The amount of Rs.2,273=60 ps. is shown to be balance in the said account in the month of August, 1990. Thus, the amount of Rs.49,745/- has been withdrawn from that account from time to time. The amount of Rs.27,450/- has been withdrawn from time to time during the period from 19-7-1989 to 30-1-1990 as shown in the report Exh.33. According to the prosecution, out of the amount of Rs.27,450/- the actual work found to have been done by the appellant was worth Rs.9,219/- and as such the appellant has misappropriated the amount of Rs.18,231/-. To substantiate this allegation, prosecution has mainly relied on the evidence of Narayan Audhut P.W.8 (Exh.56) and Iftekhar Ahmed Khan P.W.9 (Exh.62) who are the Junior Engineers attached to Panchayat Samiti, Gevrai and Zilla Parishad, Irrigation Department, Gevrai respectively. Audhut P.W. 8 states that he inspected the work of road at Rui, took measurements thereof and valued it at Rs.9,219. The said notes of valuation are at Exh.57. This witness does not state as to when he had inspected and measured the work of road at Rui. The entries in Exh.57 are not in his hand writing. The said entries do not bear his signatures. In the back page i.e. at Page No.4 of Exh.57 there is the endorsement of Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Gevrai dated 9-11-1989. It is, thus, clear that the entries Exh.57 were taken prior to 9-11-1989. Iftekhar Ahmedkhan P.W.9 states that he visited the work of road of Rui on 6-11-1989 and found that it was worth Rs.9,219-50 ps. As stated that the entries of Exh.57 are in his hand writing. As seen from the contents of report Exh.33 the amount of Rs.10,800/- was withdrawn during the period from 19-7-89 to 17-10-89. The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out to the certificate Exh.59 which is in the hand writing and under the signature of Iftekhar Ahmedkhan P.W.9 wherein the cost of the road prepared was shown as Rs.10,500/-. In fact from the evidence of Audhut P.W.8 a grave doubt is created about his actual visit, measurement and valuation of the land in question since the entries at Exh.57 are not in his hand writing nor he has signed it. The evidence of Iftekhar P.W.9 also becomes doubtful since as per the entries at Exh.57 he has shown the valuation of the road as Rs.9,219-50 ps. However, in the certificate Exh.51 he himself has mentioned cost of that road at Rs.10,500/-. Considering certificate Exh.59 at the most it can be said that the amount of Rs.500/-only was balance outstanding out of the amount withdrawn from the bank till 9-11-1989, though the work was done thereafter also and therefore, measurement notes Exh.57 would not be helpful to the prosecution to show that there was any misappropriation on the part of the appellant.
