http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: INDERJIT SINGH & ORS. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT13/07/1995

BENCH: RAY, G.N. (J) BENCH: RAY, G.N. (J) FAIZAN UDDIN (J)

CITATION:  1995 SCC  Supl.  (3) 289 JT 1995 (5)   260  1995 SCALE  (4)409

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:           THE 13TH DAY OF JULY, 1995 Present:           Hon’ble Mr.Justice G.N.Ray           Hon’ble Mr.Justice Faizan Uddin Mr.Ram Jethmalani, and Mr.D.V.Sehgal, Sr. Advs., M/s.Kamini Jaiswal, Arvind Nigam, Abani Kumar Sahu, Rekha Palli, Monica Goswamy, Advs. with him for the appellants. Mr.R.S.Suri, Adv. for the appellants in Crl.A.Nos.22-28/86 Mr.Ujagar Singh, M/s.Amita Gupta, R.S.Suri, Naresh Bakshi, Ranjit Kumar, Advs. for the Respondents.                      J U D G M E N T      The following Judgment of the Court was delivered:           IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA           CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION           CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 12-21 OF 1986. 22-28/86 AND 1-11/86 Inderjit Singh and others etc.               ....appellants      Versus State of Punjab & Others                     ....respondents                     J U D G M E N T G.N.Ray.J.      These  twenty   eight  criminal  appeals  are  directed against a  common judgment  dated May 15, 1985 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal Nos.153- SB to  156-SB, 161-SB,  174-SB to  178-SB, 185-SB to 189-SB, 193-SB to  196-SB, 199-SB  to 202-SB and 205-SB to 207-SB of 1983 and  two Criminal  Revisions Nos.773  and 774  of  1983 since treated  as appeals  by the  Punjab and  Haryana  High Court. All the said appeals arose out of the judgment passed by the  learned Additional  Sessions  Judge  exercising  the powers of  Special  Judge,  convicting  and  sentencing  the appellants. As  the facts  and circumstances were similar in all the  said 28  appeals, they were disposed of by the High Court of  Punjab and  Haryana by  a common  judgment. Before

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

this Court  also all  the above  28 appeals  have been heard analogously and  they are  being disposed  of  by  a  common judgment.      The prosecution case in short is that the Government of India initiated  a crash  scheme of rural employment to give relief in  the  rural  areas  by  executing  some  intensive projects to  give employment  in all  the districts  in  the State of  Punjab. Under  the instruction  of  Government  of India, the  Development Commissioner  and Secretary  to  the Government of  Punjab apprised  all the Deputy Commissioners in the State of Punjab about such Scheme. Under the terms of the said crash scheme, for each district, ten lacs of rupees were allocated.  Over and  above, a  sum of rupees two and a half lacs  were  also  allowed  for  implementing  the  said scheme. The  said scheme  was centrally controlled scheme in the shape  of grant-in-aid.  For implementing the said crash scheme, six  projects  were  started  by  the  Public  Works Department (drainage  Section) in  the district of Amritsar. Shri Kailash  Chand was the Superintending Engineer and Shri Kuldip Singh Sidhu was the Executive Engineer concerning the said projects.  These six  projects were meant to desilt six drains, namely,  Sakki Nullah,  Kasur Nullah,  Sohal  Drain, Jhabal Drain,  Kairon Drain  and Devi  Dass Pura  Drain. The amounts allotted  to each  of the six projects were expected to be  spent by  the end  of the  financial year.  March 31, 1972. One Chanchal Singh of village Jhabal filed a complaint to the Chief Engineer (drainage) alleging that although huge amounts were  reportedly spent on desilting Jhabal Drain out actually nothing  had been  done at the spot. Such complaint was processed and in due course in April, 1972, the Minister concerned ordered  Superintending Engineer  (vigilance) Shri B.R. Saini,  of public  works Department to enquire into the allegations. Shri  Saini thereafter visited the sites of all the six  projects and  submitted his reports indicating that ambezzlement of  huge amount  by the officials concerned had taken place  in implementing the said projects. On the basis of  such   report,  investigations  were  conducted  by  the Vigilance Bureau and after the completion of investigations, six first information reports were registared in July, 1973, pertaining to  all the  six projects. Amongst the accused in the Criminal  cases instituted  on the  basis  of  the  said F.I.Rs, Shri K.S.Sidhu. Executive Engineer, was stated to be the man-incharge  of all  these projects.  The other accused persons were  Sub-Divisional Officers,  Sectional  Officers, Sub-Divisional Clerks.  They were divided into six groups to execute the  work under  Shri K.S.Sidhu.  According  to  the prosecution, during the police investigation it was detected that a sum of Rs.4,35,832/- was embezzled in connection with implementation of  Sakki Nullah  Project, Rs.7,74,000/-  was embezzled relating  to Kasur  Nullah Project,  Rs.1,46,803/- was  embezzied   in  respect   of   Sohal   Drain   Project, Rs.1,62,291/- was  embezzled in  relation  to  Jhabal  Drain Project, Rs.78,638/-  was embezzled relating to Kairon Drain Project and  Rs.1,02,413/- was  embezzled in respect or Devi Dass Pura  Drain Project.  It was further found on the basis of the investigation that the embezzlements were pursuant to criminal  conspiracy   of  the  accused  persons  and  while perpetrating  the   offences,  they   had  also  forged  and falsified the  records and  used such  false and  fabricated records as genuine. The accused were eventually tried in six separate trials  relating to  each of the said projects by a Special  Judge  appointed  by  the  State  Government  under Section 6  of the  Criminal Law  (Amendment) Act.  1952. The accused, however,  in their  statements made  under  Section 313, Code  of Criminal  Procedure, denied  the  charges  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

