JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr.A. M.Bora, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. R. Malhotra, learned counsel and Mr. B. Bhagawati, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned Public Prosecutor, for the State of Mizoram. 2. This appeal under Section 27 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, read with Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the appellant Shri Rodney Lalrinawma Ralte, impugning the judgment and order dated 27.05.2019 passed by learned Special Judge, Mizoram at Aizawl whereby the present appellant was convicted under Section 13(1)(d) and was sentenced under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5 lakh and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 1 year. 3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant appeal are as follows: i. On the basis of a preliminary inquiry which was registered as ACB Preliminary Inquiry No. 15/2012 dated 05.07.2012, an FIR was lodged against the present appellant, inter-alia, alleging that while functioning as Deputy Commissioner, Mamit, he had sanctioned Rs. 36,500/-for sitting allowance of members of DLIC stock. It is also alleged that the cashier had handed over the entire amount to the present appellant and though the amount has been showed as spent, the appellant had retained for himself Rs. 11,500/-which was undisbursed sitting allowance of 9 members of DLIC. It was further alleged in the FIR that Rs. 15.5 lakh was sanctioned under common fund for 10 different construction works of Andermanik village council and the same was shown to have been fully paid to the village councilin as per the cash book, however, the actual amount received by the village council was only Rs.7.5 lakh and the present appellant retained for himself rest of the money amounting to Rs. 8 lakh. ii. The other allegation made in the FIR against the present appellant was that he misappropriated Rs.4lakh out of Rs.7lakh sanctioned for construction of side drain of Andermanik, and the person in whose favour the work order was issued received Rs.3 lakh only. iii. 8 lakh. ii. The other allegation made in the FIR against the present appellant was that he misappropriated Rs.4lakh out of Rs.7lakh sanctioned for construction of side drain of Andermanik, and the person in whose favour the work order was issued received Rs.3 lakh only. iii. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR, an ACBPS Case No. 2/2013 under Sections 409/468/477A of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(1)(c)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988was registered against the present appellant and Inspector F. Engkunga of Anti-Corruption Bureau was entrusted to conduct the investigation. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was laid against the present appellant under Sections 409/468/477A of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(1)(c)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. The appellant appeared before the court of learned Special Judge, Mizoram and faced the trial. iv. On appearance of the appellant, the learned Trial Court framed charges under Section 13(1)(c)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. When the said charges were read over and explained to the appellant, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. v. During the course of the trial, 26 numbers of witnesses including the Investigating Officer and about 48 documents were exhibited by the prosecution side to bring home the charges against the present applicant. The appellant was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, during which he denied the truthfulness of the prosecution witnesses and pleaded his innocence. The appellant also adduced defence evidence of himself as DW1. However, after considering the materials on record and after hearing both the sides, the learned Trial Court by the judgment and order dated 27.05.2019 which has been impugned in this instant appeal, has convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner as already described hereinabove. 4. Before considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for both the sides, let us go through the evidence adduced by both the sides in support of their case, during trial. As already stated hereinbefore, the prosecution side had examined 26 prosecution witnesses to bring home the charges levelled against the present appellant. 5. 4. Before considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for both the sides, let us go through the evidence adduced by both the sides in support of their case, during trial. As already stated hereinbefore, the prosecution side had examined 26 prosecution witnesses to bring home the charges levelled against the present appellant. 5. The PW-1 stated that the Anti Corruption Bureau, Mizoram (hereinafter referred to as ACB) received instructions from the Vigilance Department, Government of Mizoram, to conduct enquiry into the allegation of deduction of 3% of funds meant for “Relocation of Andermanik Village from DTR” by the accused who was the Deputy Commissioner, Mamit, vide letter dated 03.07.2012 (Ext.P-3). An ACB PS Preliminary Enquiry No. 15 of 2012 dated 05.07.2012 was registered and he was entrusted to conduct the enquiry. He found that the accused had misappropriated funds amounting to Rs. 12,11,500/- meant for the project and submitted his report (Ext.P-4) to the SP, ACB. He also lodged an FIR (Ext.P-5) for registration of criminal case against the accused under appropriate section of law. During cross-examination, the PW-1 had stated that it was his findings that the accused had misappropriated Rs. 12,11,500/-. He found that Rs. 11,500/-meant for sitting allowances for members of DLIC, Rs. 8,00,000/-meant for construction of Public Toilet, Urinal, and Septic Tanks, within Andermanik village, and Rs. 4,00,000/-meant for construction of masonry side drain at Andermanik were misappropriated. He has stated that his findings regarding misappropriation of Rs. 11,500/-for sitting allowances was based on the statements of the members, and not on documents. His findings regarding misappropriation of Rs. 8 Lakh meant for construction of public toilet, urinal, and septic tanks, within Andermanik village was based on the statement of PW20, and not on the basis of documents. His finding regarding misappropriation of Rs. 4 Lakh meant for construction of stone masonry side drain was based on the statement of PW-2 and the relevant Actual Payee Receipt (hereinafter referred to as APR) signed by him. 6. The PW-2 deposed that he was working at Andermanik as Evangelist under Mizoram Presbyterian Synod from 2009-10 and again from 2012 till date. While working as Evangelist, he received Rs. 3 Lakh for construction of Church building at the relocated Andermanik village, from the Cashier of the Deputy Commisioner’s Office, Mamit. He was made to sign on a blank Actual Payee Receipt (APR). While working as Evangelist, he received Rs. 3 Lakh for construction of Church building at the relocated Andermanik village, from the Cashier of the Deputy Commisioner’s Office, Mamit. He was made to sign on a blank Actual Payee Receipt (APR). Ext.M-1 is the APR in which he signed and Ext.M-1/1 is his signature. The APR format was blank when he appended his signature. The same APR was also shown to him in the office of the ACB by which time it was already filled up. His statement was recorded by a Magistrate, Ext.P-1 is the statement, and Ext.P-1/1 is his signature. He stated the same facts before the Magistrate which he stated before this Court regarding receipt of Rs. 3 Lakh. When the ACB accused him of receiving Rs. 7 Lakh for construction of stone masonry side drain, he denied and told them that he received Rs. 3 Lakh for construction of the Church building. During cross-examination, the PW-2 stated that he requested money for construction of the Church building without specifying the amount, and was quite satisfied with the sum of Rs. 3 Lakh given to him for construction of the Church building. He did not have any grievance against the accused but was rather glad that the accused had helped him. He did not submit any complaint stating that the amount of money he received was less than expected, and construction of the Church building was completed. The APR dated 14.03.2012 bears his signature, but it was blank when he appended his signature. 