JUDGMENT : H.P. SANDESH, J. Though the matter is listed for admission, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and learned counsel for respondent No.6 were heard. 2. The charges levelled against the accused in the prosecution case are that accused Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 6 were public servants at the relevant point of time and that they misappropriated public funds, thereby committing offences of criminal breach of trust, cheating and forgery. Accused No.4 is a private person, against whom it is alleged that he obtained illegal gratification as a motive or reward for inducing a public servant to perform an official act by corrupt or illegal means. Thereby, he is alleged to have committed an offence under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 3. The prosecution relies upon evidence of PW1 to PW11 and Exs.P1 to P24. The trial Court, having considered the charges levelled against the accused persons, comes to the conclusion that accused Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 6 were Government Officials and that the prosecution had obtained valid sanction orders for their prosecution. However, the trial Court further concluded that the evidence available on record was not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused persons. 4. The trial Court, particularly from paragraph No.45 onwards, appreciated both oral and documentary evidence and came to the conclusion that the bills relied upon by the prosecution were not sent for expert analysis to determine whether the signatures thereon were made using two different inks at two different points of time. In the absence of expert opinion in this regard, the trial Court held that it was not possible to conclude that accused No.1 had signed on top of the signature of accused No.5 on the bills. 5. The trial Court, in paragraph No.46, also discussed the evidentiary value of PW7, who is the Auditor. He categorically admitted that he had not come across any double or duplicate payment. Even when the matter was again re-entrusted to him, he gave the same evidence and particularly in respect of DC bills are concerned, the same is discussed in paragraph No.47, and in paragraph No.48, the trial Court considered the billing to the tune of Rs.6,600/-, in respect of which none of the witnesses has spoken. 6. Even when the matter was again re-entrusted to him, he gave the same evidence and particularly in respect of DC bills are concerned, the same is discussed in paragraph No.47, and in paragraph No.48, the trial Court considered the billing to the tune of Rs.6,600/-, in respect of which none of the witnesses has spoken. 6. In paragraph No.49, the trial Court also took note of the cheque payment dated 31.12.2013 for a sum of Rs.42,280/-, whereas vouchers were available to the extent of Rs.24,378/- and no vouchers were available for the remaining amount of Rs.17,902/-. The DC bill in respect of the said payment is at File No.3 of Ex.P5. Perusal of the said file discloses that payment was made for Rs.42,280/-, but the bills produced were only for amounts of Rs.13,670/-, Rs.6,982/- and Rs.3,721/-, that is out of the payment of Rs.42,280/-, the bills are available only for Rs.24,373/-. This payment was made during the tenure of accused No.1 as PDO. 7. Further, even in the audit report at Ex.P13, two objections were raised regarding non-production of vouchers. However, there are two lacunae in respect of this allegation made against accused No.1. Firstly, as already noted supra, this allegation does not form part of the charge framed by the learned predecessor, as it was not included in the charge sheet presented to the Court. Secondly, accused No.1 was not given an opportunity by the prosecution either to produce the vouchers or to explain how he could have authorised the payment in the absence of the relevant bills. Taking note of these two lacunae, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution was not able to prove its case. 8. Being aggrieved by the acquittal, the present appeal is filed by the Lokayukta Police. The counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that the trial Court has not appreciated both oral and documentary evidence available on record. It is further contended that the evidence of PW5 is very clear that, at the time when he was taking charge from respondent No.6, respondent No.6 did not hand over the stock register, and in Ex.P8 endorsement is made to the effect that stock register was in the custody of respondent No.3. It is further contended that the evidence of PW5 is very clear that, at the time when he was taking charge from respondent No.6, respondent No.6 did not hand over the stock register, and in Ex.P8 endorsement is made to the effect that stock register was in the custody of respondent No.3. The trial Court ought to have considered that the stock register was in the custody of respondent No.3, thereby enabling falsification of records and the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of PW5. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant also vehemently contend that the provisions of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 1999 ought to have been followed and that the same were not complied with. It is further contended that there is a violation of the requirements of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act by the Eichanuru Grama Panchayath. The trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record, and if the trial Court properly appreciated the evidence of PWs.1, 9 and 10, the result would have been otherwise. Hence, it is contended that this Court has to admit the appeal. 10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 would submit that the prosecution was not able to prove the charges levelled against the accused persons and the fact that accused persons, except accused No.4, are Government employees is not in dispute. In order to prove the charges, there must be cogent evidence; however, such cogent evidence was not placed on record. Hence, the accused persons were rightly acquitted. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant counsel and learned counsel appearing for the respondents and having considered the charges levelled against the accused persons, particularly against the Government Officials under Sections 406, 409, 420, 468, 470, 471, 477 and 477-A read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 8 and 13(1)(C) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the trial Court, having considered both oral and documentary evidence in paragraph Nos.45 to 49 assigned the reasons for acquittal. 12. Regarding Section 406 is concerned, no material has been placed on record in respect of breach of trust and similarly, with regard to forgery and creation of documents, nothing has been produced. Moreover, no expert opinion was obtained. 12. Regarding Section 406 is concerned, no material has been placed on record in respect of breach of trust and similarly, with regard to forgery and creation of documents, nothing has been produced. Moreover, no expert opinion was obtained. This aspect is discussed in paragraph No.45 with regard to the manipulation of documents and in the absence of the expert report, the same could not be accepted. With regard to the double payment is concerned, PW7, who conducted the audit, categorically admitted in his examination that he had not found any document evidencing duplicate payment. The Court has also taken note of the evidence of PW5, upon which the counsel appearing for the Lokayukta heavily relied. However, there is no cogent evidence before the Court with regard to the charges alleged against the accused persons and even with regard to the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act also, nothing is placed on record to show that the bills were created at the instigation of accused No.4 and with regard to payments exceeding the bills, the same has been discussed in paragraph No.49. The trial Court has assigned the clear reasoning that no such charges were framed against the accused with regard to allegation of payment made at the instance of accused No.4, and no opportunity was sought by the prosecution to obtain explanations from accused No.1, who was working as PDO, regarding the payments. 13. The trial Court's judgment is well-reasoned regarding the proof of guilt of the accused. In the absence of cogent evidence, no conviction can be sustained. No material has been placed on record to establish offences under Section 406 or other offences relating to forgery and the use of forged documents. In view of the above, no grounds are made out to admit the appeal and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.