The prosecution must prove material documents and put specific questions to the accused regarding the evidence. Lack of corroboration and trustworthy evidence can lead to failure in establishing charges beyond all reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT

S.K. Sahoo, J. - The appellants Ramesh Chandra Patel (CRLA No. 208 of 2003) and Dibakar Pradhan (CRLA No. 294 of 2003) faced trial in the Court of learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpur in T.R. Case No.14 of 1995 for offences punishable under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter 1988 Act') and sections 467, 471 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on the accusation that in the month of May 1991, they being the public servants, in furtherance of their common intention committed criminal misconduct by dishonestly misappropriating a sum of Rs.6250/- (rupees six thousand two hundred fifty) entrusted to them, forged certain documents purporting to be valuable security i.e., payment vouchers and L.T.Is. of the payees and also fraudulently used those documents as genuine knowing the same to be forged documents.

The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 06.08.2003, found both the appellants guilty of all the charges and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand) each, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(c) of the 1988 Act and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (rupees five thousand) each, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one week each on each count for the offences under sections 467/471 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and all the substantive sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently.

Since both the appeals arise out of one common judgment, with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, those were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The prosecution case, in short, as per the first information report (Ext.8) lodged by Deonarayan Jha (P.W.12), the Inspector of police, Vigilance, Reserve Squad No.1, Sambalpur before the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Sambalpur Division, Sambalpur on 24.06.1991 is that he received reliable information that the Social Forest Supervisor and the Village Forest Worker of Kolabira S.F. Range under Social Forestry Project Division, Sambalpur have misappropriated the Govt. money amounting to Rs.6250/- by showing false digging of pits in respect of Kendudihi village woodlot over an area of 2 hectares of land by preparing false vouchers during the month of May 1991. After verification of the concerned documents in the office of the Deputy Director, S.F.P. Division, Sambalpur, the informant (P.W.12) proceeded to the spot along with other officials and verified the pits which were dug over two separate sites in patches and counted the same in presence of the witnesses and found that only 1828 numbers of pits were dug in place of 5000 numbers of pits shown to have been dug in vouchers nos.93 and 94 of May 1991 of Kolabira S.F. Range. The S.F.S. and V.F.W of Kolabira S.F. Range were found absent from their head quarters on 08.06.1991 and though P.W.12 searched for them but nobody could able to say about their whereabouts on that day. P.W.12 verified the records and vouchers in the office of the Deputy Director, S.F.P., Division, Sambalpur and it was found that vouchers nos.93 and 94 were submitted by the V.F.W. and S.F.S. of Kolabira S.F. Range for an amount of Rs.6250/- for digging of 5000 numbers of pits. It is the further prosecution case as per the F.I.R. that out the aforesaid sum of Rs.6250/-, a sum of Rs.3125/- was shown to have been paid for the execution of work in favour of Lalmani Khadia and fourteen others of village Bagdihi under Laikera police station in the district of Sambalpur and the works were shown to have been executed in between 22.4.1991 to 30.04.1991. Similarly another sum of Rs.3125/- was shown to have been paid to the aforesaid persons for the works executed in between 01.05.1991 to