7. The PW-3 deposed that she was posted at West Phaileng as Child Development Project Officer (CDPO) under ICDS Project, Social Welfare Department, Mizoram, during 2007-2017. She was a member of DLIC for Andermanik Relocation. She attended meetings of DLIC in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Mamit District. She did not receive sitting allowance for the meetings she attended. During cross-examination, the PW-3 stated that the number of meetings she attended could be about 5 times. She has also stated that she was not sure whether she received sitting allowance or not as many years have passed. She did not receive any sitting allowance directly from the accused. 8. The PW-4 deposed that he attended meeting of the DLIC once on behalf of PW-3 but did not receive sitting allowance. He stated that he did not remember receiving sitting allowance subsequent to the meeting. She did not receive any sitting allowance directly from the accused. 8. The PW-4 deposed that he attended meeting of the DLIC once on behalf of PW-3 but did not receive sitting allowance. He stated that he did not remember receiving sitting allowance subsequent to the meeting. 9. The PW-5 deposed that he, while posted as Executive Engineer, PHED, Mamit WATSAN Division, during 2010-2014, was a member of DLIC for Andermanik Relocation, and attended meetings of the DLIC. He did not receive sitting allowance for attending the meetings. During cross-examination, he reiterated that he did not receive sitting allowance and had no knowledge whether he received the allowance subsequent to the meeting. 10. The PW-7 deposed that he attended meeting of the DLIC once on behalf of the DEO but did not receive sitting allowance. 11. The PW-8 deposed that he attended meeting of the DLIC once on behalf of the Project Director, DRDA, Mamit District, but did not receive sitting allowance. 12. The PW-10 deposed that he was working in the Deputy Commissioner’s Office, Mamit, since 1998 and was presently posted as Circle Assistant-I. He positively re-affirmed the statements he had made before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Pu F. Rohlupuia on 13.02.2013. He exhibited the statement as Ext.P-6. He also re-affirmed the statement he had made before the Investigating Officer. On 21.06.2013, officials of ACB seized several documents from his possession vide Seizure Memo at Ext.P-2. The PW-10 exhibited the seized documents as follows:- Ext.M-1 (1 Sheet), Ext.M-2 (Andermanik DC Contingency Subsidiary Cash Book), Ext.M-3 (Subsidiary Cash Book - Common Fund), Ext.M-4 (1 Sheet), Ext.M-4/1 (20 Sheets), Ext.M-4/2 (2 Sheets), Ext.M-4/3 (1 Sheet), Ext.M-4/4 (8 Sheets), Ext.M-4/5 (1 Sheet), Ext.M-4/6 (1 Sheet), Ext.M-4/7 (8 Sheets), Ext.M-4/8 (1 Sheet), Ext.M-4/9 (1 Sheet), Ext.M-4/10 (13 Sheets), Ext.M-4/11 (1 Sheet), Ext.M-4/12 (1 Sheet), Ext.M-4/13 (1 Sheet), Ext.M-4/14 (8 Sheets), Ext.M-4/15 (1 Sheet), Ext.M-4/16 (1 Sheet), Ext.M-4/17 (1 Sheet), Ext.M-4/18 (8 Sheets), Ext.M-4/19 (1 Sheet), Ext.M-4/20 (1 Sheet), Ext.M-4/21 (1 Sheet), Ext.M-4/22 (8 Sheets), Ext.M-4/23 (1 Sheet), Ext.M-4/4 (1 Sheet), Ext.M-4/25 (1 Sheet), Ext.M-4/26 (8 Sheets), Ext.M-4/27 (1 Sheet), Ext.M-4/28 (1 Sheet), Ext.M-4/29 (1 Sheet), Ext.M-4/30 (8 Sheets), Ext.M-4/31 (1 Sheet), Ext.M-4/32 (1 Sheet), Ext.M-4/33 (1 Sheet), Ext.M4/34 (8 Sheets), Ext.M-4/35 (1 Sheet), Ext.M-4/36 (1 Sheet), Ext.M-4/37 (1 Sheet), Ext.M-4/38 (8 Sheets), Ext.M-4/39 (1 Sheet), Ext.M-4/40 (1 Sheet), Ext.M-4/41 (1 Sheet), and Ext.M-4/42 (8 Sheets). 13. 13. PW-10 has deposed that almost all the cash withdrawals from the bank was done by him; other staff were deputed to draw money only when he was not available. While disbursing money against various works under the project, a part of the sanction was retained by him, the entire sanctioned money was not disbursed fully as instructed by the accused. While disbursing money, he made disbursements as per verbal instruction of the accused or otherwise and not on the basis of the APRs, and that he sometimes did not see the APRs. During June 2012, he handed over Rs. 7 Lakh, which was the accumulated amount from retention of a part of the sanctioned money while making disbursements against works, to the accused. He also handed over the sitting allowance for DLIC meetings of Rs. 36,500/-to the accused, which was sanctioned by the accused vide Ext.M-4/2. 14. During cross-examination, the PW-10 stated that he was not intimidated by the Investigating Officer on 22.06.2018 before he came to the Court and that the Investigating Officer was present in the Court while his statement was recorded. He stated that he later on signed “paid by me” as Cashier of the Deputy Commissioner’s Office below the signature of C. Vanlaltlana, Evangelist, Andermanik, on the APR of Rs. 7 Lakh dated 14.03.2012 (Ext.M-1) as he used to append his signatures in bulk in the APRs. The signatures on the APRs for Rs. 4.5 Lakh dated 14.03.2012 (Ext.M-4/6) & Ext.M-4/6/1, Rs. 3 Lakh dated 14.03.2012 (Ext.M-4/9) & Ext.M-4/9/1, Rs. 1 Lakh dated 14.03.2012 (Ext.M-4/12) & Ext.M-4/12/1, Rs. 1 Lakh dated 14.03.2012 (Ext.M-4/16) & Ext.M4/16/1, Rs. 1 Lakh dated 14.03.2012 (Ext.M-4/20) & Ext.M-4/20/1, Rs. 1 Lakh dated 14.03.2012 (Ext.M-4/24) & Ext.M-4/24/1, Rs. 1 Lakh dated 14.03.2012 (Ext.M-4/28) & Ext.M-4/28/1, Rs. 1 Lakh dated 14.03.2012 (Ext.M-4/32) & Ext.M-4/32/1, Rs. 1 Lakh dated 14.03.2012 (Ext.M-4/36) & Ext.M-4/36/1, and Rs. 1 Lakh dated 14.03.2012 (Ext.M-4/40) & Ext.M-4/40/1 were that of PW-20 and himself respectively. The PW-10 stated that all cash disbursements under the Deputy Commissioner, Mamit, were through him as per information and specification, verbally or otherwise, from the accused. He was aware that as a Cashier it was his duty and obligation to make payment of money only as per the APRs to the recipients, but he made the payments as per instruction of the accused. He was aware that as a Cashier it was his duty and obligation to make payment of money only as per the APRs to the recipients, but he made the payments as per instruction of the accused. He stated that he did not physically make the statements at Ext.P-6 before the Magistrate First Class. He did not have personal knowledge or information as to whether the accused was a dishonest officer during his tenure as Deputy Commissioner of Mamit, nor any knowledge if the allegation made against the accused were baseless, fabricated, or unreliable. He admitted that he was intimidated by the previous Investigating Officer. He admitted the suggestion put to him that there were no witnesses when he handed over Rs. 7 Lakh wrapped in a newspaper to the accused on one morning of June 2012, and also when he handed over Rs. 36,500/- to the accused. 15. The PW-10, during his re-examination, repeated that his statements before the Magistrate First Class (Ext.P-1) was not physically made, but the contents were already typed out on which he signed after going through it. Regarding his signatures under “Paid by me” as Cashier on the APRs, he stated that he used to sign on the APRs in bulk at a later date. During further examination, the PW-10denied that the recipients were given the amount reflected in the APRs. Whatever they received were personally handed over to them by him. 16. The PW-11 deposed that he was an LDC (Muster Roll) in the Office of Deputy Commissioner Mamit. He functioned as Bill Assistant and assisted the Pay Bill Assistant. He handled the File of Andermanik Relocation Contingency Fund. A sum of Rs. 60 Lakh was allocated for (i) Construction of Septic Tanks, (ii) Construction of Public Toilet, and (iii) Construction of Rest Shed. As per direction of the accused who was the Deputy Commissioner, the concerned executing agencies were asked to sign on blank Muster Roll Sheets, blank Utilization Certificates, and blank Completion Certificates. During cross-examination, the PW-11 stated that former Deputy Commissioner also made directions for signing on blank Muster Roll (MR) Sheets, blank Utilization Certificates (UC), and blank Completion Certificates (CC) as was the normal procedure practiced by the Deputy Commissioner’s Office and did not necessarily refer to misappropriation of money. During cross-examination, the PW-11 stated that former Deputy Commissioner also made directions for signing on blank Muster Roll (MR) Sheets, blank Utilization Certificates (UC), and blank Completion Certificates (CC) as was the normal procedure practiced by the Deputy Commissioner’s Office and did not necessarily refer to misappropriation of money. He stated that the APRs signed by PW-20 and PW-2 reflected that they had received full payment for the respective work allocated to them. He admitted the suggestion put to him that the accused did not misappropriate any money allocated under Andermanik Relocation Contingency Fund. During re-examination, the PW-11 stated that he was not the Cashier and therefore, did not give out money to any individual or group, nor ever counted the money given out by the Cashier. 