JUDGMENT : Narendra Kumar Vyas, J. 1. Since all the Criminal Appeals and Acquittal Appeal are arising out of same FIR and same judgment, therefore, they are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The criminal appeals have been preferred by the appellants/accused under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.02.2018 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (under Prevention of Corruption Act), Korba (CG) in Special Criminal (P.C. Act) No. 06 /2007, respectively, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:- 3. Brief facts giving rise to case as unfolds from the documents available on record are that complainant P.S. Pinjani, proprietor of Raj Hydro Mechanical Construction Company, Berasia Road, Bhopal made a written complaint before State Economic Offence Investigation Bureau, Bhopal and on the basis thereof, complaint case No. 76 of 1990 was registered by Inspector H.N. Guru and on the basis of complaint, FIR (Ex.P-89) bearing Crime No. 28/91 was lodged alleging that Executive Engineer Hasdev Canal Divison No.1, Rampur, Korba had purchased sluice gate and shutters from SK Steel and Mechanical Industries Durg are not as per drawing and design of ISI norms and the materials supplied by them were sub standard and low quality which has caused loss to the tune of Rs. 24 lacs to the State Exchequer. It is also case of the prosecution that during investigation, Assistant Engineer, Public Health Department has conducted enquiry wherein he found that sub standard materials, poor quality materials have been purchased by the appellants from SK Steel and Mechanical Industries despite being an expert on the subject, misusing their official position, hatched conspiracy and caused huge loss to the State, therefore, they have committed a crime. Further prosecution case as reflected from the charge sheet filed by the prosecution bearing charge sheet No. 20/99 is as under:- (a) Charges levelled against accused A.K. Bhaduriya that he was working as Executive Engineer, Hasdeo Canal Division No.1 Rampur, Korba District Korba and from 1988-1990, he had issued work order through Laghu Udyog Nigam to SK Steel and Mechanical Industry through its proprietor SK Chouhan for supply of 3.5x3.5x2.55x2.55, 3.00x3.5 and 2.75x5.55 meter sluge gate in 19 and 28 number. It is also mentioned in the charge sheet that actual value of gate was Rs. It is also mentioned in the charge sheet that actual value of gate was Rs. 34,21,799/- and value of curry shutter is Rs 36,50,470/- but gates were found to be substandard and of poor quality. The Director Central Mechanical Bhopal has also clarified that as per gate size bearing 3x3.5 shutter the scheme plate was not of 14 mm as per ISI standard. Similarly, horizontal gadder was of IMMC 200 whereas as per ISI standard it should be 225 and roller pin was not CS solid whereas it was CI hosting equipment was not of 10 KG and it was 22 KG, as such the items were not up to the standard of ISI number 4622/5620. (b) The design submitted by the firm as reflected from the report of Central Mechanical Unit regarding gate size number 2.75x5.5 m it was submitted to Maulaha Azad College of Technology Bhopal and the mechanical division of that college has given the opinion which consists of expert of that college Dr. P.N. Janardan and Dr. J.K. Jain and it was found that design was not prepared as per the rule and in the gate size 18 mm skin plate should be mentioned in the design which has not been provided in the design which clearly reflects that the work order issued by the Executive Engineer was not up to the ISI standard No. 4622 and 5622, as such low standard material has been supplied by the firm and also pay excess amount of Rs. 5610/- per square meter to the firm causing loss to the public exchaquer. (c) It is also case of the prosecution that the actual value of the shutter was Rs. 12, 24,300/- whereas they have made excess/additional payment to the tune of Rs. 24,25,700/- caused economical loss to the Government. It is also case of the prosecution, that co-accused A.K. Bhardiya (dead) Executive Engineer, Hasdeo Canal Division No.1 with Sub Divisional Officers namely A.K. Shrivastava, P.K. Shrivastava, T.J. Thomas have entered into criminal conspiracy with SK Chauhan, therefore, they have committed the offence under Sections 120-B, 420 of the IPC and 13 (i)(d)(ii)(iii) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. The record of the case would show one of the accused T.P. Tiwari has already expired before submission of charge sheet. 4. The record of the case would show one of the accused T.P. Tiwari has already expired before submission of charge sheet. 4. After usual investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption) Act, Korba which was registered as Special Criminal Case No. 06/2007. In order to bring home the guilt of appellants, the prosecution has examined as many as 34 witnesses namely V.K. Upadhyay (PW-1), Shatrughan Das (PW-2), R.K. Thakur, (PW-3), Rajendra Bhargav (PW-4), Rajesh Kumar Diwakar, V.S. Lamankar (PW-6), O.P. Tiwari (PW-7), R.N. Shyam (PW-8), A.S.Das (P -9), P.K. Kerkatta (PW- 10), Dr. P.N. Janardan (PW-11), Dr. In order to bring home the guilt of appellants, the prosecution has examined as many as 34 witnesses namely V.K. Upadhyay (PW-1), Shatrughan Das (PW-2), R.K. Thakur, (PW-3), Rajendra Bhargav (PW-4), Rajesh Kumar Diwakar, V.S. Lamankar (PW-6), O.P. Tiwari (PW-7), R.N. Shyam (PW-8), A.S.Das (P -9), P.K. Kerkatta (PW- 10), Dr. P.N. Janardan (PW-11), Dr. R.D. Vaid (PW-12), P.S, Pinjani (PW-13), D.N. Khare (PW-14), Vivek Jhanwar (PW-15), Basant Kumar Tiwari (PW-16), Dinesh Kumar Jundhare (PW-17), A.R. Khan (PW18), H. N. Guru (PW-19), Madahir Hussain Kazi (PW-20), Babulal Dheemar (PW-21), T. R. Tandon (PW-22), R.K. Ganjir (PW-23), Shanti Kumar Gabel (PW-24), R.S. Rai (PW-25), Dinesh Verma (PW-26), M.L. Dahariya (PW-27), Anand Rai Sahu (PW-27(A), Chandra Kumar (PW-28), Ram Prashad (PW- 29), Ajit Kumar Tamhad (PW-30), Vivek Madhukar Mohindiwale (PW- 31) and S. C. Bhasnetiya (PW-32), K.K. Chaure (PW-33), P.K. Mishra (PW-34) and exhibited documents namely letter dated 21.02.1999 (Ex.P-1), seizure memo (Ex.P-2 to Ex.P-8), measurement book (Ex.P-8A), correspondence file of M/s. S.K Steel Mechanical Industries (Ex.P-8(B), seizure memo (Ex.P-9), Challan Ex.P-9(A) to Ex.P-9 (G), correspondence