1. The 1st accused in C.C. No.36/2008 on the files of the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam, has filed this appeal, under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereinafter referred as ‘Cr.P.C.’ for short], challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Judge, against him as per the judgment dated 07.05.2011. The State of Kerala, represented by the Special Public Prosecutor is arrayed as the respondent herein.

2. Heard the learned senior counsel for the appellant and the learned Special Public Prosecutor, in detail. Carefully gone through the verdict under challenge, the evidence available and also the decisions placed by both sides.

3. Parties in this appeal shall be referred as ‘accused’ and ‘prosecution’, hereafter.

4. The prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred as ‘P.C. Act, 1988 for short] and under Section 477A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code [hereinafter referred as ‘IPC’ for short], by the 1st and 2nd accused. The specific allegation of the prosecution is that, accused Nos.1 and 2, while working in the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation, Maveli Store, Edathua, hatched conspiracy during the month of April, 1995, with dishonest intention to obtain undue pecuniary advantage to themselves and to cause corresponding loss to the State Exchequer (i.e. Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.) misappropriated commodities worth Rs.3,59,545.05 owned by the Civil Supplies Corporation by falsifying the records of the Maveli Store, Edathua in between the period from 01.04.1995 to 24.06.1995.

5. After framing charge for the offences punishable under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and under Sections 120B and 477A of the IPC, the Special Court recorded evidence and completed trial. During trial, PWs 1 to 20 were examined and Exts.P1 to P48 were marked on the side of the prosecution. Ext.D1 was marked through PW7 on the side of the accused.

6. On appreciation of evidence, the Special Court found that the 2nd accused was not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and under Section 477A of IPC and he was acquitted for the said offences. However, the Special Court found that the 1st accused was guilty for the offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and under Section 477A of IPC. Accordingly, the 1st accused was convicted for the said offences and sentenced as under:

                  “The 1st accused is convicted under section 13(2) r/w. section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only), in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The 1st accused is also convicted under section 477A IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. The sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.”

7. While assailing the verdict impugned, the first point raised by the learned senior counsel for the 1st accused/appellant is that, in this matter, the entire prosecution case rests on Exts.P1 and P2 documents and according to him, Ext.P1 is the copy of inspection report for the period between 01.04.1995 to 26.08.1995. Similarly, Ext.P2 is the attested copy of trading particulars/inspection report for the period from 01.04.1995 to 26.08.1995. According to the learned senior counsel, the originals of Exts.P1 and P2 were not tendered in evidence, instead only copies of the same were tendered in evidence. It is pointed out that, non-production of the originals of Exts.P1 and P2 as primary evidence and production of Exts.P1 and P2, without sufficient reasons to accept the same as secondary evidence, make Exts.P1 and P2 inadmissible in evidence and if so, the conviction and sentence imposed against the 1st accused, merely based on Exts.P1 and P2 would not sustain in the eye of law and the same are liable to be set aside.

8. When the learned senior counsel for the 1st accused was asked to clarify whether Exts.P1 and P2 documents would qualify the status of secondary evidence, the learned senior counsel though initially answered in the negative, he fairly conceded that he would submit regarding this legal question on the next day. Then, he has placed two decisions in support of his contentions. The first decision placed by the learned senior counsel is one reported in [MANU/SC/0066/2023 : AIR 2023 SC 615 : 2023(1) KHC 451] Saurav Das v. Union of India (UOI) and Others, with reference to paragraph No.5. In the said decision, the Apex Court considered a petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India praying appropriate directions/orders directing the respondents therein/State to enable free public access to chargesheets and Final Reports filed as per Section 173 of Cr.P.C, referring the decision of the Apex Court reported in [MANU/SC/1339/2016 : (2016) 9 SCC 473] Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India. In Saurav Das’s case (supra), the contention raised by the petitioner was that, a chargesheet would become a public document, once the same would be filed in the Court in view of Sections 74 and 75 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Apex Court considered the status of chargesheet filed under Section 173(4) of Cr.P.C. and the Apex Court held in paragraph No.5 as under:

