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:

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. 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 t