pleaded innocence.  The Special  Judge after considering the evidence adduced in the case convicted and sentenced all the accused  under   Section  5(1)(d)   of  the   Prevention  of Corruption Act  and under  Sections 466, 468, 471, 477-A and 120-B of  the Indian Penal Code and passed various sentences for the  said offences as referred to in the judgment of the learned trial Judge.      The High  Court in  the impugned judgment has held that there was no direct evidence against the accused persons who were appellants  before the  High Court  in support  of  the charges levelled against the accused and the prosecution has relied only  upon circumstantial  evidence.  Coming  to  the circumstantial evidences  sought to  be  relied  on  by  the prosecution, the  High Court  has held that the prosecution, in all  the said  cases, produced  a number  of witnesses to prove that  although vouchers  had been prepared in the name of the  said witnesses,  they had  neither  worked  on  such projects nor  did they  receive any  payment. The High Court has, however, held that the testimony of those witnesses had lost its  value because  it was  not possible  to come  to a conclusion that  they were  the same  persons in whose names the vouchers  were prepared.  It has been categorically held by the  High Court  that the witnesses did not prove one way or the  other whether the payments were actually made on the vouchers which contained their names.      The prosecution also prepared the list of the labourers whose names  were mentioned in the vouchers but according to the prosecution  a number  of such  persons did  not  reside within a  radius of  five miles  from the  site of work. The High  Court   has  commented   upon  the  said  evidence  by indicating that  the said  evidence suffered  from the  same disability, and  the evidence  did not  positively  pinpoint that the  persons named  in the lists were the same who were named in  the vouchers.  It has  been indicated  by the High Court that  it is  not possible  to infer  from the evidence that the  persons named  in the  lists were  in  fact  those labourers in  whose names the vouchers had been prepared. It was not  unlikely  that  the  labourers  who  were  actually engaged were  residing more  than 7 miles away from the site of work.  The  High  Court  has  therefore  held  that  upon evidence of  that nature, the guilt of the accused could not be held to have been proved.      The prosecution  examined some  labourers who  admitted that they  had worked  in those  projects and  they had also signed out  some of  the vouchers  but they stated that they were paid  less amount  than what was shown in the vouchers. It has  been held by the High Court that it was difficult to rely upon the testimony of such witnesses for the purpose of holding the accused guilty of recording inflated payments in the vouchers.  It has  been indicated by the High Court that the said  witnesses had  received payments  and executed the vouchers in  1972 but  the said  labourers were examined ten years thereafter  and it  is difficult  to believe that even though the  said witnesses received less payment, they would keep quiet  and sleep over the matter for such a long period and would  not make any complaint to the higher authorities. The Reports  of the  finger print experts that in some cases the vouchers  prepared in  the names of various persons bore thumb impressions  of  a  single  person,  were  taken  into consideration by  the High  Court. The  High Court has noted that there  are conflicting  reports given  by  the  experts regarding the same thumb impression. The High Court has also indicated  that   even  if   it  is  accepted,  despite  the conflicting reports  of the  experts, that  one  person  had received the  payment on  behalf of  others, such fact could

