This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.09.2005 passed by the learned Special Judge, Assam, Guwahati in Special Case No. 7 (A)/1999 convicting the accused appellant under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short “P.C. Act”) and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand), in default, to imprisonment for another 2 (two) months.

2. The accusation against the accused appellant is that while he was posted and functioning as In-Charge of the Silk Section of the Central Stores of Khadi Village Industries Board, (in short “Board”) misappropriated silk and other related products valued at Rs. 26,135,95.76 during the period from 1991 to 1993. He is suspected to have misappropriated said silk products in collusion with some other employees of the Board by abusing his position as public servant. FIR to that effect was lodged by the Inspector, Anti Corruption Branch, Government of Assam on the basis of which Anti Corruption Police Station Case No. 9/1994 u/s Section 13(1)(c) and (d) 13(2) of the P.C. Act and u/s 409 of the Indian Penal Code was registered and on completion of investigation, five numbers of charge-sheets were filed for different periods against the accused appellant. The learned Special Judge amalgamated the charge sheets into one vide Special Case No. 7 (A)/1999. Altogether 5 charges were framed, for the period 1988-89, the appellant was held responsible for misappropriation of Rs. 1,20,688.20, for the period 1989-90, Rs. 67,296.75, for the period 1990-91, Rs. 7,21,267.72, for the period 1991-92, Rs. 11,75,540.02, for the period 1992-93, Rs. 14,38,055.75. Accordingly, separate charges were framed in five cases u/s 13(1)(c) and (d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act. However, in order to remove any confusion at the time of evidence in all the cases, the cases were amalgamated into one i.e. Special Case No. 7 (A)/1999. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried.

3. In order to prove the charges the prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses including the Investigating Officer.

4. Heard Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. G.C. Sarmah, learned Special Public Prosecutor representing the State.

5. Mr. Kataki, learned counsel has submitted that as per provision of Section 34 of the Evidence Act mere entries in Books of Accounts are not sufficient to charge any person with liability. Entries, even if relevant are corroborative evidence and there should be independent evidence as to the trustworthiness of those entries to fasten the liability. In the instant case, the prosecution, apart from proving the entries in the so-called purchase day book, stock book and personal ledger failed to adduce any evidence to show that silk and related products were entrusted to the appellant and he was the only person responsible for handling those items. There is no evidence worth the name to prove his complicity in the commission of the crime alleged to have been committed. Mr. Kataki going further submits that since mode of entrustment of the materials to the appellant has not been established, the question of misappropriation by him would not arise.

6. Controverting the submission, Mr. G.C. Sarmah, learned Special Public Prosecutor has submitted that the prosecution not only proved the relevant entries made in the connected registers but also proved that the accused being the In-Charge of the Silk Section was the person responsible for shortage of the materials from the stores and he cannot be absolved from the liability and is to be held accountable for the shortage.

7. In the backdrop of the aforesaid contentions, I have minutely gone through the entire evidence on record and the impugned judgment of the learned Special Judge.

8. That the appellant was the In-charge of the Silk Section for the period from 1988-93 has not b