The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the court to consider vital evidence, such as the Fingerprint Expert's opinion and verification of payments, in cases involving the misappropriation of government funds and the use of forged documents.

Surjit Singh, J(Oral) State has appealed against the judgment dated 8th March, 2000 of learned Special Judge, whereby respondents Suresh Chand Katoch and Chet Ram, who were charged with and tried for offences, under Sections 465, 467, 471, 409 & 420, read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, have been acquitted.

2. Respondent Suresh Chand Katoch was working as Junior Engineer in Irrigation & Public Health Department, Sub Division Barsar and respondent Chet Ram was working as Supervisor under him. Respondent Chet Ram submitted an undated handwritten complaint Ex. PW-14/A to Irrigation & Public Health Minister, Himachal Pradesh, in which several allegations were made against the higher officials of the Department. One of the allegations was that bogus Muster Rolls had been prepared and the amount mentioned in those Muster Rolls, shown to have been disbursed to the labourers named therein, had been pocketed by certain Engineers. Number of one of the Muster Rolls, mentioned in the complaint, was 1191, in which ten persons were shown to have been employed, during the period 1st February, 1985 to 28th February, 1985. Matter was inquired into. Initial report was that there was no substance in the allegation. A fresh inquiry was held and this time it was noticed that all the ten persons, named in Muster Roll No.1191, were non-existent and that an amount of `2,020/- shown to have been disbursed to them, had been criminally misappropriated.

3. On the basis of inquiry, case was registered. Investigation revealed that besides the present two respondents, who got executed and supervised the work, referred to in the aforesaid Muster Roll, which is Ex. PW-6/B, Assistant Engineer of the concerned Sub Division, namely Milap Chand Dhiman, was also involved in the bungling. During the course of investigation, persons named as labourers, in the aforesaid Muster Roll, were issued registered letters, but the same had been received back undelivered with the reports by Extra Departmental Delivery Agents (a sort of Postmen) that no persons, by such names and parentage, lived on the addresses or even in the villages. Secretaries of concerned Gram Panchayats told the Investigating Agency that the persons, with names and parentage, as mentioned in the Muster Roll, did not reside in the village, as per Panchayat record. One Patwari, namely Dharamvir (PW-10) told the Investigating Officer that, as per revenue record, there were no persons, by the names of Onkar Chand and Karam Chand, with the parentage, as shown in the Muster Roll, in the village they were shown residents of in the Muster Roll.

4. Muster Roll, in question, which is Ex. PW-6/B bears the thumb impressions of some of the alleged labourers, named in it. Specimen fingerprints of the respondents and the Assistant Engineer, namely Milap Chand Dhiman, who was also suspected to be an accused, were taken by PW-16 Amar Nath. Those fingerprints were sent to the Fingerprint Bureau, Phillaur, for comparison with the purported thumb impressions of the labourers, on Muster Roll Ex. PW-6/B. Director of the Fingerprint Bureau, vide report Ex. PA, opined that fingerprints Marked 2, 3, 6, 8, 9 and 10, on Muster Roll Ex. PW-6/B, matched with right thumb impression Marked-I and left thumb impression Marked-II of respondent Chet Ram, appearing on paper-sheet Ex. PW-16/A.

5. On completion of investigation, report, under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was drawn and filed in the Court of learned Special Judge, alongwith the relevant papers. After complying with the requirement of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and hearing learned Public Prosecutor and learned defence counsel, trial Court felt that a prima facie case was made out against both the respondents. They were charged with offences, under Sections 465, 467, 471, 409 & 420, read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 5(2) of the Pr