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

not establish that the payments were not made at all. It has been indicated  by the  High Court  that such  a possibility cannot be  ruled out  that a member of the same family might have out  his thumb  impression on various vouchers relating to the  other members of the family. The High Court has held that this  evidence is  highly unsatisfactory  and is  quite inadequate to  come to  a conclusion that the appellants had committed embezzlement.      During the investigation of the cases thumb impressions of  Vijay  Kumar,  Sectional  Officer,  Surjit  Singh,  Sub- Divisional Clerk,  who were  connected with the Kasur Nullah Project and  thumb impression  of Inderjit  Singh  Sectional Officer,  connected  with  the  Kairon  Drain  Project  were obtained. According to the prosecution, the thumb impression taken by the police were compared with the thumb impressions on the  vouchers said  to have been affixed by the labourers but it  was found  that the  thumb impressions  of the  said officials tallied  with some of the thumb impressions on the vouchers. On  the basis  of such  evidence, the  prosecution contended that  the said  evidence established that the said accused  fabricated   certain  vouchers   pursuant  to   the conspiracy to  commit embezzlement  of the Government funds. The High  Court has  not accepted  the said evidence. It has been indicated  by the High Court that if the specimen thumb impressions of  the appellants  had not been taken under the orders of the Magistrate in accordance with Section 5 of the Identification of  Prisoners  Act.  such  thumb  impressions should not  be accepted.  It has been held by the High Court that there  is no guarantee that the thumb impressions which were compared  with the  thumb impressions  on the  vouchers were in  fact of  the appellants. Referring to a decision of this Court  in Mahmood  Vs. State  of U.P.  (AIR 1976 SC 69) wherein this  Court has  held that the specimen finger print of the  appellants not having been taken under the orders of a  Magistrate   in  accordance   with  Section   5  of   the Identification of Prisoners Act, would raise suspicion about the conduct  of investigation  and in view of possibility of fabrication of  the evidence  furnished by  the finger print expert, it  would not be proper to sustain the conviction of the accused  on the  basis of such expert evidence. The High Court has  also indicated  that before  the trial  court the accused had  applied to get their thumb impressions compared with those  on the  disputed vouchers  but such  prayer  was declined by  the trial  court. The prosecution relied on the alleged confession  made by  Shri  J.N.Sood,  Sub-Divisional Officer and Shri Hukam Chand, Sectional Officer, before Shri B.R. Saini, Superintending Engineer, who had been deputed to conduct investigation  on the spot. According to Shri Saini, the said  persons threw  themselves before him and confessed that no work had actually been done at the spot and they had pleaded for  mercy. The said Shri Saini also stated that the Executive Engineer  (Civil) Shri  Sidhu was  also present at that time  and he  felt thoroughly  ashamed. The High Court, however,  has  not  accepted  the  case  of  extra  judicial confession and  it has  been held by the High Court that the alleged extra  judicial confession  has lost its evidentiary value in  view of  the fact  that  Shri  B.R.Saini  did  not mention about  this incident  of confession  in his  report, since admitted in crossexamination. The High Court is of the view that  no  reliance  should  be  placed  on  such  extra judicial confession  said to  have  been  made  before  Shri Saini.      It, however,  appears that  the High Court has strongly relied on  Rule 7.38  of the  Departmental  Financial  Rules which contain  that the wages of members of the work charged

