JUDGMENT : G.S. Ahluwalia, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the Judgment dated 29-5-2013 passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Gwalior in Special Sessions Trial No. 01/2010 by which the respondent has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 15 of Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120-B of IPC. 2. The necessary facts for disposal of the present appeal in short are that one Sudhir Singh, resident of Tansen Nagar, Gwalior, made a complaint against Vivek Singh, the then Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Gwalior, that forged files of work worth Rs. 2 Crores have been prepared in the name of maintenance work of water supply. In the name of sanctioning the work and forged payment, illegal gratification in lacs has been taken. Accordingly, on the orders of Lokayukt, an enquiry was conducted by Commissioner, Municipal Corporation and Divisional Vigilance Committee and prima facie the allegations were found proved and accordingly, the matter was handed over to Special Police Establishment (Lokayukt), Bhopal. Shri Kaptan Singh Nagar was appointed as investigating officer, and looking to the large number of files, Virendra Singh Tomar and Anil Kumar Agrawal, Inspectors were also authorized to investigate. 3. The investigating officer recorded the statements of the witnesses. Sanction to prosecute co-accused Hari Singh Khairwar was obtained and accordingly, charge sheet was filed against the respondent, co-accused K.K. Shrivastava, R.B. Shrivastava, Narenda Singh Bhadoria, Ajay Pandvia, Hari Singh Khairwar and Kamal Kishore Puniyani. 4. By order dated 6-3-2010, the Trial Court refused to take cognizance against respondent, co-accused K.K. Shrivastava, Narendra Singh Bhadoria, Ajay Pandvia and R.B. Shrivastava in absence of sanction for prosecution, however, took cognizance against the co-accused Hari Singh Khairwar and Kamal Kishore Puniyani. 5. It is not out of place to mention here that the co-accused Hari Singh Khairwar and Kamal Kishore Puniyani were tried and they were acquitted by Judgment dated 29-7-2011, against which the State has filed Cr.A. No. 959 of 2013, which too has been heard simultaneously along with these appeals. 6. Subsequently, supplementary charge sheet was filed against the respondent, co-accused Narendra Singh Bhadoriya, and K.K.Shrivastava after taking sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act and supplementary charge sheet was also filed against Ajay Pandvia had taken voluntary retirement whereas R.B. Shrivastava had stood superannuated. 7. 6. Subsequently, supplementary charge sheet was filed against the respondent, co-accused Narendra Singh Bhadoriya, and K.K.Shrivastava after taking sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act and supplementary charge sheet was also filed against Ajay Pandvia had taken voluntary retirement whereas R.B. Shrivastava had stood superannuated. 7. Similarly, by the impugned judgment, the Trial Court has convicted Narendra Singh Bhadoria, Ajay Pandvia, K.K. Shrivastava and R.B. Shrivastava, against which they have filed Cr.A. No.s 429 of 2013, 440 of 2013, 441 of 2013 and 445 of 2013, which too have been heard simultaneously along with this Criminal Appeal. 8. The Trial Court framed charges under Sections 15 of Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120-B of IPC against the respondent and co-accused K.K. Shrivastava, Ajay Pandvia, R.B. Shrivastava and framed charges under Sections 15 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 120-B, 420,467,468 and 471 of IPC against co-accused Narendra Singh Bhadoria. 9. The respondent and the co-accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded not guilty. 10. The prosecution examined Kishorilal (P.W.1), Hari Singh (P.W.2), Yogendra Pal Singh Sisodiya (P.W.3), Mohan Singh Chandel (P.W. 4), Rajendra Singh Dikshit (P.W.5), Rajesh Sharma (P.W.6), Mohd. Ubbais Siddique (P.W.7), Sharad Chandra Garg (P.W.8), Kusumlata Sharma (P.W.9), M.R. Godhiya (P.W.10), Devendra Singh Chauhan (P.W.11), A. Pradhan (P.W. 12), Vimal Kumar Soni (P.W. 13), Suresh Singh (P.W. 14), Anil Agrawal (P.W. 15), and Virendra Singh Tomar (P.W. 16). 11. The respondent did not examine any witness in his defence. 12. The Trial Court by the impugned judgment has acquitted the respondent. 13. Challenging the judgment of acquittal passed by the Court below, it is submitted by the Counsel for the State that the Trial Court has erred in fact as well as law by holding that the respondent had no role to play in making an attempt to make payment of forged bills. 14. Per contra, the Counsel for the respondent has supported the reasoning given by the Trial Court. 15. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 16. 14. Per contra, the Counsel for the respondent has supported the reasoning given by the Trial Court. 15. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 16. As per the prosecution case, the file, Article A-1 contains an undated letter written by Govind Verma, Councilor, Ward No. 9 Rangiyana Colony, Chaar Shahar Naka, Gwalior, pointing out that because the underground water level has gone down, therefore, water is not coming out of the tube-well installed in Rangiyana Colony and accordingly, it was prayed that in place of submersible pump, hand pump may be installed. A note sheet was prepared by the then Sub-Engineer namely Shri Narendra Singh Bhadoria that “due to scarcity of water in Rangiyana Colony, submersible pump has been removed and bore has been cleaned, so that hand pump can be installed”. It was also mentioned that looking to the shortage of water and summer season, the estimate of work would be Rs. 9,940/-. Accordingly, it was mentioned that quotation may be called. The note sheet was forwarded to Asstt. Engineer. It is not out of place to mention here, that there is no reference of letter allegedly written by Councilor nor the note sheet contains any date. Similarly an estimate of Rs. 9,940/-was prepared by Sub-Engineer Narendra Singh Bhadoria and Asstt. Engineer Ajay Pandvia but no date has been mentioned below their signatures. Thereafter, Asstt. Engineer Ajay Pandvia prepared a note sheet dated 24-7-2003 proposing for calling of quotation and accordingly, Executive Engineer R.N. Karaiya (respondent) granted approval for calling quotation. This note sheet is dated 27-7-2003. Thereafter on 13-8-2003, a notice addressed to three contractors including Kamal Kishore Puniyani was affixed on the Notice Board and the last date for submission of quotation was 19-8-2003, however, the said letter doesnot contain the date of issuance, although it was signed by Asstt. Engineer Ajay Pandvia. On 19-8-2003, three quotations by those three Contractors were submitted. On 19-8-2003, the quotations were opened by Asstt. Engineer Ajay Pandvia by mentioning “Open by” whereas he was not authorized to do so. The quotations are alleged to have been received by Asstt. Engineer as it contains the seal of Asstt. Engineer and all the three quotations were entered into at serial no. 4888,4889 and 4890 in the inward register. None of the quotation bears any date. Engineer Ajay Pandvia by mentioning “Open by” whereas he was not authorized to do so. The quotations are