17. The PW-12 deposed that she was working as LDC, Accounts Section, in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner’s Office, Mamit during 2011-14, and witnessed officials of ACB seizing several documents viz., Andermanik Deputy Commissioner Contingency Subsidiary Cash Book (Ext.M-2), Subsidiary Cash Book-Common Fund (Ext.M-3), and documents at Ext. M4 vide Seizure Memo (Ext.P-2) on 21.06.2013. 18. The PW-15 deposed that as Chief Medical Officer, Mamit District, during 2007-12, she attended 2 or 3 of the DLIC meetings for Relocation of Andermanik Village in the Deputy Commissioner’s Office, Mamit. She did not receive sitting allowance for attending the meetings. During cross-examination, the PW-15 stated that she did not know whether the accused was aware that she did not receive her sitting allowance. As per the usual practice, the sitting allowance used to be arranged and given out by one of the staff of Deputy Commissioner’s office. She acknowledged that the accused had no responsibility for non-payment of sitting allowance to her. 19. The PW-17 deposed that she attended a meeting of the DLIC once on behalf of the Chief Medical Officer, Mamit District while she was posted as District Program Manager, National Rural Health Mission (NRHM), Mamit District, during the year 2007-13. She did not receive sitting allowance for attending the meeting. 20. The PW-18 deposed that he attended a meeting of the DLIC once on behalf of the District Local Administration Officer while he was posted as Local Administration Officer, Mamit District, during 2006-10. He did not receive any sitting allowance for attending the meeting. 21. The PW-20 deposed that he was VCP, Andermanik, after it was relocated. He had received Rs. The PW-18 deposed that he attended a meeting of the DLIC once on behalf of the District Local Administration Officer while he was posted as Local Administration Officer, Mamit District, during 2006-10. He did not receive any sitting allowance for attending the meeting. 21. The PW-20 deposed that he was VCP, Andermanik, after it was relocated. He had received Rs. 5.5 Lakh in cash from the Cashier of Deputy Commissioner’s Office. It was for construction of (i) Latrine and Urinal in 4 (four) Schools i.e. 3 (three) Primary Schools and 1 (one) Middle School @ Rs. 1 Lakh each (ii) 1 (one) Public Toilet @ Rs. 1 Lakh and (iii) Rest Shed @ Rs. 50,000/-. The PW-21 was with him when he received the money. As instructed, he affixed VCP Andermanik Seal and appended his signature on some blank sheets. He also affixed VCP Andermanik Seal and appended his signature at two places, one above the other, on few other sheets of paper. The PW-20 identified that the signatures on the APRs, Completion Certificates, and Utilization Certificates in respect of construction of septic tanks at (i) Primary School-I (Boys), (ii) Primary School-I (Girls), (iii) Primary School-II (Boys), (iv) Primary School-II (Girls), (v) Primary School-III (Boys), (vi) Primary School-III (Girls), (vii) Middle School (Boys), (viii) Middle School (Girls), and (ix) Public Toilet, and (x) Rest Shed were his. 22. During cross-examination, the PW-20 stated that he supervised the construction of (i) Latrine and Urinal in 4 (four) Schools i.e. 3 (three) Primary Schools and 1 (one) Middle School (ii) 1 (one) Public Toilet and (iii) Rest Shed, and executed the construction as per his convenience. He stated that he did not receive plan and estimates from the Deputy Commissioner’s office. He received the money from the Cashier. 23. The PW-21 deposed that he was Secretary, Village Council, Andermanik, during 2012-15. The PW-20 was the VCP. He knew that the PW-20 received Rs. 5.5 Lakh in cash from the Cashier, Deputy Commissioner’s Office, Mamit as he was present with him. The money was for Construction of (i) Latrine and Urinal in 4 (four) Schools i.e. 3 (three) Primary Schools and 1 (one) Middle School @ Rs. 1 Lakh each (ii) 1 (one) Public Toilet @ Rs. 1 Lakh and (iii) Rest Shed @ Rs. 50,000/-. During cross-examination, the PW-21 stated that he accompanied the PW20 at Deputy Commissioner’s Office, to receive money. 1 Lakh each (ii) 1 (one) Public Toilet @ Rs. 1 Lakh and (iii) Rest Shed @ Rs. 50,000/-. During cross-examination, the PW-21 stated that he accompanied the PW20 at Deputy Commissioner’s Office, to receive money. He was not present when the PW-20 received the money in the Cashier’s room. He knew that the money PW-20 received was for construction of (i) Latrine and Urinal in 4 (four) Schools i.e. 3 (three) Primary Schools and 1 (one) Middle School (ii) 1 (one) Public Toilet and (iii) Rest Shed. 24. The PW-22 deposed that he was the Vice President, Village Council, Andermanik, from 2012. The PW-20 was the President and the PW-21 was the Secretary. The PW-20 and thePW-21 went to Deputy Commissioner’s Office, Mamit and received Rs. 5,50,000/-for construction of toilet @ Rs. 1 Lakh each for 4 schools, septic tank near community hall @ Rs. 50,000/-and rest shed near community hall. They informed members of the Village Council during its sitting about receipt of the money and he was present in the meeting. During cross-examination, the PW-22 stated that apart from the money, the PW-20 and the PW-21 were not given any document by the Deputy Commissioner’s Office. They were verbally instructed to execute construction of toilet, septic tank, and rest shed. 25. The PW-26 deposed that an ACB Preliminary Enquiry No. 15 of 2012 was registered following receipt of letter dated 03.07.2012 (Ext. P-3) from the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Vigilance Department, alleging misappropriation of funds meant for shifting and development of Andermanik Village, by the accused who was Deputy Commissioner, Mamit. The Enquiry Officer (PW-1) found that the accused had misappropriated Rs. 12,11,500/-meant for Relocation of Andermanik village from Dampa Tiger Reserve Area and submitted an Enquiry Report (Ext.P-4) to the SP, ACB, on 21.03.2013. Thereafter, he lodged an FIR (Ext.P-5) on 31.05.2013 for registration of criminal case against the accused. An ACB P.S. Case No. 2 of 2013 dated 31.05.2013 under Sections 409/468/477A of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(1)(c)(d) and 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered and he was entrusted to conduct the investigation. 26. The PW-26 stated that he collected and seized relevant documents from thePW-10 on 21.06.2013 from the Deputy Commissioner’s Office, Mamit. After thorough investigation, the PW-26 ascertained that 227 Nos. 26. The PW-26 stated that he collected and seized relevant documents from thePW-10 on 21.06.2013 from the Deputy Commissioner’s Office, Mamit. After thorough investigation, the PW-26 ascertained that 227 Nos. of households of Andermanik village were relocated acting upon the Government of Mizoram, Environment & Forest Department, Notification dated 07.11.2009 (Ext.M-4). The Deputy Commissioner, Mamit, was the Chairman of the DLIC for the relocation exercise with funds amounting to Rs. 2770 Lakh sanctioned for the purpose from the NTCA, out of which Rs. 2,043 Lakh was released as 1st instalment during December, 2010. The relocation was completed on 17.01.2011 as could be seen from the Meeting Minutes of the DLIC dated 08.03.2011 (Ext.M-4/44). The said meeting decided utilization of Rs. 908 Lakh, the remaining balance of 1st instalment after award of Rs. 5 Lakh cash to each household, to be spent for creation of community durable assets. The 3rd DLIC Meeting dated 06.05.2011 chaired by the then Deputy Commissioner approved the final sectoral allocations of the Rs. 908 Lakh which included provision of Rs. 60 Lakh as Common Fund, and Rs. 20.95 Lakh as Contingency Fund for Deputy Commissioner, Mamit. 