about sluice gate (Ex.P- 10), drawing and design of size of gate (Ex.P-11), drawing and design of size gate (Ex.P-12), seizure memo (Ex.P-13 to Ex.P-14), stock and issue registers (Ex.P-15 and Ex.P-16), supply order (Ex.P-17 to Ex.P35), measurement drawing (Ex.P-36), latter dated 05.01.1999 (Ex.P-37), Report (Ex.P-38), Panchanama (Ex.P-39), seizure panchanama (P-40), panchanama (Ex.P-41),comparision of two sets of desigen by Maulana Azad College of Technology Bhopal report (Ex.P-42), report submitted by MP Small industry (Ex.P-43), complaint made by P.S. Pinjani (Ex.P-44), Information about sluice gate (Ex.P-45), order for supply of sluice gate (Ex.P-46), supply order of Hasdeo Canal Division No.1 (Ex.P-47 to Ex.P-65), demand letter (Ex.P-66 to Ex.P-85), seizure memo (Ex.P-86), seized panchanama (Ex.P-87), seizure memo (Ex.P-88), FIR (Ex.P-89), challan for deliever of material (Ex.P-89 A to Ex.P-89), enqury report (Ex.P-90), report about sluice gate (Ex.P-90(A), letter (Ex.P-90), drawing and design (Ex.P-90(A), test result (Ex.P-90(A), Sanction for prosecution dated 14.07.1998 (Ex.P-91), letter to Assistant Sub Inspector (Ex.P-91), supply order (Ex.P-91), Order for prosecution (Ex.P-91(A), supply order issued by Executive Engineer (Ex.P-92), letter written by H. N. Kazi (Ex.P-93), original order (Ex.P-94 to Ex.P- 98) and charge sheet (Ex.P-99). Statements of the accused/appellants were recorded under Section 313 CrPC, in which they denied the allegations made against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. Statements of the accused/appellants were recorded under Section 313 CrPC, in which they denied the allegations made against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. The accused have exhibited documents namely certified copy of Hasdeo Bango Project (Ex.D-1), statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC of prosecution witness S.C. Jain (Ex. D-3). 5. After hearing the parties, learned trial Court has acquitted the appellants under Prevention of Corruption Act and has convicted the appellants under Sections 420 and 120-B of the IPC and sentenced them as mentioned above. Being aggrieved with the conviction and sentence, the accused have preferred these appeals and State of Chhattisgarh has preferred Acquittal Appeal against acquittal of accused person under Prevention of Corruption Act. CRA No. 347 of 2018 6. Learned Sr. counsel for appellant P.K. Shrivastava would submit:- (a) that the appellant has not played any active role in commission of offence, as he was posted as Sub Divisional Officer in Hasdeo Sub Division-2 on 16.06.1898 and supply order for purchase of sluice gates and shutters were issued to M/s. S.K. Steel and Mechanical Industries, Durg on 20.01.1989. He would further submit that from the complaint, it is clear that supply order was issued prior to posting of the appellant and he was not the person who had received the shutters/gates and the same were not kept by him in his possession, though in the charge sheet, the appellant has been arrayed as an accused which is against the evidence adduced during trial. He would further submit that learned trial Court has convicted the appellant only on the basis of surmises and conjunctures without there being any evidence on record to demonstrate that he had played any role for supply of alleged sub standard materials. Even the prosecution has not placed any duty chart demonstrating involvement of the appellant in committing alleged offence, as such it cannot be said that there was any dereliction of duty on the part of the appellant. Even the prosecution has not placed any duty chart demonstrating involvement of the appellant in committing alleged offence, as such it cannot be said that there was any dereliction of duty on the part of the appellant. To substantiate, his submission, he has referred to the evidence of R.K. Thakur (PW-3) Sub-engineer who has admitted in the cross examination, that it was his duty to keep the material when received from the supplier and keep the material in the store therefore, it is clear that the appellant has neither placed the supply order nor he received the products from SK Steels Mechanical Industries so liability could not be fastened on the appellant, therefore, conviction recorded by the trial Court is bad in law. (b) Learned Sr. Counsel for the appellant would submit that on a bare reading of the FIR and even the charge-sheet and the allegations are taken on their face value, no case under Section 420 IPC is made out against the appellant for commission of an offence under Section 420 IPC, the prosecution has to prove that the accused has intention to defraud or dishonest intention from inception. In the present case, supply orders were issued by M.P. Laghu Udyog Nigam on the demand by the co-accused A.K. Bhardiya from S.K. Steel Mechanical Industries for supply of sluice Gate and Shutters but there is no evidence on record to suggest that the appellant was ever posted as SDO in Sub Division-3 Barpali, as such no question arises that he was having any dishonest intention to cheat State since inception, therefore, offence under Section 420 IPC is not made out and for offence under Section 120 B of the IPC, there has to be some material to demonstrate that the appellant was actively involved in hatching criminal conspiracy with the other accused whereas there is no evidence on record to show meeting of minds between the conspirators to commit such illegal act. He would further submit a false complaint has been filed by P.S. Pinjani (PW-13) due to business rivalry with co-accused S.K. Chauhan, therefore, no case is made out against the appellant and would pray for allowing the appeal. He would further submit a false complaint has been filed by P.S. Pinjani (PW-13) due to business rivalry with co-accused S.K. Chauhan, therefore, no case is made out against the appellant and would pray for allowing the appeal. To substantiate his submission, he would refere to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Anil Kumar Bose vs. State of Bihar reported 1974 (4) SCC 616 , Rishipal Singh vs. State of UP and another reported 2014 (7)SCC 215, Delhi Race Club vs. State of UP reported 2024(10) SCC 690, Praveen @ Sonu vs. State of Haryana reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 1184 and Shailesh Kumar Singh vs. State