JUDGMENT : 1. The instant appeal has been preferred against judgment dated 17.7.2007 passed by the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the PC Act’), Raipur in Special Criminal Case No.30 of 2004, whereby all the Appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction Sentence Under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs.1,500 in default of payment thereof, additional rigorous imprisonment for 2 months Under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code Rigorous Imprisonment for 2½ years and fine of Rs.3,000 in default of payment thereof, additional rigorous imprisonment for 3 months Under Section 468 read with Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code Rigorous Imprisonment for 2½ years and fine of Rs.3,000 in default of payment thereof, additional rigorous imprisonment for 3 months Under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Rigorous Imprisonment for 2½ years and fine of Rs.3,000, in default of payment thereof, additional rigorous imprisonment for 3 months All the sentences are directed to run concurrently 2. According to the case of prosecution, in the year 1994-95 Appellant 1 G.S. Dewangan was posted as S.D.O. (Phones) in the Telecom Department, Rajnandgaon. Appellant 2 S.C. Sadh was posted there as J.T.O. (Phones). Appellant 3 Pramesh Kumar Agrawal was the proprietor of M/s Engineering Complex and Appellant 4 Ajit Singh was a partner of M/s Engineering Complex. Further case of the prosecution is that in the year 1994-95 a tender was floated by the Telecom Department for laying underground telephone cable for about 40 Kms. Tender of Appellants 3 and 4 was accepted and they were issued work order. According to the work order, trench for the underground cable, which was to be laid by Appellants 3 and 4, was to be 3x1 feet. Allegedly, all the Appellants made a criminal conspiracy and under the conspiracy Appellants 3 and 4 reduced the trench for the cable from 3x1 feet to 22.68 inches only. However, in the measurement book, they mentioned that the trench was of 3x1 feet. The said forged measurement book was duly got verified through Appellants 1 and 2 and a forged bill amounting to Rs.3,09,240 was also submitted by Appellants 3 and 4, which was also verified by Appellants 1 and 2. Resultantly, the said bill was passed by the higher officers. The said forged measurement book was duly got verified through Appellants 1 and 2 and a forged bill amounting to Rs.3,09,240 was also submitted by Appellants 3 and 4, which was also verified by Appellants 1 and 2. Resultantly, the said bill was passed by the higher officers. Thus, excess payment of Rs.1,92,301.20 was made to Appellants 3 and 4 and thereby a loss of the same amount was caused to the Telecom Department. On receiving information from a source, First Information Report was registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) vide Ex.P19. During the course of inquiry and investigation, the work which was done by Appellants 3 and 4 was also inspected by the officials of the CBI and in this regard inspection report (Ex.P11) dated 13.12.1996 and memorandum of inspection (Ex.P12) dated 14.12.1996 were also prepared. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. The Trial Court framed charges. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. In examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the Appellants denied the guilt and pleaded innocence. 5 witnesses were examined in defence by the Appellants. On completion of the trial, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the Appellants as mentioned in first paragraph of this judgment. Hence, the instant appeal. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants argued that without there being sufficient and clinching evidence on record the Trial Court convicted the Appellants. Referring to the statements of PW4 S.N. Panse, PW5 Ram Singh Chouhan and PW7 B.S. Kushwah, it was argued that spot inspection was done on the basis of L-14 diagram which is used in cable spread over the poles, i.e., above the ground and the said inspection was not based on the cable diagram which is laid underground. Therefore, the entire inspection report of the CBI is not acceptable as inspection is not possible on the basis of L-14 diagram. It was further submitted that at the time of inspection carried out by the CBI, Appellants 3 and 4 were not present at the spot and after inspection also they were not afforded opportunity of offering explanation. It was further argued that from the evidence on record it is established that after laying of the cable underground 2 rainy seasons had passed and, therefore, filling of soil in the trench was natural. It was further argued that from the evidence on record it is established