ORDER :

1. These Criminal Appeals (except SB Criminal Appeal No.295/2002 preferred by the State against judgment of acquittal dated 03.11.2001) under Section 374 Cr.P.C. have been preferred against the judgment dated 08.11.2001, passed by the learned Sessions Court, Prevention of Corruption Cases, Jodhpur in Criminal Case No. 124/97 (28/94) whereby the learned Court acquitted them for the offences under Sections 409, 420, and 471 I.P.C but convicted the present appellant for the offences under Section 5 (1) (c) (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 along with Section 477-A I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo 3 years R.I. along with Rs. 1000/-fine in default of payment of which they were to further undergo 1 month S.I., and 3 years R.I. respectively. Both sentences were to run concurrently.

2. Mr. Vineet Jain, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Pravin Vyas & Mr. Rajiv Bishnoi appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the above-numbered, first 8 appeals are directed against the conviction pertaining to one F.I.R. bearing registration No. 12/1989. The allegations levelled in the F.I.R. were to the effect that a complaint was received in connection with misappropriation/embezzlement of materials and amounts in the stores of I.T.I. Jodhpur and Polytechnic College, Jodhpur. Records/ accounts of the said College were inspected by the A.C.B. Jaipur and a letter dated 03.12.1987 was issued, whereby an enquiry team was constituted for the purpose of inspection/audit, which was carried out from 01.01.1988 till 31.03.1988. The report so generated by the team stated that an amount of Rs. 4,60,572.49 was misappropriated/embezzled, in cash/material by the appellant, store-keeper Bhagwan Pushpani (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 925/2000) and Surendra Singh, Gurcharan Singh, etc. and R.D. Jain, Registrar of said Mandal. Subsequently, the said F.I.R. was lodged for the offences under Sections 120B, 409, 420, 467 and 471 I.P.C. and Section 5 (1) (c) (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

2.1. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the alleged letter issued to constitute the team to conduct the inspection/audit, was authorized to do so only for the period of 1982-83 until 1986-87 i.e. for a period of five years and that the same is explicitly stated in the audit report, at Ex-P/5. However, the F.I.R. was instituted during investigation for the period 197879 was taken as a check period i.e. 9 years instead of 5 years and therefore nine separate charge sheets were filed. He also submits that the inspection of the period was neither authorized, nor any appropriate inspection of the accounts of the said period has been carried out. And that therefore, the allegation of embezzlement of amount is a mere conjecture, unsupported by any enquiry or investigation.

2.2. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the star witness in the case of the prosecution, P.W. 12 Champalal, the head of the audit team and author of the aforementioned report, at Ex. P/5, admitted in his evidence that the letter issued on 03.12.1987 to carry out the inspection/audit, has not been produced on record and that he only received Ex. D/1 to conduct the audit from the Accountant, one Mr. K.R. Kumbhat, who has no authority to issue said letter constituting an inspection/audit.

2.3 Learned Senior Counsel also submits that P.W. 12 Champalal also admitted that as per the said Ex. D/1, the inspection/audit was to be carried out by a team of 5 persons, but was in fact conducted only by a team of 3 persons, namely, Mr. Champalal, Guman Mal and Gopalvallabh, and no reason for the same was offered either.

2.4 Learned Senior Counsel further submits that Mr. Champalal has also admitted that during the inspection/audit of the Store Accounts, he did not mark his initials, nor did he make any other mark, on the register, vouchers etc. which is the usual and standard practice during the process of conducting an audit, as also admitted by the other witnesses.

2.5 Le