27. The PW-26 stated about the details of works for which the appellant as Deputy Commissioner, Mamit District, and Chairman of the DLIC accorded sanction of Rs. 22.5 Lakh out of the Common Fund. 28. Out of the aforementioned works, the PW-26 has deposed that the works at Sl. No. 1-10 for a total estimate of Rs. 15.5 Lakh were to be executed by the Village Council, Andermanik, and Sl. No. 11 for an estimate of Rs. 7 Lakh to be executed by the PW-2. The PW-20, VCP of Andermanik, received Rs. 5.5 Lakh only out of Rs. 15.5 Lakh sanctioned for the works from PW-10, Cashier of Deputy Commissioner’s Office, Mamit on 14.03.2012. There was a balance of Rs. 10 Lakh. The PW-2 received Rs. 3 Lakh only out of Rs. 7 Lakh sanctioned for the work and there was a balance of Rs. 4 Lakh. He stated that the PW-2 and the PW -20 were made to sign on blank APR and blank paper respectively, which were later fabricated as “Actual Payee Receipts”, with the entries and details filled up by PW-11, Bill Assistant, Deputy Commissioner’s Office, Mamit showing payment for works as per sanction. 4 Lakh. He stated that the PW-2 and the PW -20 were made to sign on blank APR and blank paper respectively, which were later fabricated as “Actual Payee Receipts”, with the entries and details filled up by PW-11, Bill Assistant, Deputy Commissioner’s Office, Mamit showing payment for works as per sanction. The PW-26 exhibited the “APRs” as Ext.M-1, Ext.M-4/6, Ext.M-4/9, Ext.M-4/12, Ext.M-4/16, Ext.M-4/20, Ext.M-4/24, Ext.M-4/28, Ext.M-4/32, Ext.M-4/36, and Ext.M-4/40. The full amount of Rs. 22.5 Lakh was also shown as expended in of the Common Fund Cash Book (Ext.M-2) whereas actual fund received by the two PWs was only Rs. 8.5 Lakh. 29. The PW-26 also stated that though the accused sanctioned Rs. 36,500/-as sitting allowances for DLIC members under Contingency Fund vide Order dated 16.03.2012 (Ext.M-4/2) which was shown as expended in Contingency Fund Cash Book (Ext.M-3), 14 members did not receive the allowances mentioned against their named totaling to Rs. 16,500/-mentioned against their names, and that the signature column of all the 24 members of the Committee in the APR was blank (Ext.M-4/2/1). 30. The PW-26 also deposed that the PW-10 had handed over Rs. 7 Lakh to the accused at his bungalow in the month of June 2012 and also Rs. 36,500/-arising out of the sitting allowance. Thus, the accused was found to have misappropriated Rs. 14,16,500/-. 31. The PW-26 stated that he arrested the accused on 19.09.2013 (Ext.P-7), obtained Prosecution Sanction dated 13.02.2014 from the Chief Secretary, Government of Mizoram (Ext.P-8), in respect of Section 409/468/477A of Indian Penal Code, and also Prosecution Sanction dated 16.10.2017 from the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Department of Personnel and Training (Ext.P-9), in respect of Section 13(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and any other offences punishable under any provisions of law. During the investigation, the PW-26 collected and seized several documents. Some of the documents he exhibited include the following:- a) Judicial Statement of PW-2 (Ext.P-1), b) Judicial Statement of PW-10 (Ext.P-6), c) Prosecution Sanction issued by the Chief Secretary, GoM (Ext.P-8), d) Prosecution Sanction issued by GoI (Ext.P-9), e) Transfer of fund amounting to Rs. 385 Lakh to DC, Mamit including Rs. 11.35 Lakh of Contingency fund (Ext.P-10), f) Transfer of fund amounting to Rs. 295 lakh to DC, Mamit including Rs. 9.6 Lakh of Contingency fund (Ext.P-11), g) Transfer of fund amounting to Rs. 385 Lakh to DC, Mamit including Rs. 11.35 Lakh of Contingency fund (Ext.P-10), f) Transfer of fund amounting to Rs. 295 lakh to DC, Mamit including Rs. 9.6 Lakh of Contingency fund (Ext.P-11), g) Transfer of fund amounting to Rs. 60 Lakh to DC, Mamit (Ext.P-12), h) Common Fund Subsidiary Cash Book (Ext.M-2), i) Contingency Funds Subsidiary Cash Book (Ext.M-3), j) Meeting Minutes of DLIC dated 06.05.2011 (Ext.M-4/43), k) Sanction Order of Rs. 36,500/-for Sitting Allowance (Ext.M-4/2) and APR of sitting allowance on 06.05.2011 (Ext.M-4/2/1), l) Sanction Order of Rs. 7 Lakh for Construction of Masonry Side Drain at Andermanik (Ext.M-4/3), Actual Payee Receipt dated 14.03.12 of Rs. 7 Lakh purportedly showing payment of the amount to PW-2 (Ext.M-1), MR and CC & UC of Rs. 7 Lakh (Ext.M-4/4), m) Sanction Order of Rs. 4.5 Lakh for Construction of Rest Shed near Community Hall at Andermanik (Ext.M-4/5), APR dated 14.03.2012 of Rs. 4.5 Lakh purportedly showing payment of the amount to PW-20 (Ext.M-4/6), MR and CC & UC of Rs. 4.5 Lakh (Ext.M-4/7), n) Sanction Order of Rs. 3 Lakh for Construction of Public Toilet-cum-Urinal Shed near Community Hall at Andermanik (Ext.M-4/8), APR dated 14.03.2012 of Rs. 3 Lakh purportedly showing payment of the amount to PW-20 (Ext.M-4/9), MR, CC & UC of Rs. 3 Lakh (Ext.M-4/10), o) Sanction Order of Rs. 1 Lakh for Construction of Septic Tank at Middle School (Girls) (Ext.M-4/11), APR dated 14.03.2012 of Rs. 1 Lakh purportedly showing payment of the amount to PW-20 (Ext.M-4/12), MR (Ext.M-4/14), CC & UC of Rs. 1 Lakh (Ext.M-4/13), p) Sanction Order of Rs. 1 Lakh for Construction of Septic Tank at Middle School (Boys) (Ext.M-4/15), APR dated 14.03.2012 of Rs. 1 Lakh purportedly showing payment of the amount to PW-20 (Ext.M-4/16), MR (Ext.M-4/18), CC & UC of Rs. 1,00,000/-(Ext.M-4/17), q) Sanction Order of Rs. 1 Lakh for Construction of Septic Tank at Primary School-III (Boys) (Ext.M-4/19), APR dated 14.03.2012 of Rs. 1 Lakh purportedly showing payment of the amount to PW-20 (Ext.M-4/20), CC & UC of Rs. 1 Lakh (Ext.M-4/21), MR (Ext.M-4/22), r) Sanction Order of Rs. 1 Lakh for Construction of Septic Tank at Primary SchoolIII (Girls) (Ext.M-4/23), APR dated 14.03.2012 of Rs. 1 Lakh purportedly showing payment of the amount to PW-20 (Ext.M-4/24), CC & UC of Rs. 1 Lakh (Ext.M-4/25), MR (Ext.M-4/26), s) Sanction Order of Rs. 1 Lakh (Ext.M-4/21), MR (Ext.M-4/22), r) Sanction Order of Rs. 1 Lakh for Construction of Septic Tank at Primary SchoolIII (Girls) (Ext.M-4/23), APR dated 14.03.2012 of Rs. 1 Lakh purportedly showing payment of the amount to PW-20 (Ext.M-4/24), CC & UC of Rs. 1 Lakh (Ext.M-4/25), MR (Ext.M-4/26), s) Sanction Order of Rs. 1 Lakh for Construction of Septic Tank at Primary School-II (Boys) (Ext.M-4/27), APR dated 14.03.2012 of Rs. 1 Lakh purportedly showing payment of the amount to PW-20 (Ext.M-4/28), CC & UC of Rs. 1 Lakh (Ext.M-4/29), MR (Ext.M-4/30), t) Sanction Order of Rs. 1 Lakh for Construction of Septic Tank at Primary School-II (Girls), (Ext.M-4/31), APR dated 14.03.2012 of Rs. 1 Lakh purportedly showing payment of the amount to PW-20 (Ext.M-4/32), CC & UC Certificate of Rs. 1,00,000/-(Ext.M-4/33), MR (Ext. M-4/34), u) Sanction Order of Rs. 1 Lakh for Construction of Septic Tank at Primary School-I (Boys) (Ext.M-4/35), APR dated 14.03.2012 of Rs. 1 Lakh purportedly showing payment of the amount to PW-20 (Ext.M-4/36), CC & UC of Rs. 1,00,000/-(Ext.M-4/37), MR (Ext.M-4/38) v) Sanction Order of Rs. 1 Lakh for Construction of Septic Tank at Primary School-I (Girls), (Ext. M-4/39), APR dated 14.03.2012 of Rs. 1 Lakh purportedly showing payment of the amount to PW-20 (Ext.M-4/40), CC & UC of Rs. 1 Lakh (Ext.M-4/41), MR (Ext.M-4/42) etc. During cross-examination, the PW-26 stated that he conducted the investigation based on the enquiry report of the PW-1 and that he had no knowledge that the Enquiry Report was based on verbal accusations and not against any documents. He affirmed that the signatures in the APRs under question belonged to the PW-2 and the PW-20. The PW-26 stated that he did not have any documentary evidence to prove that the money received by the PW-2 and the