alleged to have been received by Asstt. Engineer as it contains the seal of Asstt. Engineer and all the three quotations were entered into at serial no. 4888,4889 and 4890 in the inward register. None of the quotation bears any date. Further more, the quotations were called from three contractors only and the quotations were never invited from general public/contractors. On 19-8-2003 itself, the Sub-Engineer Narendra Singh Bhadoria wrote a note sheet mentioning that quotations of three firms were received, and the quotation of Kamal Kishore Puniyani was the lowest one. The said note sheet was forwarded to Asstt. Engineer. Asstt. Engineer Ajay Pandvia forwarded the note sheet for approval by Executive Engineer on 19-8-2003 itself. The Executive Engineer (respondent) granted approval on 3-9-2003. Thereafter, the legible copies of the work order were placed for signatures and the seal of approval dated 24-12-2003 by M.I.C. is affixed. It has been signed by Executive Engineer Karaiya (respondent). The work order was issued on 30-12-2003 to Kamal Kishore Puniyani. The work order was issued by Executive Engineer R.N. Karaiya (respondent) and a copy was endorsed to Asstt. Engineer, Water Supply Maintenance Block No. 1. On the said letter it is mentioned that Technical sanction was granted on 9-10-2003. Although a seal to the effect that it has been approved by MIC is affixed but there is no date on it. Although the work order was issued on 30-12-2003, but Kamal Kishore Puniyani submitted the bill on 2-1-2004 i.e., just two days after the work order was issued. On the basis of bill, a seal was affixed to the effect that work was inspected and it was found satisfactory and is in accordance with quality control. The measurement book no. 912 Page no. 2 is mentioned. It is also mentioned that the bill of Rs. 9,940 is presented for payment. The said note sheet has been signed by Sub-Engineer Narendra Singh Bhadoria on 6-1-2004 and it has been certified by Asstt. Engineer Ajay Pandvia on 15-5-2004. On the same page, a recommendation was made for payment of Rs. 9,940/-. However, there is no order by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation. It appears that since a complaint was made, accordingly, the payment was stopped and the file was closed and ultimately no payment was released. Engineer Ajay Pandvia on 15-5-2004. On the same page, a recommendation was made for payment of Rs. 9,940/-. However, there is no order by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation. It appears that since a complaint was made, accordingly, the payment was stopped and the file was closed and ultimately no payment was released. The investigating officer had also carried inspection on the spot, and found that submersible pump was not replaced and hand pump was never installed. 17. Kishorilal (P.W.1) has proved the sanctions for prosecuting R.N. Karaiya (respondent), K.K. Shrivastava, Narendra Singh Bhadoria, which was granted by Dinesh Kumar Nayak, the then Secretary, Law and Legislative Department, Ex. P.1A. 18. Hari Singh (P.W.2) is the Constable who delivered the Dehati Nalishi in the office of S.P.E. (Lokayukt) in Bhopal and on the basis of said Dehati Nalishi, the S.H.O., Satish Kumar Verma lodged FIR, Ex. P.1. 19. Yogendra Pal Singh Sisodiya (P.W.3) has stated that he had joined Municipal Corporation Gwalior as Asstt. Engineer and took voluntary retirement in Oct. 2005 from the post of Superintendent Engineer. He further stated that from 2001 till 2005 he was posted as Executive Engineer and was also in-charge Superintendent Engineer. The accused persons were the officers and employees posted in Public Health and Engineering Department. Public Health and Engineering Department is bifurcated in two Sections i.e., Water Supply Section and Sewer Section. The accused persons were posted in Water Supply office. On 19-3-2005, Nikunj Shrivastava who was posted as Commissioner had constituted an Enquiry Committee for for inspecting 5357 files. This witness was the Chairman, whereas M.S. Chandel, Rajesh Sharma, Sharad Chandra Garg, Arvind Chaturvedi and Ubbais P. Siddique were the members. The files were inspected and was found that spot map was not included and no measurement was mentioned in measurement book and merely estimate was prepared and amount payable was mentioned. In the estimate as well as measurement book, the place of work was not specifically mentioned, but merely the total number of works were mentioned. Separate permission for every maintenance work was not sought, but a consolidated case was presented. The enquiry report is Ex. P. 15 C and its original copy is Ex. P.16. File no. 2 bearing case no. 30/4x9/1 is concerning Public Health and Engineering Department. The spot map is not annexed. Separate permission for every maintenance work was not sought, but a consolidated case was presented. The enquiry report is Ex. P. 15 C and its original copy is Ex. P.16. File no. 2 bearing case no. 30/4x9/1 is concerning Public Health and Engineering Department. The spot map is not annexed. The estimate and rates of work were not in accordance with law and accordingly, it was not possible to give permission for payment and was also not possible to conduct verification. The file No.2 is Article 1 and at page 4, his signatures are at A to A. This witness was cross-examined. 20. In cross-examination, he stated that he had never visited Rangiyana Colony. Since, he was required to give report within 2 months, therefore, he had inspected the files in cursory manner. He did not conduct spot inspection. In the estimate as well as in measurement book, the place of work was not specifically mentioned. The sanction for payment of maintenance expenses were not submitted on individual basis but a consolidated chart was presented. 21. Mohan Singh Chandel (P.W.4) is also one of the members of the Enquiry Committee constituted by Nikunj Shrivastava, the then Municipal Corporation Commissioner. He also stated that he had inspected the files in cursory manner. Article A-1 is the file which contains his signatures at B to B. This file was concerning water problem in Rangiyana Colony. As per the Estimate it was shown that submersible pump was to be removed and hand pump was to be installed. The Committee did not recommend for payment and recommendation was made to close the file. In cross-examination, he stated that he was the Secretary of the Committee. He further stated that spot inspection was not done prior to submitting the report. 22. Rajendra Singh Dikshit (P.W.5) has stated that he was posted as Asstt. Draftsman. The file Article A-1 is the file concerning water scarcity in Rangiyana Colony. Since, this file was never placed before him, therefore, this file doesnot contain his signatures. In cross-examination, this witness tried to take a somersault and admitted that he was posted as Incharge of Technical Branch. He further stated that the estimate was prepared in accordance with law and Technical sanction was given by his office. However, it is clear from File Article A-1, that the Technical sanction was never obtained. In cross-examination, this witness tried to take a somersault and admitted that he was posted as Incharge of Technical Branch. He further stated that the estimate was prepared in accordance with law and Technical sanction was given by his office. However, it is clear from File Article A-1, that the Technical sanction was never obtained. However, this witness retracted from his statement given to the investigating officer regarding the functions of Technical Department. 