that after laying of the cable underground 2 rainy seasons had passed and, therefore, filling of soil in the trench was natural. Hence, there can be difference in the measurement of trench which was taken after 2 years. It was further argued that the first inspection (Ex.P10) was done by the Telecom Department and according to the statements of witnesses the measurement which was taken by Vasant Walde of the Telecom Department during the inspection was written by him in a diary, but, Vasant Walde has not been examined by the prosecution before the Trial Court nor was the said diary which was a primary evidence of the said measurement produced before the Trial Court. Therefore, the inspection report (Ex.P10) is also not acceptable. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent/CBI supported the impugned judgment of the Trial Court and submitted that considering the entire evidence available on record the Trial Court has rightly convicted the Appellants. 5. I have heard the rival contentions put-forth on behalf of the parties and minutely perused the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution as well as by the defence before the Court below both oral and documentary. 6. PW2 M. Kuppuswami and PW3 Harihar Sahu are the witnesses related to departmental proceedings. PW4 S.N. Panse also in paragraph 2 of his examination deposed regarding proceedings of their department. On a careful perusal of the statements of the above three witnesses it emerges that a tender was floated for laying down underground cable and tender of Appellants 3 and 4 was accepted and work order was issued to them. It further emerges that on starting of the work a measurement book was issued to the contractor to which he maintains and in which he records relevant measurements. Entries of measurement recorded in the said measurement book are inspected by the J.T.O. and S.D.O. of the Telecom Department. After the inspection, they verify the entries and sign the measurement book. Thereafter, the contractor submits his bill along with the said measurement book. Then the J.T.O. and the S.D.O. of the Telecom Department put their counter signatures on the bill. Thereafter, finally, the bill is checked and passed and payment is made to the contractor. 7. After the inspection, they verify the entries and sign the measurement book. Thereafter, the contractor submits his bill along with the said measurement book. Then the J.T.O. and the S.D.O. of the Telecom Department put their counter signatures on the bill. Thereafter, finally, the bill is checked and passed and payment is made to the contractor. 7. According to the case of prosecution and as per the agreement and terms of the tender, Appellants 3 and 4 had to dig trench of 3x1 feet, but, it was found that trench which was dug was of 22.68 inches only. Further case of the prosecution is that Appellants 3 and 4 prepared a forged measurement book showing that the required trench was dug and those forged entries were wrongly verified by Appellants 1 and 2 and on the basis of the said forged measurement book a forged bill was prepared and payment was made to Appellants 3 and 4. 8. The entire case of the prosecution is based on the inspection report dated 13.9.1995 (Ex.P10) prepared by the Telecom Department and the inspection report dated 13.12.1996 (Ex.P11) and the memorandum of inspection dated 14.12.1996 (Ex.P12), both prepared by the CBI during the course of investigation. 9. PW4 S.N. Panse, in his examination-in-chief in paragraph 7, deposed that the departmental inspection was done in his presence and the inspection report thereof (Ex.P10) was prepared. He admitted that it was found by them that the cable was laid underground according the specification of the tender, i.e., 3x1 feet under the ground. This witness as well as PW5 Ram Singh Chouhan who was also present at the time of inspection admitted the fact that as the cable diagram was not available there at the time of inspection, line was dug as told by lineman Vasant Walde. They have further admitted that Vasant Walde had taken measurement and written the same in a diary and a report thereof (Ex.P10) was prepared later on in the office. However, the prosecution has not examined Vasant Walde for the reasons best known to them nor has produced the said diary written by Vasant Walde on the basis of which report (Ex.P10) was later on prepared in the office. 10. However, the prosecution has not examined Vasant Walde for the reasons best known to them nor has produced the said diary written by Vasant Walde on the basis of which report (Ex.P10) was later on prepared in the office. 10. From the statements of PW4 S.N. Panse and PW5 Ram Singh Chouhan, it also emerges that cable diagram means the cable which is used underground and L-14 diagram means cable spread over poles above ground. PW4 S.N. Panse and PW5 Ram Singh Chouhan in their statements admitted the fact that at the time of departmental inspection (Ex.P10) cable diagram (which is used for underground cable) was not available. Instead, L-14 diagram was available (which is used for spreading cable over the poles above ground). Thus, from the above statements of these two witnesses, it is clear that preparation of the inspection report Ex.P10 itself is based on a wrong diagram (L-14 diagram). 11. As regards the inspection report made by the CBI, i.e., Ex.P11 dated 13.12.1996 and Ex.P12 dated 14.12.1996, PW4 S.N. Panse, PW8 B.K. Singh and PW9 B.B. Sharma are the witnesses who were present at the time of inspection carried out by the CBI. All these witnesses during their crossexamination further admitted the fact that at the time of inspection done by the CBI also, cable diagram was not available and the inspection was done on the basis of L-14 diagram. PW9 B.B. Sharma in paragraph 5 of his crossexamination further admitted the fact that the inspection was done after passing of 2 rainy seasons. In paragraph 7, he further admitted that at the time of inspection, Appellants 3 and 4 were not present at the spot. PW4 S.N. Panse, PW5 Ram Singh Chouhan, PW6 S.C. Gaurkar and PW8 B.K. Singh also admitted the above facts. PW8 B.K. Singh in paragraph 10 of his cross-examination further admitted that trench cable wire indicators were placed while laying down cable by Appellants 3 and 4, but, at the time of inspection, no trench cable indicator was found at the spot. In paragraph 11, he further admitted that the depth was found to be 32 inches, 31 inches and 36 inches at various places. He further admitted that the cable was up and down at some places inside the trench. 12. In paragraph 11, he further admitted that the depth was found to be 32 inches, 31 inches and 36 inches at various places. He further admitted that the cable was up and down at some places inside the trench. 12. On a minute examination of the above evidence available on record, it is clear that the work order was issued to Appellants 3 and 4 and pursuant to the said work order in the year 1994-95 cable was laid underground and entries were made in the measurement book given to them by the Telecom Department and on the basis of the measurement book a bill was prepared, the same was verified and passed for payment. The first spot inspection was done by the Telecom Department and inspection report thereof was prepared vide Ex.P10. The said first inspection was done on 13.9.1995. The admission made by the witnesses also shows that the inspection report (Ex.P10) prepared by the Telecom Department is based on L- 14 diagram not on cable diagram. It is also established that lineman Vasant Walde had taken measurement and entries thereof were made by him in a diary and later on inspection report (Ex.P10) was prepared in the office. But, neither Vasant Walde has been examined by the prosecution before the Trial Court nor was the said diary produced before the Trial Court. However, as admitted by PW4 S.N. Panse, at the time of departmental inspection, trench, according to the tender, was found on the spot. It is also established that the inspection done by the CBI (Ex.P11 dated 13.12.1996 and Ex.P12 dated 14.12.1996) was based on L-14 diagram only. At the time of the inspection of the CBI, cable diagram was not available with the CBI. Thus, it is also established that the measurement taken by the CBI was based on L-14 diagram not on cable diagram. Therefore, the inspection report prepared by the CBI was based on a wrong diagram. Further, from the evidence on record, it is also established that the inspection was done by the CBI after passing of 2 rainy seasons. From the admission made by the witnesses, it is also established that filling of soil into the trench was natural. Therefore, the inspection report prepared by the CBI was based on a wrong diagram. Further, from the evidence on record, it is also established that the inspection was done by the CBI after passing of 2 rainy seasons. From the admission made by the witnesses, it is also established that filling of soil into the trench was natural. Considering the entire material available on record, as discussed above, a serious doubt arises whether all the inspections (Ex.P10, P11 and P12) were done properly, as the said inspections were done on the basis of a wrong diagram. On this ground only, the entire case of the prosecution appears to be doubtful. Considering the above, the Appellants are entitled to get benefit of doubt. 13. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. The Appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them giving them benefit of doubt.