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

establishment should  be drawn  and paid  according to  Form D.F.R.  (P.W.)   29  which   is  a  combined  pay  bill  and acquittance roll form. Under this rule, it is necessary that a consolidated  bill in  the said  form should  be  prepared monthly  wherein   full  details   of   the   work   charged establishment indicating  the name,  father’s  name,  caste, full home  address of  the work  charged employees  and work charged labourers  are to  be mentioned.  The High Court has indicated that  payment to  the labourers  were not  made by filling such  form. In none of the vouchers for payment, the full home  address of  the labourers  was incorporated.  For want of  such detailed  particulars, it  was  impossible  to trace the  labourers who  allegedly received payments on the basis of  vouchers, during the investigation of these cases. Although it  was contended on behalf of the accused that the said form was not being used anywhere in the State of Punjab and that  the prevalent practice all over the State was that the wages to the work charged labourers would be paid or the basis of  vouchers without  mentioning their  addresses, the High Court  did not accept such contention of the accused as the  same  was  not  supported  by  any  evidence  and  such suggestion was  not even put to Shri B.R. Saini when he came in the witness box to prove his reports. It has been held by the High  Court that it cannot be believed that the officers dealing with the disbursement of wages to labourers were not aware of the said rules. Hence, it could be safely concluded that the  addresses of  the labourers  were not mentioned in the vouchers  so as  to make it impossible to trace them and by such  process, the  direct evidence of embezzlement stood deliberately obliterated.  The High Court has also held that the contention of the accused was that under para 1.3 of the Irrigation  Manual  of  Orders,  it  was  the  duty  of  the Divisional Accountant  to check  every voucher and to return the incomplete  and defective vouchers to the Sub-Divisional Officers for  completion and  correction but in no case, the vouchers on  the basis  of which payments were made had been returned  by   Divisional  Accountant   for  correction  and presentation  according   to  the   said  Form  No.29.  Such submission on  behalf of  the accused, however, has not been accepted by  the  High  Court  by  indicating  that  if  the Divisional Accountant did not return the defective vouchers, it  was   a  case  of  remiss  on  his  part  but  for  such derelication  of   duties  committed   by   the   Divisional Accountant, the  disbursing officer  could  not  derive  any benefit.  In   view  of  not  maintaining  the  vouchers  in accordance  with  the  said  form  containing  the  detailed particulars of  the work charged labourers, it has been held by the High Court that the inference was inevitable that the disbursing officers  had omitted to mention the addresses of the  labourers  on  the  payment  vouchers  with  intent  to embezzle the  government funds. According to the High Court, such inference  is further  fortified  from  the  impeccable testimony of  Shri B.R.Saini,  Superintending Engineer,  who deposed that  his investigations  at the  spot revealed that much less  work had  been done  than  the  details  of  work mentioned in  the records  prepared to  indicate the  actual work performed  in implementing the projects. The High Court has held  that Shri  Saini deposed in all the cases and Shri Saini was a responsible senior officer of the department and he had  no  reason  to  falsely  inculpate  junior  officers dealing with  the disbursement  of wages  to the  labourers. According to the High Court, the testimony of Shri Saini was not to  be doubted.  The High  Court has  held that from the said investigations  and the  enquiry held  at the  spot,  a conclusion can  be drawn  that  large  amounts  out  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