23. Rajesh Sharma (P.W.6) has stated that he was one of the member of the Enquiry Committee which had inspected around 5000 files and had recommended for closing all the files. The enquiry report is Ex. P.16. He in cross-examination stated that he had not carried out the spot inspection. He also took somersault and said that measurement is mentioned in measurement book and the work was done in accordance with law. 24. Mohd. Ubbais Siddique (P.W.7) was also member of the Enquiry Committee and the Committee had inspected 5000 files and it was recommended that all the files be closed. 25. Sharad Chandra Garg (P.W.8) was also the member of Enquiry Committee. About 5200-5300 files were inspected and it was found that there were lapses. The enquiry committee had not visited the spot. This witness was cross-examined and in cross-examination he admitted that the files were inspected cursorily. Article A-1 is file concerning Rangiyana Colony, and since, red seal is appended, therefore, it is clear that lapses were found and thus payment was not to be made. He further stated that in all the files in which lapses were found a red coloured seal was affixed. He admitted that no spot inspection was carried out. 26. Kusumlata Sharma (P.W.9) has stated that She is working on the post of Tracer. She used to place the sanctioned file before Draftsman Shri R.S. Dikshit. She further stated that in file Article A1 She had written “legible copies of work order” and had put her signatures. This witness was declared hostile. However, nothing could be elicited by the public prosecutor, which may help the prosecution. 27. M.R. Gothia (P.W.10) has stated that he was posted as Executive Engineer and had sent the photo copy of the file containing approval by MIC. In cross-examination, this witness admitted that K.K. Shrivastava, remained incharge of Executive Engineer from 22-1-2004 till 15-6-2004. 28. However, nothing could be elicited by the public prosecutor, which may help the prosecution. 27. M.R. Gothia (P.W.10) has stated that he was posted as Executive Engineer and had sent the photo copy of the file containing approval by MIC. In cross-examination, this witness admitted that K.K. Shrivastava, remained incharge of Executive Engineer from 22-1-2004 till 15-6-2004. 28. Devendra Singh Chauhan (P.W. 11) has stated that by letter Ex. P.18 he had forwarded the copy of order issued by Vivek Singh, Commissioner Municipal Corporation by which powers were conferred on K.K. Shrivastava. 29. A. Pradhan (P.W. 12) had identified signatures of the then Executive Engineer who had supplied the attested service book of R.N. Karaiya by letter Ex. P.20. 30. Vimal Kumar Soni (P.W. 13) had provided the information regarding duties and liabilities of Executive Engineer, Asstt. Engineer, Sub-Engineer, Accountant, Divisional Accountant, vide letter Ex. P.8. 31. Suresh Singh (P.W.14) is a witness before whom the investigating officer had prepared the spot panchnama in Rangiyana Colony, however, he stated that his signatures were obtained and he turned hostile. 32. Anil Agrawal (P.W. 15) is the investigating officer. According to him, he had collected information regarding budget from the office of Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Gwalior. On 11-10-2007 he had recorded the statements of Govind Verma, on 16-11-2007, he had recorded the statements of Suresh Sikarwar and Madan Baba, on 28-1-2008, he had recorded the statement of Mohan Singh Chandel, on 23-1-2008 he recorded the statements of Yogendra Pal Singh Sisodiya, and Rajendra Singh Dikshit, On 8-1-2008 he recorded the statements of Surendra Kumar Juneja, on 7-1-2008 he recorded the statement of Rajesh Sharma, on 5-1-2008 he recorded the statement of Sharad Chandra Garg, on 4-1-2008 he recorded the statements of Kaushlendra Buddhiraja, on 3-1-2008 he recorded the statements of Mohd. U. Siddique and on 6-1-2008 he recorded the statement of Kusumlata Sharma. He filed the charge sheet against Hari Singh Khairwar and Contractor Puniyani after obtaining sanction for prosecution. Later on, after receiving sanction to prosecute R.N. Karaiya the then Executive Engineer (respondent), K.K. Shrivastava the then Executive Engineer, and Narendra Singh Bhadoria, he filed the charge sheet. Since, Ajay Pandvia had taken voluntary retirement and R.B. Shrivastava had retired therefore, there was no need to seek sanction for prosecution. In cross-examination, he admitted that he had not prepared any spot map. Since, Ajay Pandvia had taken voluntary retirement and R.B. Shrivastava had retired therefore, there was no need to seek sanction for prosecution. In cross-examination, he admitted that he had not prepared any spot map. He was also not in a position to say as to whether handpump was installed or not? He admitted that he had not carried out the spot inspection. He also admitted that he had not visited the spot. He admitted that K.K. Shrivastava had remained posted in Corporation from 22-1-2004 till 15-6-2004. He further admitted that no payment was released in favor of Contractor. He also admitted that he is aware of the fact that the Contractor has already been acquitted. 33. Virendra Singh Tomar (P.W. 16) is also one of the investigating officer. He had inspected the file in question, Article A-1. He had visited the spot and had prepared spot panchnama, Ex. P.21. He had found that hand pump was not installed. The work was not done, and inspite of that forged bills were presented. He could not trace out the complainant Sudhir Singh. Since, the allegations made in complaint Ex. P.22 were found correct therefore, he had recorded Dehati Nalishi, Ex. P.23 and sent it for registration of FIR. This witness was cross-examined. 34. In cross-examination, he denied that panchnama was prepared in the office. He denied that he did not carry out spot inspection in Rangiyana Colony. He admitted that the payment of the bills was not released. He admitted that the time of preparing Panchnama, Ex. P.21 is not mentioned. However, he on his own clarified that it was prepared at 2:30 P.M. He denied that he had not investigated the matter properly. 