JUDGMENT : (V. SRISHANANDA, J.) Heard Sri. Subhash Mallapur, learned Spl. P.P. for Lokayukta/appellant and Sri.Ravi K. Anoor, learned counsel on behalf of Sri. Avinash A. Uploankar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4. 2. The present appeal is preferred challenging the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Special Judge in Special Case No.2/2016 by the Judgment dated 29.07.2019, insofar as accused Nos.3 and 4 is concerned. 3. The facts in nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under : 3.1. A complaint came to be lodged with the Karnataka Lokayukta Police, Kalaburagi that Sri. Shellagi Devendrappa being the representative of All India Anti- Corruption Committee, submitted a representation to the Superintendent of Police, Kalaburagi, and other officers alleging misappropriation of funds of the Government. 3.2. The Superintendent of Police, Kalaburagi, forwarded the representation to the Karnataka Lokayukta and based on the same, a case came to be registered by the Lokayukta department by Sri. T.R.Raghavendra being the Police Inspector of Karnataka Lokayukta. He also conducted preliminary enquiry and submitted a report to the Superintendent of Police, Kalaburagi. After the receipt of the said report, Tammaraya Patil, Police Inspector of Karnataka Lokayukta was directed by the Superintendent of Police, Kalaburagi to register a case and investigate and file necessary charge-sheet. 3.3. Thereafter, the matter was investigated, whereunder, it is noticed that, the taluka Panchayat, Chittapur passed a resolution for repair and improvement of Quarters Nos.2, 4 and 6 and directed to prepare the action plan under the development funds. Accordingly, action plan was prepared, estimated the expenditure in a sum of Rs.3,98,000/- for which, the action plan committee accorded sanction. 3.4. Accused Nos.2 and 4 entrusted the contract work of repairing and upgrading of the Quarters Nos.2, 4 and 6 to accused No.3, who is the contractor in the case. Accused No.3 as per the work order, completed the repair work and development works of Quarters No.2. 3.5. The prosecution case also reveals that, accused No.3 did not undertake any repair work to Quarters Nos.4 and 6, but despite the same, accused Nos.1 to 4 conspired themselves by placing forged and fabricated documents shown that the repair works are carried out in all the Quarters and prepared the bill to the tune of Rs.3,70,006/- and after deducting the tax amount, submitted the bill to sub-treasury for sanction and release of the amount. 3.6. 3.6. After verification of the work order and conducting the spot inspection, sub-treasury passed the bill and released the amount. 3.7. It is the further case of the prosecution that, Assistant Executive Engineer of P.W.D, Chittapur, by name Ramesh Reddy submitted a report that, repairs and upgrading work of Quarters No.2 was only completed which was to the tune of Rs.1,32,567/- and in respect of Quarters Nos.4 and 6, there are no work undertaken by the accused and there is a misappropriation of the funds of the Government to the tune of Rs.2,37,439/- and they have cheated the Government by furnishing the bogus bills and sought for action against the concerned. 4. On collection of necessary materials, Lokayukta filed necessary charge-sheet after obtaining sanction to prosecute the Government Servants. The presence of the accused persons were secured by the learned Sessions Judge and after compliance of Section 207 of Cr.P.C., charges were framed. Accused persons pleaded not guilty. In the interregnum, accused No.1 filed an application seeking his discharge from the case which was allowed by the learned Special Judge and Lokayukta for the reasons best known to it, did not challenge the discharge of the accused No.1 from the case and it became final. 5. In the interregnum, accused No.2 died and therefore the case against accused No.2 stood abated. 6. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution in all examined 8 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.8 and placed on record 19 documentary evidence, which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to P.19. 7. On conclusion of recording of evidence, the accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded by the learned Special Judge. Accused Nos.3 and 4 denied the incriminatory circumstances found against them and did not choose to place any defence evidence nor any written submissions as is contemplated under Section 313(4) of Cr.P.C. 8. Thereafter, learned Trial Judge heard the arguments of the parties in detail and by impugned judgment, acquitted the accused Nos.3 and 4 from the charges. 9. Being aggrieved by the same, the Lokayukta has filed the present appeal on following grounds: “11. That the judgement passed by the Trial court is contrary to the facts of the case besides being erroneous, hence the impugned judgement is unsustainable in the eye of law. 12. 9. Being aggrieved by the same, the Lokayukta has filed the present appeal on following grounds: “11. That the judgement passed by the Trial court is contrary to the facts of the case besides being erroneous, hence the impugned judgement is unsustainable in the eye of law. 12. That the Trial Court without proper appreciation of the facts of the case and the evidence led by the prosecution has passed the order of acquittal, which has led into gross miscarriage of justice. 13. That the Trial court has not at all appreciated the evidence led by the prosecution wherein all the 8 witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. 14. That the Trial court has committed a grave error by acquitting the accused only on the ground that the complainant has not fully supported the case of the prosecution, brushing aside the evidence of other witnesses and the document produced to prove the case. 15. That the Trial court has not considered Ex.P-15 & 18 the documents relating to the work at quarters 4 & 6, wherein as per these documents the bills in respect of repair and renovation of quarterno.4 7 6 was prepared and drawn in march 2013, before the inspection was made by PW-5 and PW-4 & 8 submitted the spot inspection report, which is sufficient prove the charges leveled against the accused. 