JUDGMENT S.K. Sahoo, J. - The appellants Ramesh Chandra Patel (CRLA No. 208 of 2003) and Dibakar Pradhan (CRLA No. 294 of 2003) faced trial in the Court of learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpur in T.R. Case No.14 of 1995 for offences punishable under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter 1988 Act') and sections 467, 471 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on the accusation that in the month of May 1991, they being the public servants, in furtherance of their common intention committed criminal misconduct by dishonestly misappropriating a sum of Rs.6250/- (rupees six thousand two hundred fifty) entrusted to them, forged certain documents purporting to be valuable security i.e., payment vouchers and L.T.Is. of the payees and also fraudulently used those documents as genuine knowing the same to be forged documents. The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 06.08.2003, found both the appellants guilty of all the charges and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand) each, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(c) of the 1988 Act and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (rupees five thousand) each, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one week each on each count for the offences under sections 467/471 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and all the substantive sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently. Since both the appeals arise out of one common judgment, with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, those were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The prosecution case, in short, as per the first information report (Ext.8) lodged by Deonarayan Jha (P.W.12), the Inspector of police, Vigilance, Reserve Squad No.1, Sambalpur before the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Sambalpur Division, Sambalpur on 24.06.1991 is that he received reliable information that the Social Forest Supervisor and the Village Forest Worker of Kolabira S.F. Range under Social Forestry Project Division, Sambalpur have misappropriated the Govt. money amounting to Rs.6250/- by showing false digging of pits in respect of Kendudihi village woodlot over an area of 2 hectares of land by preparing false vouchers during the month of May 1991. After verification of the concerned documents in the office of the Deputy Director, S.F.P. Division, Sambalpur, the informant (P.W.12) proceeded to the spot along with other officials and verified the pits which were dug over two separate sites in patches and counted the same in presence of the witnesses and found that only 1828 numbers of pits were dug in place of 5000 numbers of pits shown to have been dug in vouchers nos.93 and 94 of May 1991 of Kolabira S.F. Range. The S.F.S. and V.F.W of Kolabira S.F. Range were found absent from their head quarters on 08.06.1991 and though P.W.12 searched for them but nobody could able to say about their whereabouts on that day. P.W.12 verified the records and vouchers in the office of the Deputy Director, S.F.P., Division, Sambalpur and it was found that vouchers nos.93 and 94 were submitted by the V.F.W. and S.F.S. of Kolabira S.F. Range for an amount of Rs.6250/- for digging of 5000 numbers of pits. It is the further prosecution case as per the F.I.R. that out the aforesaid sum of Rs.6250/-, a sum of Rs.3125/- was shown to have been paid for the execution of work in favour of Lalmani Khadia and fourteen others of village Bagdihi under Laikera police station in the district of Sambalpur and the works were shown to have been executed in between 22.4.1991 to 30.04.1991. Similarly another sum of Rs.3125/- was shown to have been paid to the aforesaid persons for the works executed in between 01.05.1991 to 09.05.1991. The Investigating Officer (P.W.12) on further verification at village Bagdihi found that there was no such person by name Lalmani Khadia in that village as well as fourteen others whose names were appearing in the vouchers nos.93 and 94 and it was also ascertained that no labourers of village Bagdihi dug any pits at Kendudihi during that year. The Investigating Officer (P.W.12) on further verification at village Bagdihi found that there was no such person by name Lalmani Khadia in that village as well as fourteen others whose names were appearing in the vouchers nos.93 and 94 and it was also ascertained that no labourers of village Bagdihi dug any pits at Kendudihi during that year. It is the further prosecution case as per the F.I.R. that the I.O. (P.W.12) conducted further enquiry in village Kendudihi and ascertained that eight numbers of young labourers of village Kendudihi had worked for digging pits at the spot and those persons were also examined by the I.O. and they stated that they dug the pits at the spot and received payment @ Rs.0.50 paise per pit. Those persons also stated that they were not paid daily wages of Rs.25/- each as claimed in the two vouchers rather they were paid on job work basis at the rate of Rs.0.50 paise per pit each by appellant Dibakar Pradhan, V.F.W at Kendudihi and they had signed/given their L.T.Is. on a voucher while receiving the