35. Now the moot question for consideration is that whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the respondent beyond reasonable doubt or not? 36. The entire proceedings done by the accused persons can be summed up as under : (a) An undated application was made by Govind Verma, Councilor, Ex. P.22, to the effect that water level has gone down in the water bore situated in Rangiyana Colony, therefore, hand pump may be installed after getting the bore cleaned. It is not out of place to mention here that since, Govind Verma had expired, therefore, he could not be examined. P.22, to the effect that water level has gone down in the water bore situated in Rangiyana Colony, therefore, hand pump may be installed after getting the bore cleaned. It is not out of place to mention here that since, Govind Verma had expired, therefore, he could not be examined. (b) Thereafter, Narendra Singh prepared an undated note sheet to the effect that as the water level in Rangiyana Colony has gone down, therefore, the motor installed in the water bore has been removed and the bore has been cleaned so that hand pump can be installed and looking to the summer season and scarcity of water, the estimate of the work is Rs. 9,940/-. (c) Asstt. Engineer, Ajay Pandvia, forwarded the file to Executive Engineer, R.N. Karaiya (respondent), who by his note sheet dated 277 permitted to call quotations. (e) Quotations were called from three Contractors only including Kamal Kishore Puniyani and all the quotations were received on 19-8-2003 in sequence i.e., at serial no. 4888,4889 and 4890 of inward register. (f) All the three quotations were opened by Ajay Pandvia, Asstt. Engineer on 19-8-2003 itself, although he was not competent to do so and it was for the Technical Department to open the Quotations and to prepare the comparative chart. (g) Thereafter, on 19-8-2003 itself, Sub-Engineer Narendra Singh prepared a note sheet mentioning that as per the order, three quotations were received and the quotations submitted by Kamal Kishore Puniyani is the minimum being of Rs. 9,940/-. (h) Asstt. Engineer Ajay Pandvia placed the proposal for approval on 19-8-2003 and it appears that Executive Engineer R.N. Karaiya (respondent) granted permission on 3-9-2003. (i) Thereafter, the legible typed copy of work order was placed, but the note sheet does not contain any date. Below said noting a rubber seal has been affixed to the effect that MIC has granted approval on 24-12-2003. (j) Work order was issued on 30-12-2003 by the respondent. (k) A rubber stamp was affixed to the effect that work has been completed in his presence, work was satisfactory and is as per the specification, the measurement of the work is mentioned in M.B. 912 page no. 2 and the bill of Rs. 9,940 is presented after the completion of work. This seal is signed by Sub-Engineer Narendra Singh and Asstt. Engineer Ajay Pandvia. 2 and the bill of Rs. 9,940 is presented after the completion of work. This seal is signed by Sub-Engineer Narendra Singh and Asstt. Engineer Ajay Pandvia. Sub-Engineer Narendra Singh has put the date 6-1-2004, whereas Ajay Pandvia has put the date 15-5-2004. (l) Accountant/Auditor /Divisional Accountant/Executive Engineer made recommendation for payment, but the file does not contain approval by Commissioner, Municipal Corporation. (m) The Accountant affixed the rubber seal for payment, however, it appears that since, complaint was made therefore, the payment was stopped and ultimately, after inspection, the enquiry Committee closed the file and payment was not released. 37. The following documents are the part of file Article A-1. (a) Un-dated application of Govind Verma in original; (b) The Original Note Sheets: (c) Index of the Office of the Asstt. Engineer, Maintenance Sub. Dn. Gwalior, Estimate (d) Notice inviting quotations (e) Quotation submitted by respondent no.2. (f) Envelop containing quotation by respondent no.2. (g) Quotation submitted by Tarun Traders (h) Envelop containing quotation by Tarun Traders (i) Quotation by Surendra Kumar Juneja (j) Envelop containing quotation by Surendra Kumar Juneja (k) Proforma of comparative chart (l) Work order dated 30-12-2003 (m) Bill containing an endorsement that cheque of Rs. 9940/-has been issued. 38. It is submitted by the Counsel for the respondent that notice inviting quotations was issued. Kamal Kishore Puniyani and two more persons submitted their quotations. Since, the quotation of Kamal Kishore Puniyani was lowest, therefore, it was accepted. The work order was issued 30-12-2003 and bill dated 2-1-2004 was submitted after completing the work. However, the payment could not be released. Thus, it is incorrect to say that any attempt was made to misappropriate the amount. It is further submitted that the respondent had no role to play regarding verification of work and attempt to release payment. 39. Per contra, the Counsel for the Appellant/State submitted that undated application for removal of submersible pump was obtained and notice inviting quotations was issued to only three persons. The quotations were opened by unauthorized person. No work was done. A false bill was presented and even the cheuqe was issued, but since, complaint was made, therefore, the payment was not made. Thus, it is clear that the respondent had played an important role from the very beginning. 40. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 41. The quotations were opened by unauthorized person. No work was done. A false bill was presented and even the cheuqe was issued, but since, complaint was made, therefore, the payment was not made. Thus, it is clear that the respondent had played an important role from the very beginning. 40. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 41. As per the documents relied upon by the Appellant, an Estimate of Rs. 9940 was prepared by Narendra Singh, Sub- Engineer.. This estimate was for removing Submersible Pump, for supply of India Mark II Hand pump, Supply of 1 ¼ inch G.I. Pipe, Installation of Hand pump, and construction of platform. Accordingly, the notice inviting quotations was issued. The said quotation is dated 13-8-2003 and it was addressed to Kamal Kishore Puniyani, Tarun Traders and Surendra Kumar Juneja only. The notice inviting quotation is as under : Øekad 1889 Xokfy;j fnukad 13-8-2003 loZJh 1- dey fd'kksj iqfu;kuh 2- r:.k VªsMlZ 3- lqjsUnz dqekj lqustk 4- lwpuk iVy fo"k; foHkkx dk lkeku iznku@ejEer dk;Z djus ds laca/k esa bl foHkkx }kjk fuEufyf[kr vk;Veksa@dk;Z ds dqVs'ku vkef=ar fd;s tkrs gSA d`i;k vki viuh U;wur njsa bl dk;kZy; es fnukad 19-8-2003 dks cts rd Hkstus dk d"V djsaA vki tks njsa bl dk;kZy;k es izLrqr djs os lc VsDlksa lfgr gksuk pkfg; rFkk ;fn dksbZ VsDl vyx ls ysosa rks mldk fooj.k vafdr djsaA ;g eky tks vki iznku djsxsa ;g dk;kZy;hu Lvksj es fy;k tkosxk A vkns'k feyrs gh eky 3 @ 7 fnol ds vanj iznku djuk vko';d gS nj izLrqr djrs le; lkeku tks vki iznku djsxs mldk LisflfQds'k DokfyVh es dk fooj.k vo'; nsaA 1 150 ,e ,e O;kl ds cksj es ls lefoZcy eksVj iIi lsV fudkykuk ,d dk;Z 2 gS.MiEi ls bf.M;k ekdZ 2 iznk; ,d dk;Z 3 1 ¼ th vkbZ ikbZi iznk; djuk ,d dk;Z 4 gS.MiEi yxkuk ,d dk;Z 5 IysVQkeZ cukuk ,d dk;Z 42. The last date for submission of quotation was 19-8-2003 and surprisingly, three quotations were received on 19-8-2003 which were received at serial no. 4888, 4889, and 4890 of inward register. Whether it was co-incidence that all the three quotations were received at one time or it was manipulation, shall be considered in the later paragraphs. 43. The last date for submission of quotation was 19-8-2003 and surprisingly, three quotations were received on 19-8-2003 which were received at serial no. 4888, 4889, and 4890 of inward register. Whether it was co-incidence that all the three quotations were received at one time or it was manipulation, shall be considered in the later paragraphs. 