1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25th Sept, 1979, passed by the Special Judge, ACD, Cases, Jaipur, whereby he has convicted the appellant under section 409, IPC and sentenced him to 1 year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 6 months' simple imprisonment; and to 1 year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days' simple imprisonment under section 5(1) (c), read with S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

2. The Deputy Secretary, General Administrative Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur, sent a letter dated 21st May, 73 to the Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Department, Jaipur, informing him that during the course of audit of the Government-Hostel, Jaipur, by the Internal Checking Party, it was found that the accounts from 1962 to 1972. were not reliable, and in some cases, they were found false. The bill books and the visitors' registers for the period from May, 70 to Mar 72, were either missing or were not being maintained. The entries in the ledgers were also not supported by the bill-books. The difference between the amount shown as deposited in the receipts issued to the Members of the Legislative Assembly and the counterfoils retained in the Government-Hostel indicated clearly some embezzlement of the government-money, and it was requested that necessary investigation may be made in the matter. After a preliminary inquiry, a case was registered and investigation was conducted. A report under section 174, Criminal Procedure Code , was submitted after completing the investigation and obtaining due sanction for prosecution. The learned trial court, after perusing the documents, framed charges against the appellant under section 409 & under section 5(1)(c) read with S. 5(2) of the PC Act. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. The contention of the appellant was that he had issued a receipt of Rs. 300/- to one Ram Prasad Bohra (Ex. P 1), and an entry was made in the cash-book (Ex. P 3). There are some interpolations and overwriting in the cash-book (Ex. P3), for which, the contention of the appellant was that he did not make those interpolations and overwriting. He has also denied that by overwriting on the figure of Rs. 300/-, he did not write the amount of Rs. 290.12 in the cash-book. He has further contended that he had prepared the receipt (Ex. P4) in the name or Meghraj Panwar, but, when the amount was not paid by Meghraj, he cancelled that receipt and also cut his signature on it and pasted this receipt on the front side of the counterfoil in the receipt-book. He has also denied to have issued the `no-dues' certificate (Ex. P5). He has further alleged that in the year 1972, one Mohanlal was the Supervisor in the Government-Hostel and after his retirement, Narainsingh became the supervisor there. Narainsingh had asked him to intimate him of the wrongs committed by Mohanlal, and also demanded liquor for his personal use. As thereafter the appellant refused to comply with this order, Narainsingh, the latter was annoyed, and on account of that, he has been falsely implicated in this case.

4. The trial court, after completing the trial, hearing the arguments of both the sides and perusing the documents, found that the case was made out against the appellant, and sentenced him as mentioned above.

5. I have heard both the learned counsel, at length. It would be futile to repeat the entire evidence here. However, the case would be discussed in the light of the statements and other evidence on the record, also keeping in mind the documents which have been relied on by the trial court, and the fact that there are so many interpolations and overwriting in the documents, which would show that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused-appellant, beyond reasonable doubt. These documents indicate that the evidence has be