PW-20 were less than the amount indicated in the APRs, and that they did not file or make any complaints to the effect that the money they received was less than what was indicated in the APRs. He also affirmed that members who attended meetings of the DLIC did not file or make any complaints regarding non-receipt of sitting allowances. The PW-26 stated that the Cashier was responsible for disbursements and to ensure whether the amount disbursed was correct or not, and that it was not the responsibility of the Deputy Commissioner, to make actual disbursement of the sitting allowances. The PW-26 stated that the Cashier was responsible for disbursements and to ensure whether the amount disbursed was correct or not, and that it was not the responsibility of the Deputy Commissioner, to make actual disbursement of the sitting allowances. The PW-26 stated that as per his findings the total amount of money misappropriated by the accused was Rs. 14,16,500/-which was not the same with the findings of the PW-1 who alleged misappropriation of Rs. 12,11,500/-by the accused; and that he could explain the reason behind the difference in the alleged misappropriation; and that he stood firm in his findings even though he did not have any documentary evidence. He also mentioned that the basis of his chargesheet were the verbal statement of the PW-2 and the PW-20 and those members of the DLIC who stated not to have received sitting allowances. He admitted that the statements made by the DLIC members in the Court was contradictory to his charge-sheet, and that PW-2, PW-20, and some members of the DLIC did not personally accuse the accused of misappropriation of money due to them. 32. During his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant admitted that Rs. 385 Lakh was transferred by the Field Director, DTR, to the Bank Account of Deputy Commissioner, Mamit, vide letter dated 21.06.2011, which included Contingency Fund of Rs. 11.35 Lakh for Deputy Commissioner, Mamit, District. He admitted that Rs. 295 Lakh was transferred again by the Field Director, DTR, to the Bank Account of Deputy Commissioner, Mamit vide letter dated 16.02.2012 which included Contingency Fund of Rs. 9.6 Lakh for Deputy Commissioner, Mamit District. He was aware about transfer of Contingency Fund (Common Fund) amounting to Rs. 60 Lakh by the Field Director, DTR, to the Bank Account of Deputy Commissioner, Mamit District, vide letter dated 16.02.2012. 33. He admitted sanction of Rs. 7 Lakh to the PW-2 for construction of masonry side drain at Andermanik vide Order dated 13.03.2012 from the Common Fund he received. He was not aware about the entries in the Common Fund Subsidiary Cash Book that Rs. 7 Lakh was disbursed to PW-2 on 14.03.2012 for construction of masonry side drain. He was not aware about payment of Rs. 3 Lakh only to the PW-2 out of the sanctioned amount of Rs. He was not aware about the entries in the Common Fund Subsidiary Cash Book that Rs. 7 Lakh was disbursed to PW-2 on 14.03.2012 for construction of masonry side drain. He was not aware about payment of Rs. 3 Lakh only to the PW-2 out of the sanctioned amount of Rs. 7 Lakh for construction of masonry side drain at Andermanik vide Order dated 13.03.2012, and that he (PW-2) was made to sign on a blank APR. He stated that he had never instructed or suggested his subordinates to indulge in unlawful or wrongful practices. He stated that he never instructed his Cashier or anybody to make PW-2 sign on a blank APR format. 34. The appellant admitted sanction of Rs. 4.5 Lakh to the VCP, Andermanik, for construction of rest shed near community hall at Andermanik vide Order dated 13.03.2012 from the Common Fund he received. He admitted sanction of Rs. 3 Lakh to the VCP, Andermanik, for construction of public toilet-cum-urinal shed near community hall at Andermanik vide Order dated 13.03.2012 from the Common Fund he received. He also admitted sanction of Rs. 1 Lakh each for construction of septic tanks at (i) Middle School (Girls), (ii) Middle School (Boys), (iii) Primary School I (Boys) (iv) Primary School I (Girls), (v) Primary School II (Boys), (vi) Primary School II (Girls), (vii) Primary School III (Boys), and (viii) Primary School III (Girls), vide Order dated 13.03.2012 from the Common Fund he received. He was not aware about entries in the Common Fund Subsidiary Cash Book that Rs. 15.5 Lakh was disbursed to the Village Council, Andermanik, on 14.03.2012 for various construction works as the Cash Book was not maintained by him. He was not aware about nonpayment of Rs. 10 Lakh to the VCP, Andermanik out of the total amount of Rs. 15.5 Lakh sanctioned for the works to be executed by the VCP of Andermanik. He had never instructed or suggested his subordinates to release Rs. 5.5 Lakh only out of the sanctioned amount of Rs. 15.5 Lakh. He stated that he never instructed his Cashier or anybody to make the VCP, Andermanik to sign on blank sheets of paper. He never misappropriated even a single rupee from the sanctioned amount of Rs. 15.5 Lakh. 35. The appellant said that he was not aware that contingency fund of Rs. 15.5 Lakh. He stated that he never instructed his Cashier or anybody to make the VCP, Andermanik to sign on blank sheets of paper. He never misappropriated even a single rupee from the sanctioned amount of Rs. 15.5 Lakh. 35. The appellant said that he was not aware that contingency fund of Rs. 36,500/-was shown to have been expended for payment of sitting allowance in the Contingency Fund Subsidiary Cash Book. He admitted sanction of Rs. 36,500/-for sitting allowances of members of DLIC vide Order dated 16.03.2012. He was not aware that the APR of sitting allowance indicated payment of Rs. 36,500/-to 24 members for different numbers of sitting @ Rs. 500/-per sitting. He denied receipt of the entire sanctioned amount of Rs. 36,000/- for sitting allowance of members of the DLIC from the Cashier. He also denied misappropriation of Rs. 11,500/- for sitting allowances of members of the DLIC. 36. The appellant denied that Rs. 7 Lakh in cash was handed over to him by the Cashier during June 2012 and stated that he never received even a single rupee from the Cashier at any point of time except what he was lawfully entitled. He further stated that the allegations made against him in this case were wrong and baseless. 37. The appellant also adduced defence evidence and examined himself as DW-1, wherein he had deposed that he has been a government servant since 1986 and is presently posted as the Secretary, Horticulture, District Council & Minority Affairs Department, Government of Mizoram. He held the post of the Deputy Commissioner, Mamit from 01.07.2011 to 02.07.2012, and in that capacity he was Chairman of the DLIC on Relocation of Andermanik Village during the said period. Before he took over as Deputy Commissioner, Mamit, the meeting of the DLIC on 06.05.2011 chaired by his predecessor, allocated Rs. 908 Lakh for creation of various community assets and basic infrastructures in the new Andermanik Village with sectoral allocation of funds to the executing line departments. Out of this fund, the Deputy Commissioner, Mamit, was allocated Rs. 60 Lakh for Furnishing/Common Fund and Rs. 20.95 Lakh as Contingency Fund. However, out of the earmarked funds of Rs. 908 Lakh by the DLIC, a total amount of Rs. Out of this fund, the Deputy Commissioner, Mamit, was allocated Rs. 60 Lakh for Furnishing/Common Fund and Rs. 20.95 Lakh as Contingency Fund. However, out of the earmarked funds of Rs. 908 Lakh by the DLIC, a total amount of Rs. 745.70 Lakh was actually released to the account of the District Administration by the Field Director, Dampa Tiger Reserve at various intervals which was further released to the concerned Line Departments for execution of their assigned works. 38. The appellant has further deposed that following indication by members of the DLIC, he sanctioned Rs. 36,500/-for payment of sitting allowances to the members of the DLIC. The members had not received allowances due to late receipt of funds. He knew that the Cashier had withdrawn Rs. 36,500/-. However, he was not aware if it had been disbursed to the members because that was the responsibility of the Cashier and the Accounts Branch. Further, it was their responsibility to disburse and obtain proper receipts. Since it was not his duty to disburse the amount to the members, the question of handing over the money to him by the Cashier does not arise at all. He denied the allegation that the Cashier had handed over to him the sum of Rs. 36,500/-. He did not misappropriate Rs. 11,500/-out of Rs. 36,500/-as alleged in the charge-sheet. 