government funds  allocated to  executed the  six  projects, were misappropriated  and embezzled  by the officers dealing with the  disbursement of  the wages.  The  High  Court  has further held  that the  facts so  established are consistent with the  hypothesis of  the perpetration  of the  crime  of embezzlement. The  High Court  has  further  held  that  the evidence  of   Shri  B.R.Saini,   Superintending   Engineer, regarding lesser  work done  and the  factum that  the wages were alleged to have been paid to the labourers on the basis of vouchers from which it was impossible to trace them, have completed the  chain of circumstances which do not leave any reasonable ground  for the  conclusion inconsistent with the innocence of  the officers  dealing with the disoursement of the wages.  Hence, the  High Court  has held  that from  the aforesaid facts, the prosecution case should be accepted.      Coming to  the question  as to  whether all the accused can be  held guilty  of committing  the offence  of criminal misappropriation and  conspiracy, the  High Court  has  held that it  was not  disputed that Shri Sidhu had empowered the Sub-Divisional Officers  to make  payments to the labourers. The Sub-Divisional  Officers were  required to  maintain the records of the cash. Each payment made by the Sub-Divisional Officers was  required to  be witnessed  by another official who was required to certify the payments. The High Court has held that  in the  present cases,  the disbursement of wages was made  by the Sub-Divisional Officers which was witnessed by the  Sectional Officers  who certified  payment  on  each voucher. In that view of the matter, the High Court has held that it has been conclusively proved that the Sub-Divisional Officers and  the Sectional  Officers dealing with the funds should  be  held  guilty  of  conspiracy  and  embezzlement. Accordingly, they  should also  be held  guilty of  criminal misconduct under  Section 5  (1)(d)  of  the  Prevention  of Corruption Act.  The High  Court has  held that  though  the Executive Engineer, Shri Sidhu was in over all charge of the projects but  it is  manifest that he did not participate in the disbursement  of  wages  to  the  labourers.  Hence,  it becomes evident  that though  he  was  responsible  for  the execution of the work to the Superintending Engineer, he was not directly  involved in payment of wages to the labourers. The High  Court, therefore,  has given  him the  benefit  of doubt by  indicating that  the department may, however, deal with him  in a  suitable manner for failure in the discharge of his duties efficiently.      Coming to  the  question  of  conviction  of  the  Sub- Divisional Clerk,  Shri Surjit  Singh, under Section 466 and 477A of  the Indian Penal Code, the High Court has indicated that the  said Shri  Surjit Singh was convicted as his thumb impressions were  found affixed  on the  vouchers containing alleged thumb impressions of Subeg Singh, Mohinder Singh and Hans Raj. The High Court has acquitted him by giving benefit of doubt  in view  of the  fact that the thumb impression of the said  Shri Surjit  Singh could  not be held to have been proved by  admissible convincing  evidence. Accordingly, the High Court  has acquitted  the Executive Engineer Shri Sidhu and the  said Sub-Divisional Clerk by giving them benefit of doubt but  the convictions  of the other accused were upheld by the  High Court,  The High  Court, however,  reduced  the sentences to  one year’s rigorous imprisonment if any of the accused had  been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for more than one year by the trial court.      Mr.Ram  Jethamalani,  Senior  Advocate,  appearing  for Inderjit Singh  and others  in the  group of  these criminal appeals, has very strongly contended that the High Court has not accepted  most of the circumstantial evidences sought to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

be relied  upon by the prosecution by giving cogent reasons. He has submitted that it is only unfortunate that ultimately on surmise  and conjecture, the convictions have been upheld by the  High Court  on the  ground that  the  Superintending Engineer Shri  Saini was  a responsible officer and since he made enquiry  at the spot and found that the work in respect of the said six projects was less than what was mentioned in the records,  the case  of conspiracy  and embezzlement have been conclusively  proved. Mr.Jethamalani has submitted that simply on  the basis  of the  report of  the  Superintending Engineer, it was not open for the Court to draw a conclusion that less  work had  actually been done. The quantum of work actually done  had not  been proved  by  leading  any  other convincing evidence  or examining  independent witnesses for that purpose.  The Court has not accepted any other evidence for the  purpose of  holding that less work had been done in respect of  the said six projects. The Reports of Shri Saini is  based   on  the   personal  assessment   of   the   said Superintending Engineer and it is not unlikely that the said Reports are  erroneous. Mr.  Jethamalani has  also submitted that even if it is assumed that less work had been done, the said fact  does not  constitute the  offence of embezzlement and falsification  of the  records in  perpetrating the said crime  of   embezzlement  until   and  unless   it  can   be convincingly proved  by leading  unimpeachable evidence that payment had  not been  actually made to the labourers but in the name  of work  charged labourers, the bills were falsely drawn and  money under the bill had been misappropriated, no order of  conviction against  the accused  for  the  charges levelled against them can be passed simply on a finding that less work had been done. He has submitted that even if it is assumed that  the local  officers neglected  in  discharging their responsibilities and duties, such officers may be held guilty in  departmental proceedings  for the  dereliction of duties but certainly cannot be convicted for the offence for which they  were charged.  Mr.Jethamalani has also contended that the Divisional Accountant admittedly did not return any of the  vouchers for  making payment  on the score that such voucher was  incomplete and lacking in material particulars. Such fact  really supports  the case of the accused that for payment of  work charged  labourers, the maintenance of form P.W.29 had  been  insisted  upon.  Mr.Jethamalani  has  also submitted that  the High Court has given benefit of doubt to the two  accused but unfortunately has upheld the conviction against the  other appellants  without appreciating that the circumstantial evidence  was miserably  lacking to establish the complicity of the accused in the offence alleged against them. Mr.Jethamalani  has submitted  that it  is unfortunate that despite  the absence  of intrinsic  evidence from which irresistible conclusion  about the  guilt of  the accused by eliminating any  other hypothesis,  can be  drawn, the  High Court has  jumped on the conclusion that the accused must be held guilty simply by assuming that in order to cover up the crime of  embezzlement improper  vouchers were  prepared and bills were  drawn showing greater volume of the work when in fact lesser work, as revealed in spot enquiry, was executed. As from  both the  said facts,  namely, execution  of lesser work than  mentioned in the records and payment to labourers on the  basis  of  improper  vouchers  lacking  in  detailed particulars, the prosecution case is not established even if correctness of  assumed facts is accepted, the conviction of the  appellants   must  be  held  to  be  illegal.  He  has, therefore, submitted  that grave  injustice has been done to the accused  and the  appeals should  be allowed  by setting aside convictions and sentences.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

