Without cogent evidence to support charges, the acquittal of the accused from corruption charges must stand as proof beyond a reasonable doubt is essential for conviction.

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. 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 pro