39. The appellant has also stated that out of Rs. 60 Lakh allocated for Furnishing/Common Fund, he realized that there was savings of Rs. 38 Lakh which he decided to utilize in a purposeful manner to supplement the works done by the line departments for Construction of Masonry Steps, Retaining Wall, Masonry Side-drains, Public Toilets-cum-Urinal Shed, Rest Shed, Septic Tanks for Boys & Girls at Primary & Middle School at Andermanik, etc. In this connection, he was told by the Cashier and Accounts Assistant of Deputy Commissioner’s Office, Mamit, that all the funds earmarked by him for execution of the said works were fully released and APRs were obtained. Copies of the APRs, etc. were given to him for information. The entire amount of Rs. 38 Lakh was fully utilized. 40. The appellant has further deposed that as Deputy Commissioner, Mamit, his duty was to approve proposal for sanction which was moved in File from the Accounts Branch. He was not involved in disbursement of funds. Copies of the APRs, etc. were given to him for information. The entire amount of Rs. 38 Lakh was fully utilized. 40. The appellant has further deposed that as Deputy Commissioner, Mamit, his duty was to approve proposal for sanction which was moved in File from the Accounts Branch. He was not involved in disbursement of funds. The actual disbursements were made in the Accounts Branch by the Cashier. He never instructed any staff to obtain signature on blank paper/APRs or to release funds short of the sanctioned amount. He had no involvement at all and vehemently denied the allegation of misusing his official position for directing or ordering his subordinates to indulge or practice anything illegal or unfair means. 41. The appellant has further deposed that the allegation of misusing his powers as Deputy Commissioner, Mamit, for misappropriating funds to the tune of Rs. 14,16,500/-(or Rs. 12,11,500/-as per the Enquiry Officer) in the form of retaining some payments of sitting allowance and payment for various works allotted to the PW-20 and the PW-2 was totally false, fabricated, and baseless. He did not misappropriate any amount of fund and vehemently denied the allegations. 42. The appellant has also stated that he had asked the Engineers of DRDA, Mamit, to prepare Plan & Estimates for each item of works such as Construction of Masonry Steps, Retaining Wall, Masonry Side-drains, Public Toilets-cum-Urinal Shed, Rest Shed, Septic Tanks for Boys & Girls at Primary & Middle School at Andermanik. Copies of such plan and estimates were given to the Cashier and Accounts Assistant to be handed over to the Executing Agencies at the time of release of such funds for constructions with clear instruction given to the Cashier and the Accounts Assistant so that the Executing Agencies could execute the works in accordance with the Plan & Estimates. However, from the statement of the PW-20 and the PW-2, it appears that the Plan & Estimates were not handed over to them by the Cashier/Accounts Assistant as instructed by him for reasons best known to them. The appellant has further deposed that on the contrary, the allegation of the Cashier and the Accounts Assistant against him of instructing them to let the Executing Agencies i.e., PW-20 and PW-2 to sign on blank APR/paper and not to release full payment was a total lie. The appellant has further deposed that on the contrary, the allegation of the Cashier and the Accounts Assistant against him of instructing them to let the Executing Agencies i.e., PW-20 and PW-2 to sign on blank APR/paper and not to release full payment was a total lie. Also, despite saying that he had not received the Plan & Estimates, the appellant stated that he was surprised to learn that the PW-20 could execute some of the works earmarked by him i.e. construction of Latrine & Urinal in 4 Schools, 1 Public Toilet and 1 Rest Shed as per the earmarked Plan. 43. The appellant stated that the allegation made against him by the PW10 regarding handing over lumpsum cash directly to him was not true and a blatant lie. The appellant has also stated that at no point of time did the Cashier ever handed over such cash to him and he had never received a single rupee from the Cashier except those what was legally due to him like pay and allowances, TA/DA, etc. Also, he had never instructed or directed the Cashier to misappropriate funds or to hand it over to him at any point of time. 44. He denied all the charges and allegations made against him in the chargesheet. He has stated that the charges and allegations made against him were concocted and false, which he believed was an intention to malign his good image. He has further deposed that he had absolutely no involvement in the said misappropriation of fund nor did he have any knowledge about it. 45. Learned senior counsel for the appellant has submitted that the evidence on record does not justify the conviction of the appellant under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as the prosecution side has failed to prove the ingredients of offences under the abovementioned provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The learned senior counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is no evidence on record to suggest that the appellant had either himself demanded the money from anyone or that he has misappropriated any money. The learned senior counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is no evidence on record to suggest that the appellant had either himself demanded the money from anyone or that he has misappropriated any money. The learned senior counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Trial Court has erred in heavily relying on the testimony of the PW-10 who was the cashier and who was involved in all the dealings alleged in the FIR and it is the cashier who ought to have been arraigned as an accused as there are direct evidence against the cashier to have indulged in the alleged wrongdoings. 46. The learned senior counsel for the appellant has also submitted that no charge under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the present appellant, hence, it would be wrong to come to a conclusion that there was a connivance or some criminal conspiracy between the PW-10 and the present appellant as that aspect has not been examined and no accusation under section 120B of the Indian Penal Code was made against the present petitioner. The learned senior counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted the preliminary inquiry had suggested in his report of preliminary enquiry which was submitted on 21.03.2013 that there were evidences against the cashier of the Office of the Deputy Commissioner i.e. the PW-10 and a suggestion was made to register a criminal case against the Cashier (PW-10). However, no FIR was lodged against the PW10 and he was not made to face the trial though the material available on record only suggests his direct involvement in the alleged offence. The learned senior counsel for the appellant has also submitted that even the Trial Court failed to take cognizance against the cashier under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 though there were material against him on record. 47. The learned senior counsel for the appellant has also submitted that there is also no charge of forgery against the present appellant for making false Actual Payee Receipts (APRs). In fact, there is no statement in the evidence of the witnesses that the APR have been falsely made by the appellant rather the allegations were only against the PW-10. 