                  “Documents mentioned in Section 74 of the Evidence Act only can be said to be public documents, the certified copies of which are to be given by the concerned police officer having the custody of such a public document. Copy of the chargesheet along with the necessary documents cannot be said to be public documents within the definition of Public Documents as per Section 74 of the Evidence Act. As per Section 75 of the Evidence Act all other documents other than the documents mentioned in Section 74 of the Evidence Act are all private documents. Therefore, the chargesheet/ documents along with the chargesheet cannot be said to be public documents Under Section 74 of the Evidence Act, reliance placed upon Sections 74 & 76 of the Evidence Act is absolutely misplaced.”

9. Apart from the above decision, the learned senior counsel placed another decision of Jharkhand High Court in Junul Surin and Others v. Silas Munda and Others reported in [MANU/JH/0394/2008 : AIR 2008 Jhar 82]. In the said case, the question considered by the High Court of judicature in Jharkhand was whether report of delivery possession by the Circle Inspector of executive Court is a public document? While deciding the question, in paragraph No.10, the Jharkhand High Court held as under:

                  “10. There is distinction between the record of the Court and the record of the act of the Court. It is only record of act of the Court which is a public document. A report even if prepared in discharging official duty with regard to possession cannot be a public document so as to report of possession is taken as conclusive. The report in relation to possession cannot be taken as statutory report. What is stated in the report however has to be proved if the same is not accepted by other side. For example if a summon for settlement of issue or disposal of suits is issued under the seal of the Court directing the defendants to appear on a particular date this part of the summon, no doubt is a public document but the report of the process server with regard to service of summon made on the back of the report or on a separate sheet cannot take place of a public document. If the party disputes the report and the service of summons then the report as to be proved. Similarly, if a writ of attachment or writ for affecting delivery of possession is issued by the judicial or quasi-judicial authority directing the officer or bailiff to effect delivery of possession then the report of the officer or bailiff certifying the execution of writ for delivery of possession cannot be taken as a public document and therefore, report of the officer effecting delivery of possession has to be proved.”

10. That apart, the learned senior counsel for the 1st accused submitted that, in this case, the 1st accused deposited the entire amount alleged to be misappropriated by him. Therefore, in the matter of sentence, fine may be reduced, taking note of the deposit of the amount and also reduce the substantive sentence to the statutory minimum.

11. In reply to the first contention raised by the learned senior counsel for the 1st accused, it is pointed out by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that, the attack against Exts.P1 and P2 has no legs to stand in the instant case, since the original documents wherefrom Exts.P1 and P2 were generated as such have been produced and witnesses to those documents were also examined to prove the same. Therefore, the original documents itself were proved to justify the misappropriation independently.

12. It is also submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor with reference to paragraph No.81 of the Three Bench decision of the Apex Court reported in [2023 KHC 6782 : 2023 (5) KHC SN 29 : AIR 2023 SC 4331] Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar, wherein it was held by the Apex Court that, the FIR is a public document defined under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act.

13. Apart from the said decision, another decision of this Court in Vijayamma v. G.Venugopal reported in [2024 (2) KHC 553 : 2024 KER 19899 : 2024 (3) KLT SN 22] also has been placed by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, with reference to paragraph No.34. In the said case, the question considered by this Court was whether additional documents produced under Order 41 Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in an appeal, which are disputed by the other party could be accepted in evidence, without proof of those documents? While addressing this query, in paragraph No.34 this Court observed as under:

                  “34. Coming to the nature of documents marked as Exts.A6 to A10, the same are public documents dealt under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. As per Section 74(1)(iii) of the Indian Evidence Act, documents forming part of the acts or records of the act of public offices, legislative, judicial and executive, [or any part of India or of the Commonwealth], or of a foreign country are public documents. Similarly, public records kept [in any state] of private documents are also public documents. Except the above documents, all are private documents as per Section 75 of the Indian Evidence Act. Sections 76 and 77 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides as under:

                  76. Certified copies of public documents. - Every public officer having the custody of a public document, which any person has a right to inspect, shall give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees therefor, together with a certificate written, at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document or part thereof, as the case may be, and such certificate shall be dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and his official title, and shall be sealed, whenever such officer is authorized by law to make use of a seal; and such copies so certified shall be called certified copies.