of UP reported in 2025 SCC Online Sc 1462. CRA No. 336 of 2018 7. Learned Sr. counsel for appellant Suresh Kumar Chouhan would submit that (a) learned trial court has not properly appreciated the facts and evidence available on record while passing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. She would further submit that the judgment passed by the trial Court suffers from infirmity and perversity as VK Upadhyaya (PW-1) has not submitted any proof that the appellant was involved in commission of offence. She would further submit that prosecution witnesses namely Shatrughan Das (PW-2), R.K. Thakur (PW-3) and Rajendra Bhargav (PW-4) have not supported the case of the prosecution. She would further submit that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence of witnesses and has acquitted the appellants under Prevention of Corruption Act but has committed illegality in convicting under Sections 420 and 120-B of the IPC as no question arises that the appellants were having any dishonest intention to cheat the State from very inception. She would further submit that for proving offence under Section 120B of the IPC as least there has to be some material to demonstrate that the appellants were in criminal conspiracy with the other accused person but there is no evidence on record to show that the appellant was involved in committing an illegal act. (b) Learned Sr. She would further submit that for proving offence under Section 120B of the IPC as least there has to be some material to demonstrate that the appellants were in criminal conspiracy with the other accused person but there is no evidence on record to show that the appellant was involved in committing an illegal act. (b) Learned Sr. counsel for appellant Suresh Kumar Chouhan would submit that from perusal of the evidences, it is clear that materials have been supplied by co-appellant S. K. Steels as per specified dimension and Guage, which has been proved by evidence of PW-3 R. K. Thakur, who has received the materials and no measurement of the Guage was done by Vernier calipers by PW-12 and he has conducted the enquiry without measuring the Guage and further no tender document has been exhibited in order to show the sludge gate and curry shutters were required to be installed as per specification of ISI standard, therefore, it cannot be held that sub standard materiel was supplied by the co-accused through its firm of co-accused. She would further submit that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant, therefore, offence U/s 420, 120-B of IPC is not attracted and would pray for setting aside the judgment. To substantiate her submission, she would refer to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of A.M. Mohan vs. State Represented by SHO and Another reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 339 and Sushil Sethi and another vs. The State of Arunachal Pradesh and others reported in 2020(3) SCC 240 . CRA No. 345 of 2018 8. Learned counsel for appellant Mr. Anand Shrivastava would submit that during pendency of the appeal, appellant Anand Shrivastava died and now the appeal is being contested by wife and son of the deceased. He would further submit that the prosecution has failed to establish that the sluice gates supplied by the manufacturer were not as per specification or were sub standard, as such no offence is made out against the appellant. He would further submit that even if, the allegation is taken as it is, no offence under Section 420 and 120-B IPC is made out against the appellant. He would further submit that even if, the allegation is taken as it is, no offence under Section 420 and 120-B IPC is made out against the appellant. He would further submit that the prosecution was duty bound to establish that the appellant along with co-accused were under conspiracy with common intention and he assisted in the crime. But any act or omission on the part of the appellant has not been brought on record by the prosecution through their witnesses indicating involvement of the appellant independently or jointly with other co-accused with common intention or by providing any help or assistance to co- accused directly or indirectly to commit, such offence for conviction under Section 420 and 120-B IPC. He would further submit that ingredient of cheating i,.e. deceiving and inducing has not been proved and would pray for acquittal of the appellant. CRA No. 1539 of 2019 9. Learned counsel for appellant T.J. Thomas would submit that without there being any clinching evidence against the appellant, he has wrongly been convicted by the trial court. He would further submit that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and case of the prosecution is based upon surmise and conjectures. He would further submit that the trial Court shifted the burden on the appellant to prove his innocence and provisions contained under Section 313 CrPC have not been appreciated by the trial Court in its correct prospective and the trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the appellants have played any role in the alleged commission of offence, therefore, offence under Section 120-B and 420 IPC are not attracted and would pray for acquittal of the appellant. 10.On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the submission made by counsel for the appellants would submit that learned trial Court has categorically considered the evidence of the witnesses and on the basis of evidence, learned trial Court found prima-facie case against the appellants under Section 420 IPC for delivering/supplying of sub-standard materials and charging exorbitant rates for such materials with a criminal intent to dupe the Government with huge public money, therefore, the appellants are charged for the offences under Section 420 read with 120B IPC. It is submitted that from very inception the appellants have intention to cheat the Government by allowing supply of sub standard material to grab huge public money, therefore, learned trial Court should have also convicted the appellants under Section 13(i)(d) and 13(2)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, thus, acquittal of the appellants under PC Act suffers from perversity, illegality and deserves to be set aside by this Court. He would further submit that appeals preferred by the accused against the conviction under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC be kindly dismissed and the acquittal appeal filed by the State may kindly be allowed and the accused be also convicted under PC Act. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the records. 12.The issue involved in these appeals is “Whether conviction of the appellants under Sections 420 and 120-B of the IPC and acquittal of accused for commission of offence under Section 13(i)(d) (ii)(iii) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act are justified or not? 13.For better understanding the issue involved in the appeals, it is expedient for this Court to extract Sections 415, 420, 120-B IPC and Section 13 Criminal misconduct by a public servant which are as under:- Section 415- cheating defines under this section;- Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”. The ingredients to constitute an offence of cheating are as follows:- Section 420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. —Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Section 120-B . Section 120-B . Punishment of criminal conspiracy.— (1)Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, [imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had ab etted such offence. (2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both. Section 13 Criminal misconduct by a public servant. —1[(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct, — 13(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct, 13(1) d, if he,- (I) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (II) By abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; (iii) While holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest or. 13(2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than four years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. 14.To ascertain whether the finding of learned trial Court convicting the appellants under Section 420 and 120-B IPC is legal and justified this Court has to go through the evidence brought on record. The prosecution witness R.K. Thakur (PW-3) Sub Engineer Hasdev Bango Canal Sub Division-3 Barpali in the cross examination has mentioned that in the stock register (Ex.P-15) maintained in the office in the course of his official duty. He has also admitted that if the material is not found as per the prescribed specification, then the same would be returned to the contractor. He stated that whatever materials were supplied before 15 years are still working. In paragraph-6, this witness has stated that the Gate and shutter were supplied to us as per the standard prescribed and there is no discrepancy found in the quality of the gate and shutters. He stated that whatever materials were supplied before 15 years are still working. In paragraph-6, this witness has stated that the Gate and shutter were supplied to us as per the standard prescribed and there is no discrepancy found in the quality of the gate and shutters. He would further submit that the materials supplied to us were as per ISI standard and as per specification of the supply order submitted by Laghu Udyog Nigam. He has also admitted that all the designs were approved by Chief Engineer and Superintendent Engineer and whatever order is being issued only length and width is prescribed in the design and as per design the thickness should be standard. This witness has also stated that he has not sent any report to the Government regarding quality and irregularity in supply of materials and it is his responsibility to keep safe whatever material supplied to the department and when he received the gates and parts, the materials were found to be correct as per the norms. He has admitted that the project by World Bank and officer of the World Bank have inspected the project but no objection was raised, even in the audit also no irregularity was found by the audit with regard to documents. He further admitted that thickness/ guage of shutter and sludge gate can be measured through Vernier calipers. He has also admitted that in the entire project the depth of canal is not more than 4.95 meter and depth of canal is not six meter. 15. Rajendra Bhargav (PW-4) General Manager MP Lagu Yudyog Nigam was examined before the trial Court wherein he has admitted in the cross examination, that the gates which have been received by him were as per drawing, design and measurement. He has also admitted that whatever work order was given to SK steel, the same has been issued after following due process and generally after obtaining work order priority is given to local manufacturing unit for supply. Rajesh Kumar Diwakar (PW-5) has admitted that all the drawing and designs were not given by the department but manufacture has been given and voluntarily stated that the drawing and design of the gate were prepared by Mechanical Central Unit Bhopal. 16.O.P. Tiwari (PW-7) Executive Engineer has stated that Ex.P-37 is regarding preparation of report installed in the Hasdeo Canal and Ex.P-38 is the report prepared by him. 16.O.P. Tiwari (PW-7) Executive Engineer has stated that Ex.P-37 is regarding preparation of report installed in the Hasdeo Canal and Ex.P-38 is the report prepared by him. This witness in his cross examination has admitted that he was not aware that the shutters which have been supplied relate to which company. He has further admitted that in his report he has not mentioned that which shutters have been supplied by which company. R.S. Shyam (PW-8) has stated that he was not authorized to measure the gate and he has not measured the gates through Vernier Calipers. He has also admitted that he has not seen any specific number or mark on the gate . 