43. It is surprising that although the quotations were addressed to Commissioner, Municipal Corporation and the file was to be sent to Technical branch for opening of quotations, but Ajay Pandvia, Asstt. Engineer, opened the quotations on his own on 19-8-2003 itself and opined that the quotation submitted by Kamal Kishore Puniyani is the lowest. Accordingly, note sheet was prepared by Narendra Singh, Sub-Engineer on 19-3-2003 itself. 44. As already pointed out, the proposal was placed before R.N. Karaiya, Executive Engineer, who without verifying the facts, approved the same by his note sheet dated 3-9. 45. Thereafter, a typed copy of work order was presented and the note sheet contains the rubber stamp of approval by MIC on 24-12-2003 and the work order was issued on 30-12-2003. Kamal Kishore Puniyani submitted his bill on 2-1-2004 i.e., just 2 days after the work order was issued and Narendra Singh, Sub-Engineer prepared the following M.B. on 6-1-2004 : fooj.k ek=k nj :Ik;s 1 150 ,e ,e O;kl ds cksj es ls lceflZcy eksVj ,oa lsV fudkyuk 1 925 925 2 gS.MiEi bf.M;k ekdZ 2 iznk; djuk 1 3695 3695 3 1 ¼th vkbZ ikbZi iznk; djuk 1 99 2970 4 gS.MiEi yxkuk 1 400 400 5 IysVQkeZ cukuk 1 1950 1950 9940 46. Narendra Singh Sub-Engineer issued a verification certificate on 6-1-2004, mentioning therein that he has verified the work and it is found to be satisfactory and in accordance with specifications and this was attested by Ajay Pandvia, Asstt. Engineer on 15-5-2004. 47. Narendra Singh Sub-Engineer issued a verification certificate on 6-1-2004, mentioning therein that he has verified the work and it is found to be satisfactory and in accordance with specifications and this was attested by Ajay Pandvia, Asstt. Engineer on 15-5-2004. 47. It is really interesting that while seeking permission to call quotations, Narendra Singh, Sub-Engineer in his undated note sheet had given the estimate in which he had mentioned as under : mijksDr fo"k; es ys[k gS jax;kuk eksgYyk es ikuh dh deh gks tkus ds dkj.k mDr uydwi dh eksVj fudky nh xbZ gSA rFkk mDr uydwi es vLi"V ds }kjk lQkbZ djk nh xbZ gSA ftlls mDr uydwi es gS.MiEi LFkkfir fd;k tk lds mDr dk;Z xzh"e dky ,oa bykds es is;ty dh deh dks ns[krs gq, mDr dk;Z vko';d dk;Z dh vuqekfur ykxr 9940 A vr% mDr dk;Z gsrq dqVs'ku cqyk, tkus dh vuqefr nsus dk d"V djsA 48. It is really surprising that when the submersible pump was already removed and the bore was already got cleaned, then why the cost of removing submersible pump was included in the Estimate? The estimate which was prepared by Narendra Singh Sub-Engineer was as under : OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER Maintenance Sub. Dn. GWALIOR (M.P.) ESTIMATE S.No. Detail Quantity Rate Rs. P. Amount Rs. P. 1- 150 ,e ,e O;kl ds cksj es lcejflcy eksVj iEi lsV fudkyuk- 1 dk;Z @& 925@& 925@& 2- gS.MiEi ls bf.M;k ekdZ 2 iznk; djuk 1 dk;Z 3695@& 3695@& 3- 1 ¼th vkbZ ikbZi iznk; djuk 1 dk;Z 99@& 2970@& 4- gS.MiEi yxkuk 1 dk;Z 400@& 400@& 5- IysVQkeZ cukuk 1 dk;Z 1950@& 1950@& 9940@& 49. Thus, it is clear that Narendra Singh, Sub-Engineer had prepared false note sheet based on false declaration that the submersible pump has been removed and bore has been cleaned, whereas it is clear from the Estimate itself that nothing was done and the cost of removing submersible pump was also included in the Estimate. Without comparing the undated Note Sheet and the Estimate, R.N. Karaiya, Executive Engineer (respondent), also directed for calling the Quotations. 50. Although in the undated note sheet, it was mentioned that due to summer season and scarcity of water, the work is of urgent nature, but R.N. Karaiya (respondent) approved the note sheet and directed for calling the quotations on 27-7 (must be 27-7-2003). 50. Although in the undated note sheet, it was mentioned that due to summer season and scarcity of water, the work is of urgent nature, but R.N. Karaiya (respondent) approved the note sheet and directed for calling the quotations on 27-7 (must be 27-7-2003). Thus, it is clear that by that time, the summer season was already over and rainy season had started. It is really surprising that according to the officials due to poor availability of water, submersible pump was required to be replaced by hand pump, whereas submersible pump is always installed below the water level and it throws the water from inside whereas the hand pump is installed at the top of the bore and above the land and is operated by hand. Submersible pump is always more effective then hand pump. Why submersible pump was being replaced specifically when there is nothing on record that the submersible pump had gone out of order? Even if the submersible pump already installed in the bore had become un-operational, then why it was not repaired or replaced ? 51. Under these circumstances, the undated application made by Govind Verma, Councilor appears to be suspicious and similarly undated note sheet prepared by Narendra Singh, Sub-Engineer also becomes suspicious. Further, the submersible pump which was already installed in the bore was the property of Municipal Corporation, Gwalior. There is nothing on record to show that what happened to the said submersible pump. When Narendra Singh had mentioned that submersible pump has been removed, then before calling quotations, the respondent should have verified about the submersible pump, but even that was not done. 52. Further, there is nothing on record to suggest that Ajay Pandvia, Asstt. Engineer was competent to open the quotations. The last date for submission of quotations was 19-8-2003. All the three quotations were received on 19-8-2003 in sequence. On 19-8-2003 itself, the quotations were opened by Ajay Pandvia, whereas it should have been done by Technical branch. The quotations were addressed to Commissioner, and there is nothing on record to suggest that Ajay Pandvia, Asstt. Engineer was authorized to open the quotations. On 19-8-2003 itself, Narendra Singh, Sub-Engineer prepared the note sheet mentioning that the quotation of Kamal Kishore Puniyani is the lowest and on the same day, the said note sheet was also forwarded by Ajay Pandvia, Asstt. Engineer to R.N. Karaiya, Executive Engineer (respondent). Engineer was authorized to open the quotations. On 19-8-2003 itself, Narendra Singh, Sub-Engineer prepared the note sheet mentioning that the quotation of Kamal Kishore Puniyani is the lowest and on the same day, the said note sheet was also forwarded by Ajay Pandvia, Asstt. Engineer to R.N. Karaiya, Executive Engineer (respondent). The manner in which the entire things were done, clearly indicates some undue interest of the respondent in the matter. 53. Further, from the evidence of Kusumlata Sharma (P.W.9), who is posted in Technical branch, it is clear that She had merely prepared the clear copy of work order only. Thus, it is clear that the file was never sent to Technical Branch for examination of quotations, estimate, work place etc. 54. By referring to the evidence of Rajesh Sharma (P.W.6), it is submitted by the Counsel for the respondent, that this witness has admitted that measurement was mentioned in the measurement book, Article B, therefore, it is incorrect to say that no spot inspection was carried out before certifying the completion of work. 55. This Court has gone through the measurement book, Article B. In measurement book, Article B, no measurement is mentioned. In the measurement book the estimate is reproduced with price and a rubber stamp has been affixed mentioning therein that the work was found to be satisfactory and in accordance with specifications. The size of the platform which was to be constructed is not mentioned. The description of Hand pump allegedly installed by Kamal Kishore Puniyani is also not mentioned. In fact, the measurement book, Article B cannot be said to be a measurement book. Thus, merely because Rajesh Sharma (P.W.6) had stated that measurement was mentioned in the measurement book, Article B, this Court is not bound by his evidence. It is well established principle of law that this Court has to appreciate the evidence on its face value and thus, it is held that no measurement was mentioned in the measurement book, Article B. 56. Thus, it is clear that under the garb of scarcity of water during summer season, an undated application from Govind Verma, Councilor was obtained. It is not out of place to mention here that since, Govind Verma had expired, therefore, he could not be examined. Thus, it is clear that under the garb of scarcity of water during summer season, an undated application from Govind Verma, Councilor was obtained. It is not out of place to mention here that since, Govind Verma had expired, therefore, he could not be examined. Thereafter, Narendra Singh, Sub-Engineer, prepared an undated note sheet, thereby mentioning that the submersible pump has already been removed and the bore had been got cleaned and also prepared the estimate, but also included the cost of removal of submersible pump. When the submersible pump was already removed by the Corporation, then under what circumstances, the contractor was to be paid the cost of removal is also not clear. Without verifying the above mentioned anomaly, R.N. Karaiya, Executive Engineer (respondent), granted permission to call quotation on 27-7, whereas the summer season was already over. The Executive Engineer R.N. Karaiya (respondent) also did not verify that when submersible pump is more effective then hand pump, then why hand pump was being installed after removing submersible pump. Thereafter, quotations were invited only from three contractors and no Notice Inviting Tender/Quotation was issued. Thereafter, on 19-8-2003, all the three quotations were submitted in sequence and on the very same day, Ajay Pandvia, Asstt. Engineer, opened the quotations, whereas the file should have been sent to Technical branch for doing the needful. Further, Narendra Singh, Sub-Engineer also prepared the note sheet regarding lowest quotation on 19-8-2003 itself. Ajay Pandvia, Asstt. Engineer, in his turn forwarded the file to R.N. Karaiya, Executive Engineer (respondent), who granted sanction on 3-9-2003. R.N. Karaiya (respondent) did not verify that whether the procedure which has been adopted is in accordance with law or not? It appears that thereafter, a consolidated file was prepared including all work orders and the matter was placed before MIC, which granted approval. It is not out of place to mention here that during the course of arguments, it was submitted by the Counsel for the respondent that trial for other files are still pending. It is clear from the file of MIC, Ex. P.12, R.N. Karaiya, Executive Engineer (respondent), had granted approval of work worth Rs. 1.75 Crores approximately in 1500 files. Thereafter, the work order was issued on 30-12-2003 and on 2-1-2004, Kamal Kishore Puniyani submitted the final bill also. No spot inspection report is annexed in the file. It is clear from the file of MIC, Ex. P.12, R.N. Karaiya, Executive Engineer (respondent), had granted approval of work worth Rs. 1.75 Crores approximately in 1500 files. Thereafter, the work order was issued on 30-12-2003 and on 2-1-2004, Kamal Kishore Puniyani submitted the final bill also. No spot inspection report is annexed in the file. Even Virendra Singh Tomar (P.W. 16), who is the investigating officer, had carried out the spot inspection, and did not find any hand pump on the spot and as per the spot panchnama, Ex. P.21, submersible pump was still lying in the bore and the electricity connection was disconnected. Thus, it is clear that without doing any work, the bills were submitted by Kamal Kishore Puniyani and the accused persons forwarded the file for payment. Even the cheques were prepared, but before the payment could be made, a complaint was made, and therefore, the payments were immediately stopped. Further, it is clear that no measurement was recorded in the measurement book. 57. The Trial Court has acquitted the respondent only on the ground that he had granted permission to call quotations, whereas the irregularities were committed after the work order was issued. This reasoning given by the Trial Court cannot be appreciated and approved and is perverse and contrary to record. 58. Although an undated application by Govind Verma, was made for replacement of submersible pump by a hand pump, but this fact is not mentioned in the undated note sheet prepared by Narendra Singh Bhadoria. Further, in the note sheet, it is mentioned that the submersible pump has been removed and the bore has been cleaned, but still, the cost of removing submersible pump was included in the Estimate which was conveniently ignored by the respondent. Further, why quotations were called from three contractors only? The respondent did not verify that Ajay Pandvia was not competent to open the quotations, but still it was done by him. The file was never sent to Technical branch. Further, why quotations were called from three contractors only? The respondent did not verify that Ajay Pandvia was not competent to open the quotations, but still it was done by him. The file was never sent to Technical branch. Although Rajendra Singh Dikshit (P.W. 5) who was posted as Draftsman did not support the prosecution case in entirety and turned hostile on the question that the file was to be sent to the Technical Department for opening of Quotations, comparison of rates, Estimate etc., but the same witness in his evidence which was recorded in the Trial of co-accused persons Hari Singh Khairwar and Kamal Kishore Puniyani had stated that the file should have been sent to the Technical Section for opening of quotations, Estimate, etc and the budget is to be sanctioned by finance department. It is true that the evidence of a witness recorded in the Trial of a co-accused person cannot be read in the Trial of another accused, but the evidence of Rajendra Singh Dikshit was in respect of departmental procedure. Thereafter, the respondent approved the quotation of Kamal Kishore Puniyani and issued the work order on 30-12-2003. Thus, it is clear that complete go by was given by the respondent to the departmental procedure. Further, it is clear from the file which was sent to MIC for its approval, the respondent had prepared 1500 files involving work worth Rs. 1.75 Crores. According to Mohd. Ubbais Siddique (P.W.7) about 5000 files were closed after inspection. Thus, the Enquiry Committee also found irregularities on large scale in multiple files and ultimately all those files were closed without release of payment. Thus, it can not be said that the respondent was not the perpetrator of the offence. 