                  Explanation- any officer who, by the ordinary course of official duty, is authorised to deliver such copies, shall be deemed to have the custody of such documents within the meaning of this section.

                  77. Proof of documents by production of certified copies- Such certified copes may be produced in proof of the contents of the public documents or parts of the public documents of which they purport to be copies.”

14.    In view of the rival submissions, the points arise for consideration are:

                  1. Whether the Special Court is justified in finding that the 1st accused committed the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988?

                  2. Whether the Special Court is justified in finding that the 1st accused committed the offence punishable under Section 477A of the IPC?

                  3. Whether the verdict of the Special Court would require interference?

                  4. Order to be passed?

15. Point Nos.1 and 2:- In this case, Ext.P36 FIR was registered by PW15, Dy.S.P, VACB, Alappuzha and the investigation had been progressed and continued by PW16, the Inspector of Police, VACB. PW16 deposed that, he continued the investigation from 02.02.1999 to 17.04.2000. Thereafter, this case had been investigated by PWs 17, 18 and 20.

16. PW1 deposed that she had been working as Junior Manager (Inspection) in the office of Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation, Alappuzha during 1996-1998, that as per the instruction of the vigilance Superintendent of police of the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation, she prepared a report and trading particulars of the period from 01.4.1995 to 26.8.1995 and she identified Exhibit P1 as the copy of the report and Exhibit P2 as the copy of the trading particulars and she admitted her signatures therein. The marking of the said documents was objected by the counsel for the accused on the ground that they were copies and they were marked subject to objection. PW1 deposed further that she had worked as Assistant Manager in Regional office at Ernakulam of the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation and on 21.6.2004 she produced documents before the Investigating Officer and she signed in Exhibit P34 mahazar prepared for the same. She further said that she produced Exhibits P1, P2, P21, P27 and P28 and she attested those documents by comparing with the originals kept in the Regional office. So the evidence of PW1 would show that the above documents are the true copies of the originals kept in the regional office.

17. However, the learned Special Judge observed that, still prosecution did not explain why the original of the documents were not produced. So as pointed out by learned counsel for the 1st accused Exhibits P1 and P2 were not legally admissible. Section 65 of the Evidence Act mandates that secondary evidence may be given in the circumstances mentioned in that Section. Prosecution did not point out that any of the circumstances mentioned in that section was available in the present case. It was seen that there was a practice of producing only copies of the relevant documents by the investigating officers in the V.A.C.B. That practice should be discontinued. Of course, certified copy of a public document would be admissible in evidence. But when a document is particularly related to the matter in issue in the case, the said document itself should be produced by the prosecution before the court. Learned Additional Legal Adviser submitted that in the present case non-production of the original of Exhibits P1 and P2 not at all fatal to the prosecution, since they were the reports and trading particulars prepared by PW1 on the basis of the documents produced before the court and since PW1 herself gave oral evidence before the court regarding the procedure done by her and the conclusion arrived at by her. However, the learned Special Judge found merit in that argument.

18. PW1 further identified Exhibit P4 as the stock register, Exhibits P5 to P10 as the files containing consignment notes, Exhibits P11 and P12 as the G.T.O's and Exhibit P13 series identified as the GRS's, Exhibit P14 series identified as the monthly statements prepared by the 1st accused himself for the period from April, 1995 to 31-7-1995, Exhibit P3 identified as the stock verification report prepared by PW3 and Exhibit P15 as the report prepared by Sasidharan and she prepared the report and trading particulars on the basis of the said documents. Relying on these evidence that, since the original documents relied on by PW1 for preparing Exhibits P1 and P2 were produced before the court, the learned Special Judge accepted the argument of the Additional Legal Adviser that non-production of original of Exhibits P1 and P2 did not adversely affect the prosecution case.

