr. Madhavi Reddy returned the said amount of Rs.1.00 lakh within one month and that she did not withdraw the said amount during the said period of one month. 47. The Accused Officer has examined Dr. He has further admitted that Dr. Madhavi Reddy returned the said amount of Rs.1.00 lakh within one month and that she did not withdraw the said amount during the said period of one month. 47. The Accused Officer has examined Dr. Kamalakrishna Swamy, Research Scientist and Medical doctor of NIN as DW.1 who deposed that she took over as Director of NIN in the year 1997, during the tenure of appellant, Platinum Jubilee of NIN Celebrations were conducted. Dr. Madhavi Reddy, an Ophthalmologist, did research work jointly with two other Medical Doctors and produced a paper which was published through NIN. 48. DW.2 - Mr. V. Ramesh Bhat, Assistant Research Officer and later obtained VRS as Deputy Director, Senior Grade, deposed that he attended workshops etc., and opening of account by Dr. Tulpule in SBH for the purpose of workshops. 49. The above stated depositions of prosecution witnesses would show that the prosecution failed to examine any relevant witnesses to establish the charges leveled against the Accused Officer. Even, as per the depositions of prosecution witnesses including PW.9, Dr. Madhavi Reddy did research work for 10 months and returned the above said amount of Rs.1.00 lakh within one month without utilizing the same. The said deposition is supported by DW.1. The prosecution did not examine any witness from the Auditing Department, both Internal and External to establish the misappropriation. At the cost of repetition, there is no complaint of misappropriation and there is abnormal delay in registering the case and issuing Ex.P13 - FIR. There is no explanation offered by the prosecution for the said delay. 50. As discussed supra, the prosecution failed to examine any witness and failed to file any documents to show that the appellant - Accused Officer has committed the above said misappropriation of Rs.40,973/- and misappropriation of Rs.1.00 lakh given to Dr. Madhavi Reddy. 51. The ingredients of Section 13 (1) (c) and (d) of the Act and Section 409 of IPC are lacking in the depositions of prosecution witnesses. PW.9 on his investigation and coming to a conclusion that Dr. Madhavi Reddy, has re-deposited the said amount of Rs.1.00 lakh into the account within one month without using it, filed charge sheet against the Accused Officer for the said charge. There is no explanation much less plausible explanation from him of the same. PW.9 on his investigation and coming to a conclusion that Dr. Madhavi Reddy, has re-deposited the said amount of Rs.1.00 lakh into the account within one month without using it, filed charge sheet against the Accused Officer for the said charge. There is no explanation much less plausible explanation from him of the same. It is also relevant to note that though FIR was registered against P. Venu Gopal, P.A. to Director, NIN, his name was deleted from the array of charge sheet while laying the charge sheet and no reasons were assigned for the same in the entire charge sheet. According to PW.3, Accounts Officer, the TA bills were destroyed by the time CBI conducted inquiry and without looking into TA bills it is not possible to come to a conclusion with regard to places of visits and details of persons and projects. PW.9 himself has also admitted the said fact. Even then, PW.9 has filed charge sheet against the Accused Officer. Thus, PW.9 did not conduct the investigation properly and filed the same without mentioning the reasons and investigation done by him properly. 52. The trial Court without appreciating the said depositions, more particularly admissions of prosecution witnesses, recorded conviction against the Accused Officer. The trial Court having held that it is clear that TA and DA bills are not seized since there are no accounts for payments and it appears that there was no audit at all of the accounts opened by the Accused Officer as Director in the names of several projects, recorded conviction against the Accused Officer without considering the vital aspect of non-examination of any official from Audit Department, both Internal and External. The trial Court also did not consider the crucial aspect of destroying of TA bills as on the date of inquiry by CBI and without verifying TA bills it is not possible to come to a conclusion with regard to the alleged misappropriation. There is no finding and consideration of the aspect of delay in registering the FIR from the alleged commission of offence by the Accused Officer and her retirement after completion of one year extension period. 53. There is no finding and consideration of the aspect of delay in registering the FIR from the alleged commission of offence by the Accused Officer and her retirement after completion of one year extension period. 53. The further finding of the trial Court that the fact remains that Rs.40,973/- was charged to WHO Project maintained at NIN while the same amount was collected as spent from ‘Vitamin ‘A’ project of New Hope Rural Leprosy Trust, Muniguda, on this aspect, evidence of PW.5, the then Accounts Officer and his report Ex.P12 supports the prosecution case is contrary to evidence on record, both oral and documentary. It is relevant to note that Ex.P12 was Photostat copy of confidential note dated 09.10.1995 of PW.5 which was marked subject to objection. It is also relevant to note that PW.5 - Accounts Officer, NIN, did not depose about misappropriation of the said amount of Rs.40,973/- and on the other hand, he has deposed that the accounts were not maintained at the Institute and were handled directly at Director’s Office. In his reply, he has stated to the Director that on 09.10.1995, the accounts relating to the said Project i.e., Vitamin ‘A’ Leaf Concentrate, with financial support cum IVRC through new Hope Rural Leprosy Trust, Muniguda, were not available at the Institute and the same were obviously handled by Director’s Office. In view of the said deposition of PW.5, the finding of the trial Court is contrary to record and evidence and, therefore, the said finding is unsustainable. 51. The further finding of the trial Court that there is no record in NIN about the work done by Dr. Madhavi Reddy and the said finding is contrary to the depositions of prosecution witnesses i.e., PW.7 - Deputy Director, NIN and PW.9 - DSP, CBI and also DW.1 – Research Scientist and Medical Doctor and Director, NIN. The said finding is also contrary to the finding of the trial Court at paragraph No.40 of the impugned judgment wherein trial Court referred about deposition of DW.1 and the Research Work of Dr. Madhavi Reddy. In view of the same, the finding of the trial Court that the Accused Officer misappropriated the said amount of Rs.1.00 lakh is not based on sound reasoning. 52. Madhavi Reddy. In view of the same, the finding of the trial Court that the Accused Officer misappropriated the said amount of Rs.1.00 lakh is not based on sound reasoning. 52. In the said circumstances and foregoing discussion, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the findings of the trial Court recording conviction is unsustainable. 53. In the result, the present Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Hyderabad vide judgment, dated 15.12.2006, in Calendar Case No.4 of 2001 against the appellant - Accused Officer for the offences punishable under Sections 13 (1) (c) and (d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 409 of IPC are hereby set aside. The Accused Officer is on bail. Her bail bond shall stand cancelled. The fine amount, if any, paid is ordered to be returned to the Accused Officer. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand closed.