JUDGMENT : The State is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the judgment of the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram in the case C.C. No. 24/2001 by which that court acquitted the sole accused in the case of the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(c) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') and under Sections 409, 468 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The respondent in the appeal is the accused in the case. He shall be hereinafter referred to as the accused. 3. The prosecution case is as follows : The accused was the Depot Manager, Hantex Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram for the period from 31.07.1991 to 16.12.1993. During the period from 08.09.1992 to 14.04.1993, the accused made false vouchers under the pretext of supplying textiles and readymade garments to the District Collectorate, Thiruvananthapuram for flood relief and mass contact programme. There was no order for supply of the materials issued from the Collectorate. The accused had also not obtained any sanction from the Head Office or the Regional Office of the Hantex for supply of the materials. Thus, he abused his official position as a public servant and committed criminal breach of trust in respect of textiles and readymade garments worth Rs.65,203.85/-. The accused also falsified the accounts and temporarily misappropriated Rs.1,186/-out of Rs.1886/-which was received by him on 05.10.1993 from the Office Assistant of the Carmal Girls High School, Thiruvananthapuram and he misappropriated the balance amount of Rs.700/-. 4. The trial court framed charge against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(c) read with 13(2) of the Act and under Sections 409,468 and 477A IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and he claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution examined the witnesses PW1 to PW13 and marked the documents Exts.P1 to P20. No evidence was adduced by the accused. 6. The trial court reached the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove any of the offences alleged against the accused and found him not guilty of all the offences charged against him and acquitted him. 7. The State has come up in appeal challenging the judgment of the trial court, acquitting the accused in the case. 8. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and also the learned counsel for the respondent/accused. 9. 7. The State has come up in appeal challenging the judgment of the trial court, acquitting the accused in the case. 8. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and also the learned counsel for the respondent/accused. 9. The accused was the Depot Manager of Hantex Bhavan for the period from 31.07.1991 to 16.12.1993. He was a public servant as defined under Section 2(c) of the Act. There is no dispute with regard to these facts. 10. The first allegation against the accused is that he created false vouchers during the period from 08.09.1992 to 14.04.1993 in respect of textiles and readymade garments worth RS. 65,203.85/- on the pretext of supplying the same to the Collectorate, Thiruvananthapuram for flood relief and mass contact programme. It is alleged that there was no supply order given from the Collectorate, Thiruvananthapuram and that no sanction was obtained by the accused from the Head Office or the Regional Office of the Hantex for supply of the materials. 11. The above charge against the accused is based on Exts.P1 to P4 documents, which are alleged to be the false vouchers created by the accused for supply of materials to the Collectorate. 12. Ext.P1 is a cash voucher for Rs.7,132/. It is dated 08.09.1992. In the column in Ext.P1 for giving the details, it is written that readymade garments worth Rs.7,132/- are supplied to the Collectorate and that cheque would be obtained for the amount from the Collectorate. The endorsement on the back of Ext.P1 voucher, which is marked as Ext.P1(a), is that, as and when the cheque is received, the accused shall be relieved of the liability in respect of the amount. The signature of the accused appears below Ext.P1(a) endorsement. 13. Ext.P2 is a cash voucher for Rs.33,399.35/-. It is dated 24.12.1992. In the column in Ext.P2 voucher for stating the details, it is written that textile items are supplied as directed by the Collector for the purpose of flood relief. The endorsement on the back of Ext.P2 voucher, which is marked as Ext.P2(a), is that, cheque for the amount would be received from the Collectorate and then the accused shall be relieved of that liability. The signature of the accused appears below Ext.P2(a) endorsement. 14. Ext.P3 is the cash voucher for Rs.4,672.50/-. It is dated 14.04.1993. The endorsement on the back of Ext.P2 voucher, which is marked as Ext.P2(a), is that, cheque for the amount would be received from the Collectorate and then the accused shall be relieved of that liability. The signature of the accused appears below Ext.P2(a) endorsement. 14. Ext.P3 is the cash voucher for Rs.4,672.50/-. It is dated 14.04.1993. In the column in Ext.P3 voucher for giving the details, it is written that textile items are supplied to the Collectorate for mass contact programme and that cheque for the amount would be issued to the Regional Office. 