19. PW1 deposed in detail regarding the conclusions in the report and trading particulars. She said that except regarding boiled rice, she took into consideration the opening balance of the other commodities from Exhibit P3- physical verification report prepared by PW3. She explained that the stock register was not properly prepared and so she relied on Exhibit P3. In re-examination with permission, she pointed out that on 29-5-1995, the closing balance of sugar was 2487 kg, there was no receipt or sale on that day, but on the next day i.e., on 01-6-1995, the opening balance was written as 48 kg Similarly on 01-6-1995 the opening balance of rice was 817kg, receipt was 7989 kg and total should be 16164 kg, but was written as 6164 kg. She also pointed out that 8.5 kg of coriander received on 15-6-1995 was not entered in the stock register. She further said that she wrote in detail regarding these discrepancies in Exhibit P1. So the method adopted by PW1 is to rely on Exhibit P3 to find out the opening balance, then she found out the total sales during the period from April, 1995 to 31-7-1995 from the monthly statements prepared by the 1st accused and then the sales from 01.8.1995 to 26.8.1995 from the sales stock register. She took the physical stock as per the report prepared by Sasidharan on 26-8-1995. PW13 (Sasidharan) deposed that he was Junior Manager (Inspection) at Alappuzha Civil Supplies Corporation, that on 26.8.1995, he verified the physical stock at Edathua Maveli Store and Exhibit P15 identified as the report prepared by him. According to him, he conducted the physical verification in the presence of the helpers P.Sasi (A2) and Thankachi and Sasi signed in Exhibit P15 and that P30 is the inspection book kept in the maveli store. Since the stock register was not kept properly, it could be said that the method adopted by PW1 in finding out the irregularities, as incorrect.

20. PW3 deposed that he was Senior Assistant in the financial wing in the Head Office at Ernakulam of Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation and that as per direction of the Managing Director, he conducted stock verification at the maveli store in Edathua on 31-3-1995 and he identified Exhibit P3 as the stock verification report prepared by him which contains his signature. He testified that the then Shop Manager Venugopal and helper Sasi who got identified as A1 and A2 in the dock, were present at the time of the stock verification and 1st accused signed in Exhibit P3 in his presence. He further said that it was with the help of the accused persons that he weighed the commodities and that Exhibit P17 identified as the stock declaration submitted by 1st accused which contains 1st accused's signature. Nothing was asked challenging Exts.P3 and P17 in cross-examination for the 1st accused. A suggestion was made that 2nd accused was not present at the time of preparation of Exhibit P3 and so the 2nd accused's signature is absent in it. PW3 denied it and explained that since the 1st accused had the charge duty of the shop, only 1st accused's signature was put.

21. PW5 deposed that he was the Manager in Edathua Unit from 12-5-1995 to 14-1-1997, that on 23-8-1995 he got telephonic message that rice was being sold at a lower price of Rs.5/- at Edathua Maveli Store, the actual price of rice at that time was Rs.7/-, that so he informed the matter to Sasidharan (PW13) and that Sasidharan came on the next day, they went to Edathua Maveli Store and the shop manager was not there. Again on 25-8-1995 both of them went to the Maveli Store, the shop manager was not there and again on 26-8-1995 they went to that Maveli store and in the absence of the shop manager and with the help of the helpers in that maveli store they verified the physical stock of the articles and prepared by PW13. He further said that physical stock of non-maveli items could not be taken fully on that day, that accused Nos.1 and 2 were suspended and he went on 30.8.1995 to implement the suspension order and on that day he took stock of the damaged non-maveli items, segregated the good items from that damaged items and prepared separate lists and that Exhibits P27 and P28 identified as the copy of the said lists and Exhibit P29 identified as the mahazar prepared for the same in which the 2nd accused and the new person in-charge of the maveli store signed. He further said that in Exhibit P27 cost of the damaged items was shown as Rs.8927.75 and in Exhibit P28, the total cost of the good items segregated was shown as Rs. 17364.95.