17.P.N. Janardan (PW-11) retired professor Maulana Azad College Bhopal who has done comparative analysis of both the designs have prepared the report which has been taken basis for specification at part with IS specification. For comparison the report was sent by P.S. Pinjani, Industrialist (complainant). He has also stated that design D-1 was examined by Government Engineering College wherein it was found by them that no proper consideration was given to ISI provision and also assigned shortcomings. He has also stated that design D-2 was studied by Central Mechanical Institute which was found actual and safe because that design was prepared as per ISI code. This witness was extensively cross examined wherein he has admitted that there was no direction from the State Government or department to prepare the report. He has also admitted that MACT Bhopal and Govt Engineering College Raipur are of equal standard but he has stated that according to his opinion the reputation and lavel of MACT Bhopal is higher than Raipur. He has not given reply to the question whether the report given by Raipur Engineering college is untrue or not. He has also stated that D-1 and D-2 designs were given by Shri Pinjani. He has also admitted that the report which has been submitted by him is based upon depth of six meter canal. He has also admitted that if head of the canal is smaller then width of the gate will be less and head of the canal is bigger then the width of the gate is more and also admitted that if plate is thin then number of horizontal gaddar will be more. He has also admitted that if head of the canal is smaller then width of the gate will be less and head of the canal is bigger then the width of the gate is more and also admitted that if plate is thin then number of horizontal gaddar will be more. He has also admitted that in his report, design D-1, the head of canal is 4.5 meter and in design D-2 head of canal is 6 meter. He has also clarified that head means water head. He has also stated that he has not done any comparison on the material but only considered the design. He voluntarily stated that the material should be as per ISI specification. 18.R.D. Vaidya (PW-12) General manager at Technical Branch in Laghu Udyog Nigam has stated that first purchase order went to Central Mechanical unit and after refusal, the order was given to the Small Industries Corporation where price was determined by the Small Industries Corporation thereafter order was given only to the supplier who has already registered with the Corporation and priority is given to local supplier. He further stated that he is resident of Bhopal and S.K. Mechanical Industries is of Durg District therefore, priority has been given. In paragraph-4 this witness has stated that the department is not given drawing and design, in fact the corporation called tender and the respective manufacture prepared drawing and design which is approved by the department. He has also admitted that before registration of any manufacturing unit, the corporation has to see whether manufacturing unit is manufacturing the materials as per ISI standard or not. He has also admitted that in the report it was found that the indent for supply of sluice gate has been ordered by the corporation. He has also admitted that various types of shutters were installed like wooden, lock shutters, curry shutters, MS shutters were installed in the gate leaf, vertical lifting gate etc. He has also admitted that he was not aware that in the entire project more than 500 different types of gates were installed and whenever, the Officers have shown him the gates, he has seen them on the spot. He has also admitted that at the time of inspection, Inspector of E.O.W was also present. He has also admitted that in the report he has not seen the name of manufacturer of gate. He has also admitted that at the time of inspection, Inspector of E.O.W was also present. He has also admitted that in the report he has not seen the name of manufacturer of gate. He has also admitted that whichever gates were installed in the canal he has seen it from their eyes only and not physical examination was done by him. He further admitted that he has only used tape and Vernier Calipers but there is chance of mistake in the measurement by using Vernier Calipers. He has also admitted that in such a big construction from 1 inch to 2 inch mistake is bonafide mistake which is permissible limit. He has also stated that for measurement of width, hole has to be done and the same has to be kept in the vernier calipers. He has also admitted that in the report he has not mentioned that he has seen curry shutters or sluice gate only provided shutters have been mentioned. He has admitted in the report that valuation of the material has not been mentioined by him. He also admitted that he cannot positively say that shutter which has been inspected by him is from SK Steels and he has stated that it has been informed to him. 19. P.S. Pinjani (PW-13) has stated that SK Chouhan has made complaint against him, therefore, he made complaint against him contending that quality of material by both the industries has to be seen and thereafter work order has been given. He has also admitted that he has not made complaint regrading specific gate or specific order but on his complaint the government has conducted enquiry. The witness has admitted that if SK Chouhan would have not made his complaint then he would not have made complaint to the Government. 20.A.R. Khan (PW-18) Investigating officer has stated that the seizure has been made by him during investigation, shutters and gates do not bear any mark of SK Steel. M.L Dahariya (PW-27) has admitted in the corss examination that practice prevailing in the department is that manufacture industry will prepare the design which will be approved by the the perspective department and authorized expert thereafter through Laghu Udyog Nigam work order will be issued to the company and the materiel will be directly sent to manufacturing unit and thereafter corporation will release the payment. 21.From the evidence led by the prosecution it is quite vivid that entire case of the prosecution is based on report as Ex.P-37 and Ex. P-38. The writer of Ex.P-38 and Ex.P-38 O.P. Tiwari (PW-7) has admitted in the evidence that that he has not mentioned about the mark of company who has manufactured the same and year of manufacturing and also admitted that inspection report attached with Ex.P-38 has not been prepared by him though inspection was carried out in his presence but he has not put his signature in the inspection report. 22.Further from the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, it is not proved by the prosecution that the appellants have given the work order for supply of different standard/quality of sluice gate and shutters which were supplied to the department by SK Steel and Mechanical Industries Durg causing loss to the State exchequer and made liable for conviction under Section 420 read with Section 120- B and Section 13 (i)(d)(ii)(iii) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. From the prosecution witnesses, particularly from the evidence of R.K. Thakur (PW-3), Rajendra Bhargav (PW-4), Rajesh Kumar Diwakar (PW-5) and OP Tiwari (PW-7), R.S. Shyam (PW-8), P.N. Janardan (PW-11), R.D. Vaidya (PW-12) and P.S. Pinjani (PW-13) and from their evidence, It is quite vivid, that the prosecution was unable to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the materials supplied by the accused were substandard quality or not upto design submitted by Laghu Udyog Nigam. It has also been brought on record through the evidence of PW-11 P.N. Janaran that the depth of entire project of canal is not more than 4.95 and he has also admitted that he has prepared the report treating the depth of canal more than six meter. The evidence further suggests that the work order was issued to SK steel after following due process. The evidence also suggests that R.S. Shyam (PW-8) was not authorized to measure the gate and he has not measured the gates through vernier calipers. The evidence further suggests that the work order was issued to SK steel after following due process. The evidence also suggests that R.S. Shyam (PW-8) was not authorized to measure the gate and he has not measured the gates through vernier calipers. The evidence of R.D. Vaidya (PW-12) clearly proved that various type of shutters were installed in the canal like wooden, lock shutters, curry shutters, MS shutters were installed in the gate leaf, vertical lifting gate etc and more than 500 different types of gates were installed and he has seen the gates only through eyes and physical verification has not been done through instrument which was required for actual measurement of width of the gates and shutter. The evidence further establishes that in a such big construction from 1 inch to 2 inch mistake is bonafide mistake which is within permissible limit and measurement of width without hole is not permissible, therefore, it is quite vivid that no proper measurement was done by the department to assess quality of material alleged to have been supplied by SK Chauhan. 23.From the evidence and material placed on record of the trial Court, it is quite vivid that even the prosecution has not placed any materiel on record to establish that what is actual requirement of the department for their canal project and the material which was supplied by the appellant was not upto quality which is required to be supplied by the manufacturer of gate and shutters for canal project. This vital evidence or material was essentially required to prove ingredients to attract offence under Sections 420, 120-B IPC and offence under the prevention of corruption Act which are missing. In absence of any such material or evidence, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants. Even other wise, the evidence of P.S. Pinjani (PW- 13) clearly demonstrates that due to business rivalry a false complaint was lodged by him against the appellants. The prosecution evidence is unable to prove beyond reasonable doubt, three components of offence under Section 420 IPC i.e. (i) deception any person (ii) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person and (iii) mens-rea or dishonest intention of the accused at the time of making such inducement. The prosecution evidence is unable to prove beyond reasonable doubt, three components of offence under Section 420 IPC i.e. (i) deception any person (ii) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person and (iii) mens-rea or dishonest intention of the accused at the time of making such inducement. 24.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maroa, Fasihuddin and Anr vs. State by Adugodi Police Station and Anr. Reproted in 2024 INC 49 has held as under:- 12. It is well known that every deceitful act is not unlawful, just as not every unlawful act is deceitful. Some acts may be termed both as unlawful as well as deceitful, and such acts alone will fall within the purview of Section 420 IPC. It must also be understood that a statement of fact is deemed ‘deceitful’ when it is false, and is knowingly or recklessly made with the intent that it shall be acted upon by another person, resulting in damage or loss. 2 ‘Cheating’ therefore, generally involves a preceding deceitful act that dishonestly induces a person to deliver any property or any part of a valuable security, prompting the induced person to undertake the said act, which they would not have done but for the inducement. 13. The term ‘property’ employed in Section 420 IPC has a well defined connotation. Every species of valuable right or interest that is subject to ownership and has an exchangeable value – is ordinarily understood as ‘property’. It also describes one’s exclusive right to possess, use and dispose of a thing. The IPC itself defines the term ‘moveable property’ as, “intended to include corporeal property of every description, except land and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything which is attached to the earth.” Whereas immoveable property is generally understood to mean land, benefits arising out of land and things attached or permanently fastened to the earth. 14. The IPC itself defines the term ‘moveable property’ as, “intended to include corporeal property of every description, except land and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything which is attached to the earth.” Whereas immoveable property is generally understood to mean land, benefits arising out of land and things attached or permanently fastened to the earth. 14. Having fully addressed the contours of the offence of ‘cheating’, let us now advert to the facts of the instant case to appreciate whether the allegations made by Respondent No. 2, are sufficient to prima facie establish that: (i) the Appellants have deceived Respondent No. 2; (ii) Respondent No. 2 was induced with dishonest intentions; (iii) such inducement was for the delivery of any property or valuable security; and (iv) as a result of such an act, Respondent No. 2 has suffered some damage or injury. 15. Each of these ingredients need to be analysed to ascertain whether Respondent No. 2 has made allegations in his complaint to substantiate points (i) to (iv) above. Additionally, it would also aid in determining whether the original or supplementary chargesheet addresses any of these ingredients. 16. The crux of Respondent No. 2’s allegations is that the Appellants purportedly forged his signature on the passport application submitted to obtain the minor child’s passport. Assuming the allegation to be accurate, it would undoubtedly constitute an unlawful act. However, as set out earlier, it is crucial to underscore that not every unlawful act automatically qualifies as ‘deceitful’. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the Appellant – wife seems to have breached the notion of mutual marital trust and unauthorizedly projected Respondent No. 2’s consent in obtaining the passport for their minor child. It, however, remains a question as to how such an act can be labelled as ‘deceitful’. The motivations prompting either of the Appellants to procure a passport for the minor child were not rooted in deceit. Furthermore, the grant of passport to the minor child did not confer any benefit upon the Appellantwife, nor did it result in any loss or damage to Respondent No. 2. In the same vein, Appellant No. 2, being the father of the Appellant – wife and assisting in securing the passport for the chid, derived no direct or indirect benefit from this action. 17. In the same vein, Appellant No. 2, being the father of the Appellant – wife and assisting in securing the passport for the chid, derived no direct or indirect benefit from this action. 17. In this context, the critical inquiry arises: how does the act of forging signatures on the passport application, aimed at obtaining the minor child’s passport, amount to inducing Respondent No. 2 to relinquish any property or valuable security? Examining the situation, it becomes apparent that the aforementioned act does not entail inducement leading to the parting of any property by Respondent No. 2. The nature of the property which can be claimed to have been relinquished or the tangible loss, damage, or injury, if any, suffered by Respondent No. 2 are not visible at all. The unequivocal response to these queries is clearly in the negative. 18. Respondent No. 2, the biological father and natural guardian of the minor child, is positioned as such in relation to the grant of a passport to his son. This grant can be best characterised as the minor child’s acquisition of property. Since the gain by the minor child is not at the cost of any loss, damage or injury to Respondent No. 2, both the fundamental elements of ‘deceit’ and ‘damage or injury’, requisite for constituting the offence of cheating are conspicuously absent in this factual scenario. 19. Conversely, can the Appellant – wife, being the natural mother of the child and a natural guardian, be accused of acting `dishonestly’ when applying for the passport of her minor child? A passport, is an authorised instrument which enables a person to travel outside the country of his origin. In this case, the passport was admittedly issued in favour of the minor child. Whether it was stolen by Respondent No. 2 or misplaced, is wholly immaterial to the present discussion. The grant of passport to the minor child is nothing but a right conferred upon him by statute. The passport is meant to facilitate him to accompany his mother to London and stay with his father. However, there is not even a whisper of allegation or suggestion that the passport was obtained to the detriment of the child’s wellbeing. The grant of passport to the minor child is nothing but a right conferred upon him by statute. The passport is meant to facilitate him to accompany his mother to London and stay with his father. However, there is not even a whisper of allegation or suggestion that the passport was obtained to the detriment of the child’s wellbeing. The underlying intent of obtaining the passport was, ironically, essential for the Appellant – wife and minor child to live together with Respondent No. 2, on whose instructions the passport was statedly obtained. Conversely, it is the actions of Respondent No. 2 that have seemingly deprived the minor child of his right to seek the care and company of his father, as the passport was allegedly taken away by Respondent No. 2 in a clandestine manner. 20. The background of this case and the chronology of events squarely indicate that it is the touchstone of a marital dispute. The insinuations made by Respondent No. 2, even if they possess an iota of truth, have miserably failed to prima facie establish the elements of ‘cheating’ and thus, the accusation made against the Appellants under Section 420 IPC must fall flat. 25.Again the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A.M. Mohan vs. The State of Represented by SHO and Another reported in 2024 INC 233 wherein it has been held as under:- 19. At the cost of repetition, it has to be noted that no role of inducement at all has been attributed to the present appellant. Rather, from the perusal of the FIR and the charge-sheet, it would reveal that there was no transaction of any nature directly between the appellant and the complainant. The version, if accepted at its face value, would reveal that, at the instance of accused No. 1, the complainant transferred the amount of Rs.20,00,000/- in the account of the appellant. On receipt of the said amount, the appellant immediately executed the sale deed in favour of accused No.1, who thereafter executed the GPA in favour of the complainant. After that, no role is attributed to the present appellant and whatever happened thereafter, has happened between accused No. 1, the complainant and the other accused persons. On receipt of the said amount, the appellant immediately executed the sale deed in favour of accused No.1, who thereafter executed the GPA in favour of the complainant. After that, no role is attributed to the present appellant and whatever happened thereafter, has happened between accused No. 1, the complainant and the other accused persons. In that view of the matter, we find that the FIR or the charge-sheet, even if taken at its face value, does not disclose the ingredients to attract the provision of Section 420 of IPC qua the appellant. 20. The dishonest inducement is the sine qua non to attract the provisions of Section 415 and 420 of IPC. In our considered view, the same is totally lacking qua the present appellant. In that view of the matter, we find that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the present appellant would be nothing else but amount to abuse of process of law resulting in miscarriage of justice. 26.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. reported in 2025 INSC 1096 wherein it has been held as under:- 13. The words ‘dishonestly’ and ‘fraudulently’ are defined as follows: 24. “Dishonestly”— Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing “dishonestly”. 25. “Fraudulently”—A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise.’’ Section 23 IPC defines wrongful loss/ wrongful gain: “Wrongful gain”: Wrongful gain is gain by unlawful means of property to which the person gaining is not legally entitled. “Wrongful loss”: Wrongful loss is the loss by unlawful means of property to which the person losing it is legally entitled.” Reading the ingredients in the backdrop of these definitions, it is evident in order to attract the offence of cheating, a person must knowingly make a false statement which would induce another to part with property or to do or omit to do a thing which the latter would not do or omit unless deceived and thereby is likely to suffer damage/harm in body, mind, reputation or property. 14. In Dr. Sharma’s Nursing Home v. Delhi Admn. & Ors. 14. In Dr. Sharma’s Nursing Home v. Delhi Admn. & Ors. (1998) 8 SCC 745 , this Court held mere deception by itself would not constitute cheating unless the other essential ingredient, i.e., dishonest inducement is established. This Court held as follows: “…both the learned courts have rested their findings on deception only and did not go into the question whether the complaint and its accompaniments disclosed the other essential ingredient of the offence under Section 420 IPC, namely, dishonest inducement. “Dishonesty” has been defined in Section 24 IPC to mean deliberate intention to cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss; and when with such intention, deception is practised and delivery of property is induced then the offence under Section 420 IPC can be said to have been committed…" 15. In Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr. (2000) 4 SCC 168 , this Court reiterated that Section 415 IPC contemplates two distinct situations; the first where a person is dishonestly induced to deliver property, and the second where a person is induced to do or omit an act which, but for the deception, he would not have done or omitted. In the former, the inducement must be fraudulent or dishonest, whereas in the latter it need only be intentional. Therefore, intention is the gist of the offence. 21. The High Court failed to consider these relevant issues which clearly demonstrate that the uncontroverted allegations in the chargesheet, in the teeth of order dated 25.04.2018 in WP No. 14542/2018, do not disclose essential ingredients of cheating or forgery. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court, quash the proceedings in CC No. 303/2020 under Section 420 IPC and allow the appeal. 28.Now in view of above factual and legal position, this court is of the considered view that the appellants can be convicted and punished only when the evidence led by the prosecution to prove its case to the hilt. As noticed above, the prosecution could not establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence must be of sterling quality and should be of a nature that a conclusion can be drawn that appellant alone 'must' have committed the offence and not that appellants perhaps/might have committed the offence. The prosecution could not satisfy the aforesaid litmus test in the instant case. The evidence must be of sterling quality and should be of a nature that a conclusion can be drawn that appellant alone 'must' have committed the offence and not that appellants perhaps/might have committed the offence. The prosecution could not satisfy the aforesaid litmus test in the instant case. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra , (1984) 4 SCC 116 , this Court held as under: "The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. There should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused." "Graver the crime, greater should be the standard of proof. An accused may appear to be guilty on the basis of suspicion but that cannot amount to legal proof. When on the evidence two possibilities are available or open, one which goes in the favour of the prosecution and the other benefits an accused, the accused is undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt. The principle has special relevance where the guilt or the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence." 29.Similarly, the prosecution is also unable to prove beyond reasonable that the appellants who are the public servants by abusing their position as public servants obtained for themselves and for any valuable things or pecuniary advantage or while holding office as public servant obtained for any person and valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest and made liable for conviction under Sections 13(i)(d) (ii)(iii) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, therefore, acquittal of the accused/appellants cannot be held to be illegal or suffers from perversity which warrants interference by this Court while hearing acquittal appeal in view of the well settled legal position of law that if a view taken by the learned trial Court is more favourable to the accused in acquitting the accused/appellants, the appellate Court should not normally interfere by reversing the finding unless so cogent material which was already on record and has been ignored by the trial Court. This is not the situation in the present appeals. Consequently, appeal against the acquittal filed by the State offence under Sections 13(i) (d) (ii)(iii) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act is dismissed. 30.In view of above discussion and considering the law on the subject the appellants are acquitted from the offence under Section 420 and 120-B IPC by giving benefit of doubt to the appellants namely, Suresh Kumar Chauhan, T.J. Thomas, Anand Kumar Shrivastava and P.K. Shrivastava and the judgments of their conviction are hereby set aside. The appeals filed by the appellants bearing CRA Nos. 336 of 2018, 1539 of 2019, 345 of 2018 and 347 of 2018 are allowed. The appellants are reported to be on bail and their bail bonds shall stand discharged.