15. Ext.P4 is a cash voucher for Rs.20,000/-. There is no date in Ext.P4 voucher. In the column in Ext.P4 voucher for giving the details, it is written that textile items worth Rs.14,186/-are supplied to the Collectorate and textile items worth Rs.5,814/-are supplied to the Kerala Automobiles Limited as per the directions of the Managing Director. The endorsement on the back of Ext.P4 voucher, which is marked as Ext.P4(a), is to the effect that, cheque for the amount would be received and that the accused shall be relieved of the liability. The signature of the accused appears below Ext.P4(a) endorsement. 16. PW1 was a co-worker of the accused. She had taken charge as the Depot Manager on 17.12.1993 from the accused. She has given evidence that, even before that date, she had worked in the same office along with the accused. She has given evidence that she could identify the handwriting and the signature of the accused. She identified the signatures of the accused in Exts.P1 to P4 vouchers and the initials of the accused below Exts.P1(a), P2(a) and P4(a) endorsements on the back of those vouchers. 17. PW2 was the person who was holding the charge of the Regional Manager of Hantex during the period from 1991 to 1994. He has given evidence that Exts.P1 to P4 vouchers had been received by him in the Regional Office. PW2 identified the handwriting and the signature of the accused in Exts.P1 to P4 vouchers. He also gave evidence that Exts.P1(a), P2(a) and P4(a) endorsements are in the handwriting of the accused. He identified the initials of the accused below those endorsements. 18. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused admitted that Exts.P1 to P4 vouchers had been written by him and they bear his signature. He also gave evidence that Exts.P1(a), P2(a) and P4(a) endorsements are in the handwriting of the accused. He identified the initials of the accused below those endorsements. 18. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused admitted that Exts.P1 to P4 vouchers had been written by him and they bear his signature. The accused also admitted that Exts.P1(a), P2(a) and P4(a) endorsements were written by him and signed by him. 19. Thus, the prosecution could prove beyond reasonable doubt that Exts.P1 to P4 vouchers are documents prepared by the accused. The prosecution could also prove that the endorsements on the back of Exts.P1, P2 and P4 vouchers had been written and signed by the accused. 20. PW2 has given evidence to the effect that the amount of Rs.5,814/- shown in Ext.P4 voucher, which was due from the Kerala Automobiles Limited, was received at the Regional Office of the Hantex. PW2 has also given evidence that the cash bills relating to Exts.P1 to P4 vouchers had been received in the Regional Office. 21. The plea of the accused is that he had supplied the materials to the Collectorate as requested by the Confidential Assistant of the District Collector. The entry in Exts.P1 to P4 vouchers is that the textile items were supplied to the Collectorate. There is no evidence adduced by the prosecution to find that the textile items, covered by Exts.P1 to P4 vouchers, had not been received in the Collectorate. The prosecution made attempt to prove the documents contained in Ext.P13 file relating to the departmental enquiry conducted against a Clerk in the Collectorate. Ext.P13 file was marked through PW7. He has stated on cross-examination that he had no occasion to deal with Ext.P13 file. Therefore, whatever evidence given by this witness with regard to the contents of the documents in Ext.P13 file is hearsay and no reliance can be placed upon his evidence in that regard. The trial court has heavily relied upon the documents contained in Ext.P13 file to find that the plea of the accused is probable. Since the contents of the documents in Ext.P13 file have not been brought out in evidence through a competent witness, neither the prosecution nor the accused could rely upon them. Moreover, Ext.P13 file does not relate to any supply or purchase of materials in the Collectorate on the basis of Exts.P1 to P4 vouchers. 22. Since the contents of the documents in Ext.P13 file have not been brought out in evidence through a competent witness, neither the prosecution nor the accused could rely upon them. Moreover, Ext.P13 file does not relate to any supply or purchase of materials in the Collectorate on the basis of Exts.P1 to P4 vouchers. 22. The prosecution has no case that, on preparing Exts.P1 to P4 vouchers, the accused had supplied the materials shown in them to some other persons and obtained the price of the materials from such persons and misappropriated the amount. The prosecution has also no case that the accused had used the textile materials for his own purposes. The prosecution has no case that, the accused, without making any entry in the stock register, supplied the materials to the Collectorate or any other person. In such circumstances, the burden was upon the prosecution to prove that the textile items shown in Exts.P1 to P4 vouchers were actually not supplied to the Collectorate. No person who was dealing with such matters in the Collectorate during the relevant period was examined by the prosecution. 