22. PW7 deposed that she was helper in Edathua Maveli store from 07-8-1995 to 07-12-1995, she was present when Sasidharan and Muraleedharan (PW13 and PW5) conducted physical verification and she admitted her signature in Ext.P15.

23. PW8 deposed that he was Senior Assistant Grade II in Alappuzha Supplyco Supermarket from January, 1995 to November, 1996, that as per the direction of the Assistant Manager he had delivered articles to Edathua Maveli store as per consignment notes Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in Exhibit P10 and that they contain his signature, that the then shop manager of Edathua Maveli store Venugopalan signed in the consignment notes acknowledging the receipt of the articles. PW9 deposed that he was Senior Assistant Grade-I in Alappuzha Supplyco Supermarket from 1996 January, that he delivered the articles to Edathua Maveli store as per consignment note Nos.4, 5, 6 and 7 in Exhibit P10, that they contain his signature and the then shop manager of the maveli store signed in them acknowledging the receipt of the articles.

24. PW10 deposed that he was Senior Assistant in Edathua unit depot of Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited from 1992 to 1997, that he had delivered articles to Edathua Maveli store as per consignment note Nos.1 and 3 to 41 in Exhibit P8 and his signature was therein Ext.P8. He also testified that shop manager Venugopalan signed in consignment note Nos.1 to 20 and 22 to 34 in Exhibit P8 and helper Sasi signed in consignment note Nos.21 and 35 to 40 in Exhibit P8 acknowledging the receipt of the articles. PW12 deposed that he was Senior Assistant in unit depot of the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation at Edathua, that he delivered articles to Edathua Maveli store as per consignment note No.2 in Exhibit P8 and that the then shop manager Venugopalan signed in it for receipt of the articles.

25. Adverting the first legal issue raised by the learned senior counsel for the 1st accused, negatived by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, reference to Sections 74 to 76 of the Indian Evidence Act is relevant. The same are extracted as under:

                  “74.    Public  documents.––The     following documents are public documents: ––

                  (1) Documents forming the acts, or records of the acts ––

                  (i) of the sovereign authority,

                  (ii) of official bodies and tribunals, and

                  (iii) of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, [of any part of India or of the Commonwealth], or of a foreign country;

                  (2) Public records kept [in any State] of private documents.

                  75. Private documents.––All other documents are private.

                  76. Certified copies of public documents.–– Every public officer having the custody of a public document, which any person has a right to inspect, shall give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees there for, together with a certificate written, at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document or part thereof, as the case may be, and such certificate shall be dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and his official title, and shall be sealed, whenever such officer is authorized by law to make use of a seal; and such copies so certified shall be called certified copies.

                  Explanation.––Any officer who, by the ordinary course of official duty, is authorized to deliver such copies, shall be deemed to have the custody of such documents within the meaning of this section.”

26. As per Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, every public officers having the custody of a public document, which any person has the right to inspect, shall give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees there for, together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document or part thereof, as the case may be, and such certificate shall be dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and his official title, and shall be sealed, whenever such officer is authorized by law to make use of a seal and such copies so certified shall be called certified copies.

27. Section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with primary evidence and the same mandates that the original document itself to be produced for the inspection of the Court, to treat the same as primary evidence.

28. In the instant case, according to the learned Special Public Prosecutor, Exts.P1 and P2 are documents that would come under the category of secondary evidence, but the learned senior counsel for the appellant contends otherwise.

29. Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given. It has been provided as under:

                  “65. Cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given.––Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition or contents of a document in the following cases: ––

                  (a) when the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power ––

                  of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved, or

                  of any person out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court, or

                  of any person legally bound to produce it,

                  and when, after the notice mentioned in section 66, such person does not produce it;

                  (b) when the existence, condition or contents of the original have been proved to be admitted in writing by the person against whom it is proved or by his representative in interest;

                  (c) when the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time;

                  (d) when the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable;

                  (e) when the original is a public document within the meaning of section 74;

                  (f) when the original is a document of which a certified copy is permitted by this Act, or by any other law in force in [India] to be given in evidence;

                  (g) when the originals consist of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot conveniently be examined in Court, and the fact to be proved is the general result of the whole collection.

                  In cases (a), (c) and (d), any secondary evidence of the contents of the document is admissible.

                  In case (b), the written admission is admissible.

                  In case (e) or (f), a certified copy of the document, but no other kind of secondary evidence, is admissible.

                  In case (g), evidence may be given as to the general result of the documents by any person who has examined them, and who is skilled in the examination of such documents.”

30. Thus, as per Section 65(e) of the Evidence Act, when the original is a public document within the meaning of Section 74, copy of the same by itself is a secondary evidence. Then the question is whether Exts.P1 and P2 are public documents within the meaning of Section 74?

31. Section 74 provides that, all documents are public, when the documents forming the acts or records of the acts viz. (i) of the sovereign authority, (ii) of official bodies and tribunals, and (iii) of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive of any part of India or of the Commonwealth or of a foreign country. Except the documents classified under Section 74 of the Evidence Act, all other documents are private documents within the meaning of Section 75. Section 76 deals with certified copies of public documents as already observed.

32. In this case, evidently Exts.P1 and P2 were tendered in evidence through the evidence of PW1, who held the post of Junior Manager in Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, during the period from 1996-1998 and according to her, while holding the said post, she had prepared Ext.P1 inspection report for the period from 01.04.1995 to 26.08.1995 as ordered by Sri.Ittan, Vigilance S.P. of the Civil Supplies Corporation. PW1 identified Ext.P1 as the copy of the said report and Ext.P2 as the copy of trading particulars (inspection report from the period from 01.04.1995 to 26.08.1995). She identified the signatures therein and accordingly the same got marked. Marking of Exts.P1 and P2 was objected and accordingly those documents got marked subject to objection. It is relevant to note that, during further examination of PW1, she stated that Exts.P5 to P10 are the original files kept at the Maveli Store and Exts.P11 and P12 are the GTOs inspected by her. She also identified the GRS she had inspected as Exts.P13, P13(a) and P13(b) and she had prepared the statements based on the monthly statements prepared by the Manger and the Manager was Sri.Venugopal, the 1st accused. PW1 also deposed that, she prepared the sales stock register for the period from 01.08.1995 to 26.08.1995 based on Ext.P14.

33. Thus, it appears that, in the instant case, there is no reason to exclude Exts.P1 and P2 from the purview of public documents, since the same are documents forming acts or the records of the acts done by a public officer like PW1. Even accepting the contention raised by the learned senior counsel for the 1st accused to treat non-production of Exts.P1 and P2 in original, the status of Exts.P1 and P2, the copies thereof is nothing but a document come within the purview of Section 63 as secondary evidence. Most importantly, as far as Exts.P1 and P2 are concerned, the author thereof was examined by the prosecution and she has supported the documents and according to her, she had verified Exts.P5 to P11 series documents for preparing Exts.P1 and P2. In such a case, there is no reason to justify the contention raised by the learned senior counsel to eschew the evidence in the form of Exts.P1 and P2 for any reason and in the said circumstance, this contention found to be meritless.

34. Reverting back, it is relevant to note that, the findings of the Special Court in view of the evidence of PW1, regarding the calculations relating to opening balance, balance to be found, cost of shortage etc. are summarized in a tabular form. The same is extracted as under: