### Unauthorised Drawing of Bulk Material Beyond Zonal Jurisdiction Establishes Criminal Conspiracy and Breach of Trust

The Appellants, Kali Charan (A1, Inspector) and Darshan Singh (A3, Assistant Engineer), along with others (A2, A4-A8), were employees of the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (DESU).

Between August 1981 and March 1982, they allegedly conspired to misappropriate electrical materials worth ₹5,83,019.02/- by using 18 forged/unauthorized store-issue dockets.

Materials were drawn from the Jungpura Store (outside their assigned zone) without proper authorization from Executive Engineers.

A1 was further accused of destroying the Material at Site (MAS) register to screen the offenders.

The trial court convicted A1 and A3 for criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust (Section 409 IPC), and misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, 1947.

A1 was also convicted under Section 201 IPC for disappearance of evidence.

The Appellants challenged the conviction, citing the non-production of the MAS register and the failure of the approver (PW2) to identify them in court.

Whether there is sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction of A1 under Section 201 IPC for causing the disappearance of the MAS register?

Whether the drawing of huge quantities of materials from an unauthorized store based on dockets signed by the Appellants constitutes criminal conspiracy and breach of trust?

Whether the testimony and confession of an approver (PW2) can be relied upon if they fail to identify the accused in court?

The court applied Section 120-B (Conspiracy), 409 (Criminal Breach of Trust by public servant), and 201 (Causing disappearance of evidence) of the IPC, and Sections 5(1)(c) and 5(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1947.

It relied on the principle that the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice is admissible under Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act (IEA) but, as a rule of prudence under Section 114 Illustration (b), requires corroboration in material particulars (*Bhiva Doulu Patil v. State of Maharashtra*).

Regarding the admissibility of prior depositions of non-witnesses, it followed *Bishwanath Prasad v. Dwarka Prasad*, distinguishing between party admissions and discrediting witnesses.

It also noted that exoneration in departmental proceedings does not automatically mandate acquittal in criminal trials unless the charges are identical and no prima facie case exists (*P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar*).

The court found the conviction of A1 under Section 201 IPC unsustainable because PW6 and DW2 suggested the MAS register was taken by the Executive Engineer (PW12) or Vigilance, creating doubt as to whether A1 intentionally destroyed it.

However, regarding Sections 409 and 120-B IPC, the court observed that A1 (as indenter) and A3 (as authorising officer) drew enormous quantities of materials from the Jungpura Store, where A3’s specimen signatures were not even available.

The court rejected A3's plea of "bona fide signing," holding that as Assistant Engineer, he was duty-bound to verify requirements before authorization.

Although the approver (PW2) failed to identify the accused in court, the court upheld the use of his confession (Ext. PW2/A) because PW2 admitted its truth and it was corroborated by the recovery of dockets, ledger entries (Ext. PW9/B), and handwriting expert reports (Ext. PW11/B).

The "Asiad Games emergency" defense was rejected as it was never put to the Executive Engineer.

It **acquitted** A1 of the charge under Section 201 IPC due to unsatisfactory evidence regarding the disappearance of the register.

However, it **confirmed** the conviction and sentence for A1 and A3 regarding criminal conspiracy (Section 120-B IPC), criminal breach of trust (Section 409 IPC), and statutory misconduct under the PC Act, 1947, as the unauthorized withdrawal and disposal of materials were proved beyond reasonable doubt.