JUDGMENT

KULDIP SINGH, J.:- The appellant N. M. Parthasarathy is the sole proprietor of a firm called "Electro-technik". He was formerly working as Inspector of Industries. He along with an Inspector of Industries, was prosecuted on the allegations that between February, 1967 and February, 1969 they  entered into a criminal conspiracy to obtain Small Scale Industries Registration Certificate for additional lines of manufacture, Essentiality Certificate and import licences on false representations made to the Director of Industries, Assistant Director of Industries, Joint Chief Controller of Imports/ Exports and the Iron and Steel Controller. The first charge framed against both of them was for an offence of conspiracy punishable under Section 120-B read with Section 420, I.P.C. and Section 5(1)(b) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Charges 2, 4 and 6 framed against him were for offence of cheating punishable under Section 420, I.P.C. Charges 3, 5 and 7 were framed against the second accused for abetment of cheating punishable under Sections 420 read with 109, I.P.C. The 8th charge was also against the second accused under Section 5(1)(b) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The trial Court acquitted both of them on all the charges. The State went in appeal against the judgment of acquittal and the High Court on re-appreciation of evidence set aside the. acquittal and convicted both of them on all the counts. The appellant, was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 120-B, I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for two years for each of the three counts of cheating under Section 420, I.P.C. The sentences were to run concurrently.

2. We have heard Mr. Hardev Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. V. C. Mahajan, Senior Advocate for the respondents. Mr. Hardev Singh has taken us through the judgments of the trial Court and that of the High Court. Mr. Hardev Singh has primarily argued that the High Court has grossly erred in reversing the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court. According to him even if two views were possible the High Court was not justified in taking a different view than the trial Court and reversing the acquittal. This precise argument was raised before the High Court on behalf of the appellant. The High Court rejected the same as under:-

"In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that this is not a case where, on the evidence available on record, two conclusions are possible and therefore this Court could not interfere with the acquittal of the accused by the learned Special Judge. I am of the opinion that only one conclusion is possible on the evidence on record and that it is that the accused are guilty of all the charges framed against them and that interference with the acquittal of the accused by the learned Special Judge is called for in this case."

3. We are of the view that High Court was justified in reaching the above conclusion. The High Court examined the evidence on the record in detail and rightly came to the conclusion that the guilt against the appellant was established beyond reasonable doubt.

4. The High Court on re-appreciation of the evidence, independently reached the following findings:-

"Thus it is established by Exhibit D-36 as well as the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 6 that the first accused had only a sigle-phase domestic supply of electricity at his premises in Katpadi Extension even in August, 1969, that he could not have used that supply of electricity validly for any non-domestic purposes and that it would not have been possible to produce any industrial machinery with that single phase power,."

"The evidence of PWs. 6, 13, 15 and 19 shows that the machinery found in the premises of Electro-technik during their inspections were worth only about Rs.9,200/- or Rs. 10,000/- and not of the value of Rs.94,000/- as represented by the first, accused in the list submitted by him along with his ap