    The other  learned counsel appearing for the appellants in the  connected appeals  have  adopted  the  arguments  of Mr.Jethamalani and  have submitted  that the convictions and sentences of the accused should be set aside.      Learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  State  in  these appeals has,  however,  disputed  the  contentions  made  by Mr.Jethamalani and  has contended  that in the instant case, the concerned  accused hatched the conspiracy to defraud the public  exchequer   and  with  such  intention  deliberately prepared some  vouchers showing  alleged payments to various labourers  for   the  works  done  by  them  without  giving particulars of such workers contrary to the instructions for maintaining vouchers  in a  particular manner,  in order  to make it impossible to verify the actual payment by examining the  concerned  labourers.  The  learned  counsel  has  also submitted  that   the  Superintending   Engineer  made  spot enquiries about  the quantum  of work done in respect of the six projects  and he has deposed categorically that the work mentioned in  the records  on the basis of which the alleged payments had  been made  to the  workers was  much less than what had  actually been  done. The  High Court  has  rightly pointed out  that the  said Superintending  Engineer  was  a responsible senior  officer who had no animus against any of the accused  who  were  his  subordinate  officers  and  his deposition should  be accepted.  The learned counsel for the respondent has  submitted that if such evidence is accepted, the falsification  of records  is writ large and the case of embezzlement is also established beyond reasonable doubt. He has submitted  that  the  Court  below,  therefore,  had  no hesitation in  holding the  accused guilty  and  this  Court should not interfere with the concurrent finding made by the courts below and the appeals should be dismissed.      After giving our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of  the case  and the  evidence adduced in the trials, it  appears to  us that  simply on  the basis of the reports of  the Superintending  Engineer that less work than what was  stated in  the  records  was  done,  the  case  of embezzlement by  deliberately falsifying  the records is not established. Until  and unless  by cogent  and unimpeachable evidence about the factum of non payment to labourers of the amount drawn  in their names can be established, the case of embezzlement by the government officers and misappropriation of government  fund cannot  be sustained. The Superintending Engineer may be responsible officer but it would not be safe to simply rely on his assessment of the work done and in our view,  for   basing   the   conviction,   other   convincing corroborative evidences  about the  quantum of  work done is necessary. In the facts of the case, it will not be just and proper to  accept the  said report  and deposition  of  Shri Saini to  be conclusive about the quantum of work done. That apart, Mr.Jethamalani  is justified  in his  contention that unless and until the factum of non payment to the workers is established, over  payment to the workers on account of less work done  cannot be  held  to  be  sufficient  evidence  to convict the  accused for  the offences alleged against them. Even if  it is  assumed that  the local  officers  who  were entrusted with  the task  of payment  to the  labourers were careless and  did not actually ascertain the quantum of work executed by the labourers but made payments to the labourers on the  basis of  work as indicated in the bills, such local officers may  be held guilty of dereliction of duty but they cannot be held to be guilty for the offences alleged against them. In  the instant  case,  the  chain  of  circumstantial evidence is  far from  being complete and the conviction, in our view, has been based more on surmise and conjecture than

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

on the  basis of convincing and unimpeachable evidences. We, therefore, have  no hesitation  to allow all the appeals and set aside  the conviction  and sentences  passed against the appellants.