47. The learned senior counsel for the appellant has also submitted that there is also no charge of forgery against the present appellant for making false Actual Payee Receipts (APRs). In fact, there is no statement in the evidence of the witnesses that the APR have been falsely made by the appellant rather the allegations were only against the PW-10. The learned senior counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the evidence of the PW-10 also suggests that Actual Payee Receipts (APRs) were duly executed and his evidence does not suggest any falsification of the APRs. 48. The learned senior counsel for the appellant has also submitted that when the credibility of the PW-10 is itself doubtful, it was not proper on the part of the learned Trial Court to rely on the testimony of such a witness to come to the finding of guilt of the present appellant. 49. The learned senior counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the appellant has been prejudiced as he was not afforded an opportunity of cross-examining the authority who had given the sanction for prosecution against him, as according to learned senior counsel, the prosecution sanction against the present appellant ought not to have been granted. Hence, non-examination of the sanctioning authority as prosecution witness has prejudiced the appellant as he lost the opportunity of cross-examining the sanctioning authority to bring on record the fact as to whether there was any application of mind while granting prosecution sanction against the present appellant. 50. The learned senior counsel for the appellant has submitted that granting of prosecution sanction against a public servant is not a mere formality, and in the instant case, as the evidence on record directly suggests culpability of the PW-10 and not the present applicant, non-examination of the sanctioning authority has caused prejudice to the appellant and therefore, benefit of doubt should be given to him. 51. Learned senior counsel for the appellant has also submitted that as per Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 any offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has to be investigated by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. However, in the instant case, it is submitted that the Investigating Officer was an Inspector. However, in the instant case, it is submitted that the Investigating Officer was an Inspector. Learned senior counsel for the appellant has further submitted that though the fact that the investigation was conducted by an officer below the rank of the Superintendent of Police, would not in itself vitiate the trial, however, if the appellant is able to show that prejudice has been caused to him, it would be a good ground to give him the benefit of doubt on the ground that the trial gets vitiated due to conduct of the investigation by an Officer below the rank as prescribed by Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 52. In support of his submissions, learned senior counsel for the appellant has relied upon the following rulings: i. Union of India & Anr. Vs. B. N. Ananti Padmanabiah etc. reported in 1971 3 SCC 278 . ii. H. N. Rishbud and Inder Singh Vs. The State of Delhi reported in 1955 1 SCR 1150 . iii. State of Karnataka Lokayukta Police Vs. S. Subbegowda reported 2023 SCC Online SC 911. iv. Mahant Bhagwan Bhagat Vs. G. N. Bhagat reported in 1972 1 SCC 486 . v. V. Venkata Subbarao Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, AP reported in 2006 13 SCC 305. vi. Narbada Devi Gupta Vs. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal and Anr. reported in 2003 8 SCC 745 . vii. Manik Lodh Vs. State of Assam reported in Manu/ GH/0507/2006 viii. Neeraj Datta Vs. State reported in 2023 SCC online SC 280. 53. On the other hand, Mr. C. Zoramchanna, learned Public Prosecutor, Mizoram has submitted that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the present appellant on record and the learned Trial Court has correctly arrived at the finding of guilt of the present appellant and the impugned judgment does not warrant any interference by this Court. 54. 53. On the other hand, Mr. C. Zoramchanna, learned Public Prosecutor, Mizoram has submitted that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the present appellant on record and the learned Trial Court has correctly arrived at the finding of guilt of the present appellant and the impugned judgment does not warrant any interference by this Court. 54. Learned Public Prosecutor, Mizoram, has submitted that though in this case, the investigation was not conducted by an officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, but by an officer of the rank of Inspector of Police however, in this regard, the Government of Mizoram had issued an order on 19.08.2010 in exercise of powers conferred by the first proviso to Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, whereby an Inspector of Police posted in Anti-Corruption Bureau, Mizoram is also authorized to investigate offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and in this regard, the learned Public Prosecutor has furnished a copy of relevant notification and also a copy of the order dated 19.08.2012. 55. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the evidence of prosecution witnesses shows that though they have put their signatures in Actual Payee Receipts, however, they have not received the full amount mentioned in the said Actual Payee Receipts and the evidence of the PW10 shows that the amount mentioned in the Actual Payee Receipts were not paid in full to the said recipients on the instructions of the present appellant. 56. Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that the PW-10 has categorically stated in his deposition that he handed over Rs. 7 Lakh to the present appellant from the accumulated amount of money which he retained by not paying the same to the actual recipients. 57. Learned Public Prosecutor has also submitted that as regards the question of prosecution sanction is concerned, and as regards the question of non-examination of the sanctioning authority who accorded the prosecution sanction for the prosecution of the present appellant is concerned, no such question was raised or challenged before the learned Trial Court at any stage of the trial and therefore, the said question may not be now raised at the appellate stage. 58. Learned Public Prosecutor also relied on the following rulings in support of submissions made by him: i. Sarah Mathew Vs. Institute of Cardiovascular Disease reported in (2014) 2 SCC 62 . ii. 58. Learned Public Prosecutor also relied on the following rulings in support of submissions made by him: i. Sarah Mathew Vs. Institute of Cardiovascular Disease reported in (2014) 2 SCC 62 . ii. State represented by Inspector of Police, CBI Vs. M. Subrahmanyam reported in (2019) 6 SCC 357 iii. Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Prem Lata Shukla and others reported in (2007) 13 SCC 476 . 59. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides and have gone through the materials on record meticulously. I have also gone through the rulings relied upon and cited by learned counsel for both the sides. 60. Though the learned senior counsel for the appellant has raised the question of competency of the Investigating Officer in this case to investigate an offence under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in the manner as already discussed hereinabove, however, in view of the order dated 19.08.2010, as well as Notification No. C.31012/1/2010-VIG dated Aizawl 22nd October 2012, whereby an Inspector posted in the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Mizoram has also been authorized to investigate the offences under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the plea raised by the learned senior counsel for the appellant fadesaway. 61. In this case, though basically three main allegations of misappropriation of various amounts of money were levelled against the present appellant, however, in the paragraph no.48 of the impugned judgment, the learned Trial Court has given the benefit of doubt to the present appellant in respect of remaining amount of funds shown to have been misappropriated. He has been found guilty by the learned Trial Court only in respect of Rs. 7 Lakh, which is stated to be paid to him by the cashier i.e. PW-10. 