payments from V.F.W. They only dug pits over about half of the plot of land and stopped further due to hard soil and summer. On verification, the I.O. found that only 1828 numbers of pits were dug at village Kendudihi by 08.06.1991 instead of 5000 numbers of pits shown to have been dug by 09.05.1991 showing payment of Rs.6250/- to 15 nos. of fake labourers of village Bagdihi. It is the further prosecution case that forged vouchers were prepared by the Village Forest Worker and it was accepted by Kolabira S.F. Range who submitted the same to the Dy. Director, S.F.P. Division, Sambalpur. During course of enquiry, the I.O. (P.W.12) learnt that the appellant Dibakar Pradhan, the Village Forest Worker was in-charge of the plantation work at Kendudihi and appellant Sri Ramesh Ch. Patel was in-charge of Social Forestry Range at Kolabira S.F. Range and they were found absent from their Headquarters. It is further stated in the F.I.R. that as per Social Forestry instructions Hand Book Vol. 1 Chapter 9 Provision 11.2, the Social Forestry Supervisor i.e., the appellant Sri Ramesh Ch. Patel is supposed to make payment himself as far as practicable. It is further stated in the F.I.R. that as per Social Forestry instructions Hand Book Vol. 1 Chapter 9 Provision 11.2, the Social Forestry Supervisor i.e., the appellant Sri Ramesh Ch. Patel is supposed to make payment himself as far as practicable. He was further supposed to supervise the plantation works thoroughly while it was in progress and was supposed to visit each and every plantation sites regularly. The further prosecution case is that the appellant Ramesh Ch. Patel facilitated misappropriation of Govt. fund by the subordinate staff i.e., the appellant Sri Dibakar Pradhan, V.F.W. and by way of illegal omission, he abetted the crime. The F.I.R. was lodged on the accusation that without executing the works as per vouchers and by preparing false and forged vouchers, the appellants misappropriated Govt. money to the tune of Rs.6250/- in furtherance of their common intention. On the basis of such first information report (Ext.8), Sambalpur Vigilance P.S. Case No.19 of 1991 was registered under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(c)(d) of 1988 Act and sections 467/471 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the two appellants. The superintendent of Police, Sambalpur directed P.W.12 to take up investigation of the case and during course of investigation, P.W.12 visited the spot on 08.06.1991 along with other officials, Forest Guard of Kolabira S.F. Range and villagers of Kendudihi. The spot was identified by the Forest Guard and the villagers, which was a gochar land of village Kendudihi situated over plot nos.910 and 987 of Khata no.261 measuring 2 hectares. The I.O. found some pits were dug and major portion were left without digging any pit. He counted the numbers of pits already dug which came to 1828 in place of 5000 numbers of pits shown in the records maintained by the two appellants in the Division office, Sambalpur. The I.O. examined some villagers of Kendudihi and Bagdihi and all of them denied to have completed the works or to have received any amount or to be working at the spot. They denied their knowledge about such persons who were shown in the vouchers. The I.O. (P.W.12) collected the specimen finger prints of two persons namely, Nandalal Khadia and Loknath Khadia who were identified by the appellant Dibakar Pradhan as payees Lalmani Khadia and Gopal Khadia in the vouchers nos.93 and 94 of May 1991. They denied their knowledge about such persons who were shown in the vouchers. The I.O. (P.W.12) collected the specimen finger prints of two persons namely, Nandalal Khadia and Loknath Khadia who were identified by the appellant Dibakar Pradhan as payees Lalmani Khadia and Gopal Khadia in the vouchers nos.93 and 94 of May 1991. The specimen finger prints were sent to Finger Print Bureau for comparison with the finger prints of payees in the voucher which did not tally and in that connection the opinion of the finger print expert has been proved as Ext.7. The I.O. seized the vouchers and other relevant documents as per seizure list Ext.1, he seized the V.F.C. Resolution Book, Nursery Journal, Plantation Journal of village Kendudihi, Village Committee Resolution Book of Laikera as per seizure list Ext.3. He also seized Cash Copy of cash account of Kolabira S.F. Range for the month of May 1991 and original vouchers nos.93 and 94 of May 1991 of Kolabira S.F. Range for Rs.3125/- each as per seizure list Ext.9. The I.O. (P.W.12) also obtained the sanction order (Ext.4) from the competent authority i.e. Deputy Director, Social Forestry Project Division, Sambalpur after due discussion with him for appellant Dibakar Pradhan, the V.F.W. So far as appellant Ramesh Ch. Patel, Social Forestry Supervisor, Kolabira is concerned, the sanction order (Ext.6) was obtained from the Principal, Chief Conservator of Forests, Odisha, Bhubaneswar. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted on 03.04.1995 against both the appellants under sections 13(2) read with section 13(1)(c)(d) of 1988 Act and sections 467/471 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The defence plea of the appellants was one of denial and it is specifically stated that 5000 numbers of pits were dug and payment has been made to the persons who had worked for digging the lands. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses. P.W.1 Santi Kumar Sahu was the Vigilance Constable working in Division Office, Sambalpur and he was attached to the Investigating Officer (P.W.12) and accompanied him to village Kenudihi under Kolabira Block to enquire as to the number of pits dug by the appellants who were entrusted with the plantation work. He assisted P.W.12 in counting the number of pits on the spot and found it to be 1828 pits dug by the labourers engaged by the appellant Dibakar Pradhan. He assisted P.W.12 in counting the number of pits on the spot and found it to be 1828 pits dug by the labourers engaged by the appellant Dibakar Pradhan. He further stated about the seizure of some documents on 09.09.1991 on production by the Head Clerk of the Social Forestry as per seizure Ext.1. P.W.2 Sachidananda Padhi was the Amin in the office of Dy. Director, Social Project Forest Division, Sambalpur and he stated that he prepared a sketch map of mouza Bhatlaida covered by Khata no.261 comprising plot no.910 which has been maked as Ext.2. P.W.3 Debabrat Buxi was the Junior Clerk in the office of Dy. Director, Social Forestry Project Division, Sambalpur and he stated about the seizure of certain documents like original vouchers nos.93 and 94 and Cash Copy of cash account as per seizure list Ext.3. P.W.4 Chakrum Khadia stated nothing about the prosecution case. P.W.5 Shabda Kisan was the member of the village Forest Committee and he simply stated that the labourers were engaged for digging pits for plantation work during the relevant time in selected areas. P.W.6 Ladru Khadia stated that he was engaged as a labourer for plantation work and some pits were dug in village Kendudihi for aforestation/plantation and he was paid as per the works by the department. He was declared hostile by the prosecution and cross-examined. P.W.7 Jubaraj Kisan was also the member of the Village Forest Committee and he stated that the pits around their village at selected areas were dug for plantation and he himself worked as a labourer in that work and he dug about 100 pits and received payment for the work. P.W.8 Arjun Seth was the Range Officer attached to S.P. (Vig.) Office, Sambalpur and he stated to have accompanied the D.S.P. (Vig.) and Inspector (Vig.) to village Kendudihi under Kolabira Range and found only 1828 numbers of pits were dug for plantation purpose instead of 5000 pits and he further stated that the area had been demarcated keeping stones on four corners. P.W.9 Subas Chandra Mishra was the Dy. Director, Social Forestry Project Division, Sambalpur and he, after discussing with the I.O., accorded sanction for prosecution against the appellant Dibakar Pradhan, V.F.W., Kendudihi Section under Kolabira Social Forestry Range and he proved the sanction order (Ext.4). P.W.9 Subas Chandra Mishra was the Dy. Director, Social Forestry Project Division, Sambalpur and he, after discussing with the I.O., accorded sanction for prosecution against the appellant Dibakar Pradhan, V.F.W., Kendudihi Section under Kolabira Social Forestry Range and he proved the sanction order (Ext.4). P.W.10 Sourendra Bose was the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and on perusal of the documents produced by the Investigating Officer and discussion with the I.O., he gave the sanction order for prosecution of the appellant Ramesh Chandra Patel, Forest Ranger and the sanction order is marked as Ext.6. P.W.11 Amar Bikram Das was the finger print expert who examined the disputed finger prints and gave his opinion which has been marked as Ext.7. P.W.12 Deonarayan Jha was the Inspector of Vigilance, Sambalpur who is not only the informant of the case but also the Investigating Officer who on completion of investigation, submitted charge sheet. The prosecution exhibited nine documents. Exts.1, 3 and 9 are the seizure lists, Ext.4 is the sanction order in respect of appellant Dibakar Pradhan, Ext.5 is the forwarding letter addressed to S.P. Vigilance, Sambalpur, Ext.6 is the sanction order in respect of appellant Ramesh Chandra Patel, Ex.7 is the opinion of the finger print expert and Ext.8 is the first information report. No witness has been examined on behalf of the defence. 5. The learned trial Court framed two points for consideration which are as follows:- (i) Whether 1828 pits as claimed by the prosecution has been dug instead of 5000 pits, and (ii) Whether false vouchers have been created and submitted drawing Rs.6250/- showing digging of 5000 pits sheets instead of 1828 pits. 6. After analyzing the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned trial Court came to hold that 5000 pits had not been dug as claimed by the appellants. It was further held that without engaging labourers, false vouchers were prepared and by submitting those false vouchers, the appellants withdrew the amounts and that only 1828 pits were dug and @ 0.50 paise per pit, an amount of Rs.918/- was spent and thus the balance amount of Rs.5,332/- under the vouchers were withdrawn and misappropriated by the appellants. Accordingly, the learned trial Court held that the prosecution has successfully established its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the two appellants. 