23. If the accused had any dishonest intention to misappropriate the textile items, he would not have prepared Exts.P1 to P4 vouchers in the manner in which it has been prepared by him and he would not have sent such vouchers to the Regional Office. In Exts.P1, P2 and P4 vouchers, he has made Exts.P1(a), P2(a), and P4(a) endorsements acknowledging his liability in respect of the price of the materials described therein. He also sent such vouchers, which contained acknowledgement of his liability, to the Regional Office. The evidence of PW2 would show the accused had also sent cash bills relating to those vouchers to the Regional Office. If he had any intention to misappropriate the materials, he would not have prepared the vouchers and sent them to the Regional Office. If he had any intention to misappropriate the materials, there was no need to prepare such vouchers and to send them to the Regional Office. If he had any intention to misappropriate the materials, he would not have prepared the vouchers and sent them to the Regional Office. If he had any intention to misappropriate the materials, there was no need to prepare such vouchers and to send them to the Regional Office. The very fact that the accused had admitted the liability in respect of the price of the materials shown in Exts.P1 to P4 vouchers, by making endorsement to that effect on the vouchers, would indicate that they are not false vouchers created by him with any dishonest intention but they are vouchers prepared by him for actual supply of the materials to the Collectorate at his own risk for their price. Even assuming that the procedure adopted by the accused was highly irregular, as observed by the trial court, it does not attract the offences alleged against him. The view taken by the trial court in this regard is a reasonable and probable view and it does not warrant interference by this Court in an appeal against acquittal. 24. The second allegation against the accused is that, on 05.10.1993, he had received an amount of Rs.1,886/-from the Carmal Girls High School as payment towards the credit sale earlier made in favour of the school but he remitted only an amount of Rs.1,186/-, that too, only on 30.06.1994. Therefore, it is alleged that he temporarily misappropriated Rs.1,186/- and that he misappropriated the balance amount of Rs.700/-. 25. The prosecution relies upon the testimony of PW3 and the documents marked as Exts.P7, P8 and P16 to prove the above allegation against the accused. 26. PW3 was the Office Assistant of the Carmal Girls High School. She has given evidence that, on 05.10.1993, she had given an amount of Rs.1,886/- to the accused as payment of the instalment towards the credit purchase earlier made for Rs.13,300.35/-. PW3 also deposed that the accused did not give her any receipt for the amount but he told her that the amount would be remitted at the Head Office and receipt would be given later. PW3 also deposed that the accused came to her house on another day and gave her Ext.P8, the photocopy of a receipt for Rs.1,186/-. 27. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused admitted receipt of Rs.1,886/-from PW3 through the staff who was working with him on daily wages. PW3 also deposed that the accused came to her house on another day and gave her Ext.P8, the photocopy of a receipt for Rs.1,186/-. 27. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused admitted receipt of Rs.1,886/-from PW3 through the staff who was working with him on daily wages. The accused also stated that he had given receipt for the amount received. 28. Payment of Rs.1,886/- by PW3 to the accused and receipt of that amount by the accused from PW3 are proved by the evidence of PW3. 29. However, there is no reliable evidence to find that the accused misappropriated the amount of Rs.1,886/- which was received by him from PW3. Misappropriation of the amount of Rs.1,886/- by the accused could have been proved by the prosecution only by producing and proving the receipt book containing copy of the receipts covering the date 05.10.1993. The prosecution did not produce that document to prove absence of remittance of the amount Rs.1,886/- by the accused. The headmaster of the school was also not examined by the prosecution to prove that receipt for Rs.1,886/- was not received in the school without delay. 30. Of course, the prosecution has produced Ext.P16 receipt book for the period from 25.06.1994 to 15.07.1994. It contains copy of a receipt dated 30.06.1994 for Rs.1,186/-. But, the prosecution has no case that the accused was the Depot Manager of Hantex on 30.06.1994. There is no evidence to find who had signed the receipt for Rs.1,186/- dated 30.06.1994. The signature purported to have been made in that receipt is that of the Regional Manager/ Factory Manager. This receipt does not lead to an inference that it relates to part of the amount which was received from PW3 by the accused on 15.10.1993. It would only show that a receipt dated 30.06.1994 for Rs.1,186/- was issued from Hantex in favour of the school. 31. PW3 has given evidence that a receipt for Rs.700/-had been received in the school subsequently. There is no evidence as to the date on which it was issued. As noticed earlier, the headmaster of the school was not examined by the prosecution to prove these facts. 32. In the above circumstances, the prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed mis-appropriation in respect of the amount of Rs.1,886/- which was received by him from PW3 on 15.10.1993. 33. As noticed earlier, the headmaster of the school was not examined by the prosecution to prove these facts. 32. In the above circumstances, the prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed mis-appropriation in respect of the amount of Rs.1,886/- which was received by him from PW3 on 15.10.1993. 33. In the light of the discussion above, I find no sufficient ground to interfere with the judgment of the trial court acquitting the accused. The appeal is liable to be dismissed. Consequently, the appeal fails and it is dismissed.