62. Now, let us examine as to whether reliable evidence is there on record which is sufficient enough to come to the conclusion that the finding of the learned Trial Court as regards holding the appellant guilty of accepting Rs. 7 Lakh from the PW-10 can be sustained or not. 63. In the instant case, apart from the testimony of the PW-10, there is nothing to prove that the appellant has made any demand of Rs.7 Lakh from either any of the beneficiaries/recipients or from the PW-10. 7 Lakh from the PW-10 can be sustained or not. 63. In the instant case, apart from the testimony of the PW-10, there is nothing to prove that the appellant has made any demand of Rs.7 Lakh from either any of the beneficiaries/recipients or from the PW-10. The Apex Court in V. Venkata Subbarao v. State, reported in (2006)13 SCC 305 has observed as follows : 24. Submission of the learned counsel for the State that presumption has rightly been raised against the appellant, cannot be accepted as, inter alia, the demand itself had not been proved. In the absence of a proof of demand, the question of raising the presumption would not arise. Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 provides for raising of a presumption only if a demand is proved. It reads as under: “20. Presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration.—(1) Where, in any trial of an offence punishable under Section 7 or Section 11 or clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 it is proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 7 or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate.” 27. In Union of India v. Purnandu Biswas [(2005) 12 SCC 576 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 520] , it was opined: (SCC p. 585, para 36) “36. In this case demand of illegal gratification by the respondent has not been proved. Furthermore, Section 20 of the Act is not attracted as the respondent had been charged for commission of an offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act.” 64. It appears from the materials on record that the finding of the learned Trial Court to the effect that the present appellant had received Rs. Furthermore, Section 20 of the Act is not attracted as the respondent had been charged for commission of an offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act.” 64. It appears from the materials on record that the finding of the learned Trial Court to the effect that the present appellant had received Rs. 7 Lakh from the PW-10 in the month of June 2012 is based mainly on the testimony of the PW-10 wherein he has stated that he had retained some part of the sanctioned amount which was not disbursed to the beneficiaries and he handed over the same to the present appellant. 65. Apart from the oral testimony of the PW-10, there is no other material, whether documentary or oral or circumstantial, to show that the PW-10 had handed over the said amount of money to the appellant. It also appears from the evidence on record that the disbursement of money to the recipients was mainly done by the PW-10 and though the PW-10 has deposed that he had disbursed lesser amount to the recipients than what has been mentioned in the Actual Payee Receipts (APRs), however, there is no allegation against the present appellant that it was he who had falsified the Actual Payee Receipts (APRs). In fact, no charge was framed regarding falsification of Actual Payee Receipts or for forgery in this case. Though, this case is entirely based on the assumption that the Actual Payee Receipts (APRs) were falsified by the appellant, however, the Actual Payee Receipts (APRs) which were exhibited as Exhibit M-1 to Exhibit M-4/42 are found to contain the signatures of the recipients and apart from the oral testimony of the PW-10 that he was asked by the appellant to disburse lesser amount to the recipients than what has been shown in the Actual Payee Receipts (APRs), there is no other evidence to that effect against the present appellant. 66. It also appears from the record that all the cash withdrawals from bank were done by the PW-10 and most of the disbursements to the recipients were made by the PW-10 himself and though the PW-10 has deposed that he has not paid the actual amount mentioned in the APRs to the recipients, however, apart from his oral testimony there is no other material to implicate the present appellant. Even the recipients who were the actual beneficiaries of the amount disbursed through the APRs have made no allegations against the present appellant in their testimony. 67. The submission of the learned senior counsel for the present appellant appears to be logical that when there is documentary evidence in respect of a disputed fact and there is oral evidence also with regard to the same fact, the documentary evidence undoubtedly is to be treated as more reliable unless the documents are found to be falsified. In the instant case, the documentary evidence that is the Actual Payee Receipts (APRs), Completion Certificate and the Utilization Certificates are found to be in order, and there is neither any investigation nor any charges as well as finding to the effect that the same were forged or falsified by the present appellant. 68. The material which is available on record shows that it was the PW-10 who had himself admitted paying lesser amount than what is mentioned in the Actual Payee Receipts (APRs). Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that it may not be very safe to rely on the testimony of such a witness whose own credibility is doubtful and whose own conduct is doubtful. The material on record shows that it is the PW-10 who had indulged in all the wrongdoings, however, no reasons have been shown for exonerating him. Even the statement given by the PW-10 under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is questionable as the PW-10 has stated in paragraph No.21 of his cross examination that he did not make any statement before the Judicial Magistrate First Class. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that it may not be safe to come to the finding of the guilt of the present appellant merely on the basis of uncorroborated testimony of the PW-10 as the documentary evidence on record does not corroborate the testimony of the PW-10. 69. It is also to be taken into consideration that the PW-10 has also stated in his cross-examination that he was also intimidated by the Investigating Officer of the previous case. In any view of the matter, apart from the mere oral testimony of the PW-10 to the effect that he handed over Rs. 69. It is also to be taken into consideration that the PW-10 has also stated in his cross-examination that he was also intimidated by the Investigating Officer of the previous case. In any view of the matter, apart from the mere oral testimony of the PW-10 to the effect that he handed over Rs. 7 Lakh wrapped in a newspaper to the present appellant in one morning of June 2012, there is nothing on record to corroborate the said oral testimony of the PW-10. It appears that under the facts and circumstances of this case, the PW-10 ought to have been made as one of the accused in this case and in view of the fact that the conduct and credibility of the PW-10 is questionable, this Court is of the considered opinion that it may not be safe to rely on the testimony of such a witness to convict the present appellant in this case. 70. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that the prosecution side has not been able to prove the charges under Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2), beyond all reasonable doubts and the appellant is entitled to get benefit of doubt regarding the allegations that he had received Rs. 7 Lakh from the PW-10 in the month of June 2012. 71. For the reasons aforesaid, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the impugned judgment by the learned Trial Court is hereby set aside and this appeal is allowed. 72. Send back the LCR. 73. The Registry of the Principal Seat is hereby directed to send the case record of this criminal appeal along with the LCR to the Registry of the Aizawl Permanent Bench of Gauhati High Court immediately. On receipt of the case record the Registry of the Aizawl Permanent Bench would send back the LCR to the learned Trial Court along with a copy of this judgment.