7. Mr. Accordingly, the learned trial Court held that the prosecution has successfully established its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the two appellants. 7. Mr. Sampad Kumar Subudhi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Ramesh Chandra Patel in CRLA No.208 of 2003 and Mr. Alok Kumar Panda, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Dibakar Pradhan in CRLA No.294 of 2003 argued that though it is the prosecution case that P.W.12, the I.O. made the spot verification along with others on 08.06.1991, but there is absence of any clinching material relating to which plot of which khata, he verified and there is no clinching material that the correct spot was identified to the I.O. (P.W.12). It is further argued that though the prosecution case is that two vouchers i.e., vouchers nos. 93 and 94 were forged and the persons in whose favour money was shown to have been paid are non-existent ones, but those two vouchers were not proved during trial and those should have been marked as exhibits. Merely showing that the vouchers were seized under seizure list Ext.9 is not sufficient. Moreover, no specific questions have been put to the appellants with reference to those two vouchers and the money involved in those two vouchers in their accused statements and in absence of that, the learned trial Court erred in utilizing the evidence relating to payment of money through the vouchers nos.93 and 94 against the appellants and arriving at a conclusion that those were forged vouchers and the amount reflected therein was misappropriated by the appellants. It is further argued that though impersonation of two persons, namely, Nandalal Khadia and Loknath Khadia was alleged by the prosecution and the Investigating Officer (P.W.12) stated that the appellant Dibakar Pradhan identified them as Lalmani Khadia and Gopal Ghadia to be the payees in the vouchers nos.93 and 94 of May 1991, but neither Nandalal Khadia nor Lokanath Khadia was examined in the learned trial Court to say that their L.T.Is. were taken by P.W.12. Learned counsel further argued that two of the persons who were engaged in the pits digging work were examined by the prosecution as P.W.6 and P.W.7 and they have stated that they worked as the labourers in the work and they were paid for their work and their evidence give a death-knell to the prosecution case. were taken by P.W.12. Learned counsel further argued that two of the persons who were engaged in the pits digging work were examined by the prosecution as P.W.6 and P.W.7 and they have stated that they worked as the labourers in the work and they were paid for their work and their evidence give a death-knell to the prosecution case. Learned counsel further contended that the Investigating Officer (P.W.12) stated that the signature of one Sabada Kisan (P.W.5) was taken on the sheet in which the specimen L.T.Is. of Nandalal Khadia and Loknath Khadia were taken, but P.W.5 is completely silent in that respect and even the signature of P.W.5 in the sheet was not shown to him by the prosecution at the time of his examination for proving the same in accordance with law, rather P.W.5 stated in the cross-examination that 5000 to 7000 pits were dug at the relevant point of time in their village in two to three selected areas. The I.O. admits that he had not taken the signature of Dibakar Pradhan on that sheet. It is further submitted that though the Investigating Officer is the informant in the case and has stated that number of persons accompanied him for the spot verification work, but out of them, only P.W.5 has been examined, who has not stated to have accompanied P.W.12 during spot verification. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that in absence of any clinching material relating to misappropriation of amount of Rs.6250/- by the appellants and in absence of proving the relevant documents and non-examination of material witnesses and glaring infirmity in the accused statements, it cannot be said that the prosecution has successfully established its case against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore, it is a fit case where benefit of doubt should be extended in favour of the appellants. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Das, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Vigilance Department, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment and submitted that even though the charge was framed that the appellants misappropriated Govt. fund of Rs.6,250/-, but after discussing the evidence on record, the Court came to a finding that the misappropriation amount is Rs.5,332/-. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Das, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Vigilance Department, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment and submitted that even though the charge was framed that the appellants misappropriated Govt. fund of Rs.6,250/-, but after discussing the evidence on record, the Court came to a finding that the misappropriation amount is Rs.5,332/-. It is further submitted that even though two persons were identified as the payees, namely Lalmani Khadia and Gopal Khadia by the appellant Dibakar Pradhan, in fact those two persons were Nandalal Khadia and Loknath Khadia and that is the reason why the specimen finger prints of those two persons did not tally with the finger prints appearing in the vouchers nos.93 and 94 as per the finger print examination report marked as Ext.7. The handwriting expert being examined as P.W.11 has stated in that respect and no questions have been put by the learned defence counsel in the cross-examination. It is argued that since there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and the appellants have been rightly found guilty by the learned trial Court, the appeals should be dismissed. 8. Adverting to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the prosecution case is that the appellants misappropriated a sum of Rs.6250/- which was entrusted to them for digging of pits and to substantiate the same, reliance has been placed on two vouchers i.e. vouchers nos.93 and 94. The Investigating Officer has categorically stated in his evidence that he has seized the original vouchers nos.93 and 94 under seizure list Ext.9, but those two vouchers which are very material documents have not been proved during trial. No specific questions in respect of those two vouchers and the amount reflected therein have also been put to any of appellants in their accused statements. In question no.5, it has been put to the appellants that from the evidence of P.W.12, it appears that P.W.6 and some others though actually not engaged in digging pits but they (appellants) had submitted vouchers showing their engagement and payment and the appellants have replied that whosoever has done the work, payment has been made to them accordingly. In question no.5, it has been put to the appellants that from the evidence of P.W.12, it appears that P.W.6 and some others though actually not engaged in digging pits but they (appellants) had submitted vouchers showing their engagement and payment and the appellants have replied that whosoever has done the work, payment has been made to them accordingly. In fact P.W.6 who was engaged as a labourer in the work of digging pits for aforestation/plantation has stated that he was paid for his work by the Department. No doubt this witness has been declared hostile by the prosecution but law is well settled that the evidence of the hostile witness cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether and the same can be accepted to the extent the version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny. Both the prosecution as well as the defence can take the help of such evidence which is favourable to them. P.W.7 worked as a labourer for such work and he stated to have dug around one hundred pits and was paid for the work. He has not been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, I am of the humble view that in absence of proving the original vouchers nos.93 and 94 and not putting any specific questions with regard to such vouchers to the appellants, has caused serious prejudice to the appellants. Law is well settled that every material piece of evidence which the prosecution proposes to use against the accused should be put to him in clear terms in the accused statement, otherwise it cannot be utilized against him. The purpose of accused statement is to afford opportunity to the accused to explain the circumstances which were appearing against him in the evidence adduced by the prosecution as well as to put his own version with regard to alleged involvement in the crime. Therefore, for non-proving of the material documents and non-putting of any questions specifically with reference to those two vouchers, it is very difficult to believe that the prosecution has proved the entrustment of amount of Rs.6250/- to the appellants for the purpose of digging pits. Therefore, for non-proving of the material documents and non-putting of any questions specifically with reference to those two vouchers, it is very difficult to believe that the prosecution has proved the entrustment of amount of Rs.6250/- to the appellants for the purpose of digging pits. The prosecution case is that the appellant Dibakar Pradhan identified two persons as Lalmani Khadia and Gopal Khadia who were the payees in the vouchers nos.93 and 94 of May 1991 but those two persons were in fact Nandalal Khadia and Loknath Khadia. The Investigating Officer (P.W.12) has collected their specimen finger prints and sent it to finger print expert for comparison with reference to the L.T.I.s which were appearing in vouchers nos. 93 and 94. Though the Investigating Officer states that in presence of P.W.5, the specimen finger prints of Nandalal Khadia and Loknath Khadia were collected, but P.W.5 is totally silent in that respect. It is stated by P.W.12 that signature of P.W.5 was taken in the two sheets where L.T.I.s of Nandalal Khadia and Loknath Khadia were taken but the signature of P.W.5 was not shown to him (P.W.5) for proving the same during