( 1. ) THE State has preferred this appeal against the acquittal of the respondents 1 to 12 for the various offences, viz. respondents 1 and 5 for offences under sections 409, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and also under section 5 (1) (c) and 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act; and remaining respondents except respondents 10 to 12 for the aforesaid offences read with sections 109 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. So far as the respondents 10 to 12 are concerned they are only for the offence under section 467 of the Indian Penal Code.

( 2. ) THE prosecution case is that in the year 1966-67 scarcity relief works were done in Damoh District. Here we are concerned with the work of tejgarh Tank approach road, constructed in that period for scarcity relief. Respondent No. 1 Sitaram Rajput was the disbursing officer, respondent No. 5 t. W. Hingankar was the Sub-Divisional Officer and respondent No. 2 Kanti swaroop Saxena was the Overseer, in-charge of the work. Respondent No. 3 jagdishprasad and respondent No. 4udaichand Jain were the Muster-roll Clerks. It is alleged that all these respondents entered into a conspiracy to commit criminal breach of trust by preparing false muster rolls and showing payments on the basis of such muster-rolls to the fictitious labourers when in fact no such payments were made and the amounts were misappropriated. In fact whatever works were done, were done through contractors and no work was done depart mentally. For this purpose false muster-rolls bearing numbers 3878, 3879, 3880, 3882. 3883, 3914, 3916, 3917, 3918, 3458, 331, 332 and 336 were got prepared and on the basis of these muster-rolls, respondent No. 1 is shown to have disbursed an amount of Rs. 4889 on 25-1-1967 to the labourers mentioned in the rolls, when, in fact, no such payment was made. There are some mistakes in the totalling also. Although it was obligatory to mention the names of the villages to which the labourers belonged, the names of villages have not been mentioned deliberately in order to avoid detection. The payments so made have been attested by Sukhisingh, respondent No. 7 and Harisingh, respondent No. 8, as Panchas. On investigation, it was found that about 320 thumb impressions on these muster-rolls were clear-out of which 89 are of respondent No. 6 Bhopatsingh, 70 are of respondent No. 8 Harisingh, 36 are of respondent No. 9 Dallu, 79 are of respondent No. 10 Khumansingh, 32 are of respondent No. 11 Makhansingh and 20 are of respondent No. 12 maharajsingh. These persons have put their thumb impressions against the names of various labourers shown in the muster-rolls, showing payments to them. The prosecution case is mainly based on evidence of the expert who had examined the thumb impressions.

( 3. ) RESPONDENT No. 1 admits that he had disbursed the amount on 25-1-1967 as per the muster-rolls which were duly certified by the Overseer. He claims that he made the payments to individual labourers which were duly identified by the Mates who had taken the thumb marks of the respective labourers. The mistakes in the totalling were due to pressure of work. Respondents Nos. 2 and 5 pleaded that they were not present when the amounts were paid to the labourers; but they asserted that the muster-rolls were prepared properly and they had certified on the basis of the muster-rolls prepared by the muster-clerks. According to them, no printed muster-rolls were given; but they were given blank sheets bearing seals of the office of the Sub-Divisional officer and there was no column for mentioning the names of the villages of the labourers. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 admitted that they had prepared the muster-rolls and had marked the presence of the labourers. They denied that they prepared fictitious muster-rolls. Respondents 7 and 8 admitted that they had attested the payments made on 25-1-1967 by the respondent No. 1, and that the labourers were paid in their presence. The rest of the respondents denied that