17. That the Appellant prays for the liberty to urge additional grounds if any as may be available to, in the circumstance of the case and in law, at the time of hearing. The appellant submits that they have not filed any appeal against the judgment and award passed by the court below before any other court and they are pending.” 10. Sri Subhash Mallapur, learned Spl.PP for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, vehemently contended that learned Trial Judge failed to note that the report submitted by the Assistant Engineer of PWD clearly indicated that accused No.3 failed to carry out any repair or developmental work insofar as Quarters Nos.4 and 6 and only completed the work in Quarters No.2. Therefore, drawing of the money for the Quarters Nos.4 and 6 is nothing but criminal misappropriation and wrongly acquitted the accused persons and sought for setting aside the impugned judgment and record an order of conviction insofar as accused Nos.3 and 4 are concerned. 11. Therefore, drawing of the money for the Quarters Nos.4 and 6 is nothing but criminal misappropriation and wrongly acquitted the accused persons and sought for setting aside the impugned judgment and record an order of conviction insofar as accused Nos.3 and 4 are concerned. 11. Per Contra, Sri Ravi K. Anoor, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 supports the impugned judgment by contending that role of accused No.3 was only that of contractor and after spot inspection of the repair work conducted by accused No.3, the bills were prepared by the concerned and officials of sub-treasury have visited the place and verified the work carried out and later on sanctioned amount and therefore order of acquittal is just and proper. 12. Insofar as accused No.4 is concerned, he has only countersigned the bill and sanction order as per the office note put up by the officials of PWD and he was not the person, who ordered for carrying out the repair work insofar as Quarters Nos.2, 4 and 6 nor he was involved in getting the work done through accused No.3. Therefore, acquittal order recorded by the learned Trial Judge is just and proper. 13. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, the following points would arise for consideration: (i) Whether the material evidence placed by the prosecution is sufficient enough to establish that respondents, who are accused Nos.3 and 4 are liable for the punishment in commission of the offences under Sections 468 , 465, 471 , 420 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 7 , 13 (1) (c) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act ? (ii) Whether the impugned judgment is suffering from legal infirmity or perversity? (iii) If the answer to point Nos.1 and 2 are in affirmative, what is the appropriate sentence? (iv) What order? Regarding point Nos.1 and 2 : 14. In order to appreciate the validity of the impugned judgment, it is just and necessary for this Court to appreciate the oral testimony of P.W.4 and 8. 15. In the oral testimony of P.W.4, in cross- examination, it has been elicited that he has no expertise as to the civil works being conducted by public works department. In order to appreciate the validity of the impugned judgment, it is just and necessary for this Court to appreciate the oral testimony of P.W.4 and 8. 15. In the oral testimony of P.W.4, in cross- examination, it has been elicited that he has no expertise as to the civil works being conducted by public works department. He admits that he has not measured the length and breadth of the Quarters. He admits that the bill is prepared based on the rates fixed under DSR. He admits that in Exhibit P.7 he has not mentioned the percentage of the work in comparison with the work order. 16. He also admits that neither the Lokayukta nor Engineer of the PWD had furnished any copy of the work order under estimation at the time of inspection. He admits that even though there is no written order, the amount available in the budget must be spent before March, 31 st of that particular year otherwise, it would get lapsed. 17. P.W.8 is another important witness on behalf of the prosecution. He deposed that he had inspected Quarters Nos.2, 4 and 6 as per the letter dated 09.10.2013 received from the Lokayukta office. Accordingly, he visited those Quarters and gave a report that Quarters No.2 is completely repaired and development work has taken place but in respect of Quarters Nos.4 and 6, no such work has taken place. His report is marked as Exhibit P.17. 18. In his cross-examination, he has answered that it is the Lokayukta police, who has shown him the Quarters for inspection. He has stated that based on the DSR rate, he has given the report in Exhibit P.17. To a Court question, as to what is the amount spent for each of the Quarters and what is the amount that was sanctioned, he has answered that he obtained such report. However, to the Court question that whether he has appended such documents along with Exhibit P.17, P.W.8 has specifically answered that he failed to append the same along with Exhibit P.17. 19. To yet another Court question that whether he has communicated with the respective departments to find out the sanction and expenditure, witness answered that he does not remember having communicated to the concerned department. 20. 19. To yet another Court question that whether he has communicated with the respective departments to find out the sanction and expenditure, witness answered that he does not remember having communicated to the concerned department. 20. The Court further questioned him as to whether he obtained necessary documents in this regard from the Lokayukta police, P.W.8 has answered categorically that he did not receive any such documents from the Lokayukta. 21. The effect of the above cross-examination is discussed in paragraph No.29 onwards in the impugned judgment. For ready reference, paragraph Nos.29 to 36 are culled out hereunder: “29. From the evidence of PWs.4 and 8, it is very clear that without obtaining the Action Plan and estimation prepared by the concerned authority they have given their report as per Ex.P.7 and 17. It is not possible for anybody to give report that without seeing the estimation copy how much amount is reserved for each repair work and how much amount has been spent to the said quarters. Further, it is not possible for them to issue the certificate without seeing the estimation copy how much amount has been spent to the said quarters. 30. Further, during the course of recording the evidence, this Court put some questions to PW.8 and sought answers from him and they reads as under; 31. From the evidence of this PW.18, it is very clear that they have not secured the estimation copy in respect of the amount which has to be spent towards the quarters No.2, 4 and 6. Without securing those documents, they simply issued the certificate. Therefore, the certificate issued by PW.4 and 8 do not take much value in the present case. 32. From the evidence of PW.2, it shows that nothing was made known to this witness prior to conducting/drawing of panchanama and no documents were shown to him in respect of the work and what amount work was entrusted, what amount of work is done and what amount of work is pending. Further, the photographs which are produced at Ex.P.2 to 4 are one sided and they does not reveal the identity. 33. From the evidence of PW. Further, the photographs which are produced at Ex.P.2 to 4 are one sided and they does not reveal the identity. 33. From the evidence of PW. 4, it also appears that PW.4 is not an specialist he has not measured the area of the residential quarters, he had no D.S.R rates, so also he cannot say what percentage of work is done and how much is yet to be completed. 34. In the present case, no documents are forthcoming from the prosecution side stating what are the documents forged by accused No.2 and 4 and further no documents forthcoming before the Court that as per the Action Plan or Estimate prepared by Panchayat, they have not completed the work. Further, no evidence is forthcoming from the mouth of any one of the witnesses that accused No.2 and 4 received the amount from any person for forging those documents and they have forged the documents and received the amount from any person. In the absence of such evidence, it cannot be said that accused No.2 and 4 have committed the offence which is punishable under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act . 35. Further, it is the case of prosecution that accused No.2 and 4 colluded with each other, created and forged the documents and submitted the bills to the Treasury and drawn the amount from the Treasury. Merely the amount credited to the Account of accused No.3, it does not mean to say that the said amount was credited to the Account of accused No.3 only on the basis of forged documents. It is the heavy burden lies on the prosecution to prove that accused No.2 to 4 have not completed the work i.e. as per the estimation given by the Panchayat or Action Plan of that Panchayat. Further, the accused No.2 to 4 have colluded with each other and forged the documents with an intention to drawn the amount showing that work is completed. In the absence of such evidence, it cannot be said that accused committed the offence punishable under Sections 468 , 465 , 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code . 36. Further, the accused No.2 to 4 have colluded with each other and forged the documents with an intention to drawn the amount showing that work is completed. In the absence of such evidence, it cannot be said that accused committed the offence punishable under Sections 468 , 465 , 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code . 36. In view of the discussion made above and on perusal of the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution as discussed by me supra, the prosecution has failed to produce cogent, corroborative and satisfactory evidence to prove the charges levelled against the accused persons. The evidence produced by the prosecution is insufficient to hold that accused persons committed the offence punishable under Sections 468 , 465, 471 , 420 R/W section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (c) punishable under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act . Accordingly, I answer points No.2 to 6 in the negative.” 22. On careful perusal of the above, it is crystal clear that learned judge has rightly appreciated the material evidence placed by the Lokayukta and recorded a categorical finding that the prosecution evidence is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused by placing cogent and convincing evidence which would be in a position to attract all the ingredients for the aforesaid offences and rightly acquitted the accused. 23. It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that whenever a duly constituted Court records an order of acquittal, it reinforces the innocence of the accused as the accused is presumed to be innocent. 24. Likewise, it is yet another celebrated principles of criminal jurisprudence that if two views are permissible on the same set of facts, the view which favours the accused must be preferred. 25. It is equally settled principles of law that prosecution has to travel a long distance between “may be proved” and “actual proof”. 26. In the case on hand, the prosecution failed to establish that accused No.3 is a conspirator and was party to the alleged misappropriation. Insofar as accused No.4 is concerned, he has only countersigned the bill produced by the sub-treasury for sanction of the amount. 27. 26. In the case on hand, the prosecution failed to establish that accused No.3 is a conspirator and was party to the alleged misappropriation. Insofar as accused No.4 is concerned, he has only countersigned the bill produced by the sub-treasury for sanction of the amount. 27. Under such circumstances, in the absence of any positive evidence, that is placed on record by the prosecution to prove the charges against accused Nos.3 and 4, the order of acquittal needs to be confirmed. 28. In view of the foregoing discussion, point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the Negative. Regarding point No.3: 29. In view of finding of this Court on point Nos.1 and 2, this point would not arise for consideration. Regarding point No.4: 30. In view of findings of this Court on point Nos.1 to 3 as above, the following order is passed : ORDER (i) The appeal is meritless and hereby dismissed. (ii) The bail bonds, if any, executed by respondent Nos.3 and 4/accused Nos.3 and 4 stand discharged.