trial. Therefore, it becomes doubtful that at the instance of the appellant Dibakar Pradhan and that to in the presence of P.W.5, the specimen finger prints of Nandalal Khadia and Loknath Khadia were taken. This is a serious lacuna in the prosecution case by not examining those two witnesses like Nandalal Khadia and Loknath Khadia to whom appellant Dibakar Pradhan stated to have identified as Lalmani Khadia and Gopal Khadia as payees in the vouchers. Had they been examined, they would have stated whether their specimen finger prints were collected by the I.O. on being identified by appellant Dibakar Pradhan. Thus there is no corroboration to the evidence of P.W.12 that the appellant Dibakar Pradhan identified two other persons as the payees in the vouchers and they were not genuine persons. So far as the counting of pits are concerned, the F.I.R. (Ext.8) itself indicates that P.W.12 visited the spot on 08.06.1991 with seven persons for verification, but out of them only P.W.1 Santi Kumar Sahu, P.W.7 Jubaraj Kisan and P.W.8 Arjun Seth have been examined. So far as the counting of pits are concerned, the F.I.R. (Ext.8) itself indicates that P.W.12 visited the spot on 08.06.1991 with seven persons for verification, but out of them only P.W.1 Santi Kumar Sahu, P.W.7 Jubaraj Kisan and P.W.8 Arjun Seth have been examined. So far as P.W.1 Santi Kumar Sahu is concerned, he stated that he assisted P.W.12 in counting the numbers of pits and there were 1828 pits dug by labourers engaged by the appellant Dibakar Pradhan but in the cross- examination he has stated that P.W.12, he himself and D.S.P. Birupakhya Mishra counted the pits separately and that he did not remember the numbers of pits he counted separately. He further stated that P.W.12 showed him the place where the pits were dug and there was no demarcation done in his presence. So far as P.W.7 is concerned, his evidence is silent that he accompanied the I.O. during course of spot verification, rather he stated that he was the member of the Village Forest Committee and pits were dug around their village at selected areas and he himself worked in such work as a labourer and dug about 100 pits and he was also paid for his work. So far as P.W.8 is concerned, he has stated that he accompanied P.W.12 to village Kendudihi under Kolabira Range and found 1828 pits have been dug for plantation purpose instead of 5000 pits and the area had been demarcated by keeping stones on four corners. In the cross-examination, he has stated that the local staff of Forest Department accompanied them to the spot and pointed out the area, but the I.O. has stated that the spot was identified to him by the Forest Guard Sesadeb Sharma who has not been examined. P.W.8 has further stated that those 1828 pits were at one place. No sheet of paper has been proved by the prosecution relating to how the counting was made on the date of verification rather the I.O. has stated that he did not prepare any chart as to who counted how many pits, but he stated that he counted all the pits. Even though the I.O. has stated that one Salima and the villagers identified the land on which he counted the pits, but neither Salima nor a single person who stated to have identified the spot to the I.O. has been examined in the trial. Even though the I.O. has stated that one Salima and the villagers identified the land on which he counted the pits, but neither Salima nor a single person who stated to have identified the spot to the I.O. has been examined in the trial. Therefore, there is lack of clinching evidence on record as to whether the place where pits were dug for plantation purpose was shown properly to the I.O. or not. Since the person named by the I.O. to have identified the spot to him has not been examined and no documents have been prepared in respect to the counting of the pits, it is very difficult to accept the prosecution case that the counting was made properly and at proper place and therefore, the finding on that score by the learned trial Court that only 1828 number of pits were dug is very difficult to be accepted. Thus the very documents in respect of which forgery alleged to have been committed and used as genuine are not proved during trial and the oral evidence relating to the forgery and misappropriation of the Govt. fund is also not trustworthy and acceptable. Therefore, I am of the humble view that it cannot be said that the prosecution has successfully established its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the appellant. 9. In the result, both the criminal appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction of the appellants under sections 13(2) read with section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sections 467/471 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence passed thereunder is hereby set aside. The appellants in both the appeals are acquitted of all the charges. The appellants are on bail by virtue of the orders of this Court. They are discharged from liability of their bail bonds. Their personal bonds and the surety bonds stand cancelled. Lower Court records with a copy of this judgment be sent down to the learned trial Court forthwith for information.