59. Further as per spot panchnama, Ex. P.21, the submersible pump was found inside the bore itself and no hand pump was found on the spot. Thus, it is clear that neither submersible pump was removed, nor any cleaning of the bore was got done and no hand pump was installed, inspite of that not only false note sheets were prepared but forged bill was also submitted by Kamal Kishore Puniyani. 60. Now the next question for consideration is that under what circumstances, the Appellate Court can reverse the findings of acquittal. 61. 60. Now the next question for consideration is that under what circumstances, the Appellate Court can reverse the findings of acquittal. 61. The Supreme Court in the case of Sambhaji Hindurao Deshmukh v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2008) 11 SCC 186 has held as under : 13. The principles relating to interference by the High Court in appeals against acquittal are well settled. While the High Court can review the entire evidence and reach its own conclusions, it will not interfere with the acquittal by the trial court unless there are strong reasons based on evidence which can dislodge the findings arrived at by the trial court, which were the basis for the acquittal. The High Court has to give due importance to the conclusions of the trial court, if they had been arrived at after proper appreciation of the evidence. The High Court will interfere in appeals against acquittals, only where the trial court makes wrong assumptions of material facts or fails to appreciate the evidence properly. If two views are reasonably possible from the evidence on record, one favouring the accused and one against the accused, the High Court is not expected to reverse the acquittal merely because it would have taken the view against the accused had it tried the case. The very fact that two views are possible makes it clear that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and consequently the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt (vide Ganesh Bhavan Patel v. State of Maharashtra, Babu v. State of U.P., Awadhesh v. State of M.P., Thanedar Singh v. State of M.P. and State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram). 62. The Supreme Court in the case of Bhim Singh Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2002) 10 SCC 461 has held as under : 9. Before concluding, we would like to point out that this Court in a number of cases has held that an appellate court entertaining an appeal from the judgment of acquittal by the trial court though entitled to reappreciate the evidence and come to an independent conclusion, it should not do so as a matter of routine. Before concluding, we would like to point out that this Court in a number of cases has held that an appellate court entertaining an appeal from the judgment of acquittal by the trial court though entitled to reappreciate the evidence and come to an independent conclusion, it should not do so as a matter of routine. In other words, if from the same set of evidence two views are possible and if the trial court has taken one view on the said evidence, unless the appellate court comes to the conclusion that the view taken by the trial court is either perverse or such that no reasonable person could come to that conclusion or that such a finding of the trial court is not based on any material on record, it should not merely because another conclusion is possible reverse the finding of the trial court. (See: Mohanlal Hargovind Dass v. Ram Narain, State of Punjab v. Balraj Singh, State of Maharashtra v. Wasudeo Ramchandra Kaidalwar and Ram Kumar Pandey v. State of M.P.) 63. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Ajaib Singh, reported in 2005) 9 SCC 94 has held as under : 10. This being an appeal against acquittal, we have with the assistance of counsel for the parties gone through the evidence on record with a view to find whether the view favourable to the accused taken by the High Court is based on the evidence on record and is reasonable. It is well settled that in an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court is entitled to reappreciate the evidence on record, but having done so it will not interfere with the order of acquittal unless it finds the view of the court acquitting the accused to be unreasonable or perverse. If the view recorded by the court acquitting the accused is a possible, reasonable view of the evidence on record, the order of acquittal ought not to be reversed. 64. If the conclusion drawn by this Court in the previous paragraphs are considered in the light of the observation made by the Trial Court, then it is clear that the Trial Court instead of considering the material available on record, has relied upon the opinion of the witnesses in holding that no irregularity was committed till work order was issued. If the conclusion drawn by this Court in the previous paragraphs are considered in the light of the observation made by the Trial Court, then it is clear that the Trial Court instead of considering the material available on record, has relied upon the opinion of the witnesses in holding that no irregularity was committed till work order was issued. It is well established principle of law that opinion of a witness has no relevance. An opinion of a witness who is not an Expert within the meaning of Section 45 of Evidence Act, has no relevance, and the Trial Court should have considered the material available on record. 65. The Supreme Court in the case of Dayal Singh Vs. State of Uttaranchal reported in (2012) 8 SCC 263 has held as under : 30. With the passage of time, the law also developed and the dictum of the Court emphasised that in a criminal case, the fate of proceedings cannot always be left entirely in the hands of the parties. Crime is a public wrong, in breach and violation of public rights and duties, which affects the community as a whole and is harmful to the society in general. 31. Reiterating the above principle, this Court in NHRC v. State of Gujarat held as under: (SCC pp. 777-78, para 6) “6.…‘35. … The concept of fair trial entails familiar triangulation of interests of the accused, the victim and the society and it is the community that acts through the State and prosecuting agencies. Interest of society is not to be treated completely with disdain and as persona non grata. The courts have always been considered to have an overriding duty to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice—often referred to as the duty to vindicate and uphold the ‘majesty of the law’. Due administration of justice has always been viewed as a continuous process, not confined to determination of the particular case, protecting its ability to function as a court of law in the future as in the case before it. Due administration of justice has always been viewed as a continuous process, not confined to determination of the particular case, protecting its ability to function as a court of law in the future as in the case before it. If a criminal court is to be an effective instrument in dispensing justice, the Presiding Judge must cease to be a spectator and a mere recording machine by becoming a participant in the trial evincing intelligence, active interest and elicit all relevant materials necessary for reaching the correct conclusion, to find out the truth, and administer justice with fairness and impartiality both to the parties and to the community it serves. The courts administering criminal justice cannot turn a blind eye to vexatious or oppressive conduct that has occurred in relation to proceedings, even if a fair trial is still possible, except at the risk of undermining the fair name and standing of the Judges as impartial and independent adjudicators.’ (Zahira Habibullah case, SCC p. 395, para 35)” 32. In State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy this Court occasioned to consider the similar question of defective investigation as to whether any manipulation in the station house diary by the investigating officer could be put against the prosecution case. This Court, in para 19, held as follows: (SCC p. 720) “19. But can the above finding (that the station house diary is not genuine) have any inevitable bearing on the other evidence in this case? If the other evidence, on scrutiny, is found credible and acceptable, should the court be influenced by the machinations demonstrated by the investigating officer in conducting investigation or in preparing the records so unscrupulously? It can be a guiding principle that as investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial, the conclusion of the court in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of investigation. It is well-nigh settled that even if the investigation is illegal or even suspicious the rest of the evidence must be scrutinised independently of the impact of it. Otherwise the criminal trial will plummet to the level of the investigating officers ruling the roost. The court must have predominance and pre-eminence in criminal trials over the action taken by the investigating officers. Criminal justice should not be made a casualty for the wrongs committed by the investigating officers in the case. Otherwise the criminal trial will plummet to the level of the investigating officers ruling the roost. The court must have predominance and pre-eminence in criminal trials over the action taken by the investigating officers. Criminal justice should not be made a casualty for the wrongs committed by the investigating officers in the case. In other words, if the court is convinced that the testimony of a witness to the occurrence is true the court is free to act on it albeit the investigating officer’s suspicious role in the case.” 33. In Ram Bali v. State of U.P. the judgment in Karnel Singh v. State of M.P. was reiterated and this Court had observed that: (Ram Bali case, SCC p. 604, para 12) “12. … In case of defective investigation the court has to be circumspect [while] evaluating the evidence. But it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect; to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigation officer if the investigation is designedly defective.” 34. Where our criminal justice system provides safeguards of fair trial and innocent till proven guilty to an accused, there it also contemplates that a criminal trial is meant for doing justice to all, the accused, the society and a fair chance to prove to the prosecution. Then alone can law and order be maintained. The courts do not merely discharge the function to ensure that no innocent man is punished, but also that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties of the Judge. During the course of the trial, the learned Presiding Judge is expected to work objectively and in a correct perspective. Where the prosecution attempts to misdirect the trial on the basis of a perfunctory or designedly defective investigation, there the Court is to be deeply cautious and ensure that despite such an attempt, the determinative process is not subverted. For truly attaining this object of a “fair trial”, the Court should leave no stone unturned to do justice and protect the interest of the society as well. 66. Thus, it is clear that the Court can make overall assessment to reach to a conclusion and is not bound by the evidence by prosecution. 67. For truly attaining this object of a “fair trial”, the Court should leave no stone unturned to do justice and protect the interest of the society as well. 66. Thus, it is clear that the Court can make overall assessment to reach to a conclusion and is not bound by the evidence by prosecution. 67. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion, that the Trial Court did not consider the record independently and reached to a conclusion which can be said to be perverse and contrary to record. 68. Accordingly, acquittal of R.N. Karaiya (respondent) is hereby set aside. The respondent R.N. Karaiya (respondent) is held guilty of offence under Section 15 of Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120-B of I.P.C. 69. Ex-consequenti, the Judgment dated 29-5-2013 passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Gwalior in Special Sessions Trial No. 01/2010 qua the respondent is hereby set aside. 70. The respondent is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled. 71. The hearing of the case is deferred for hearing on the question of sentence. Later on (Dtd. 03.03.2022) :- Heard learned Counsel for respondent on the question of sentence. The Trial Court while convicting the co-accused K.K. Shrivastava, R.B. Shrivastava and Ajay Pandvia had awarded the jail sentence for rigorous imprisonment of six months and a fine of Rs.10,000/-for offence under Section 15 of Prevention of Corruption Act and for offence under Section 120-B of IPC respectively. This Court while deciding the Criminal Appeals filed by the co-accused persons has disapproved the flea bite sentence awarded by the Trial Court but has also held that looking to the fact that no notice for enhancement of sentence was given at the time of admission of appeal, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by issuing notice for enhancement of sentence. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that it would not be appropriate to award a different sentence to the present respondent-R.N. Karaiya. Accordingly, the respondent-R.N.Karaiya is awarded six months R.I and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-for offence under Section 15 of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentence of rigorous imprisonment of six months and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-for offence under Section 120-B of IPC, with default imprisonment of one month R.I on each count. The sentences shall run concurrently. Accordingly, the respondent-R.N.Karaiya is awarded six months R.I and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-for offence under Section 15 of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentence of rigorous imprisonment of six months and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-for offence under Section 120-B of IPC, with default imprisonment of one month R.I on each count. The sentences shall run concurrently. The respondent is on bail, his bail bonds are hereby cancelled. Respondent is hereby directed to surrender before the Trial Court on or before 31.03.2022 for undergoing the jail sentence. Let the record of Trial Court be immediately sent back to the Trial Court. The appeal filed by the State is hereby allowed.