his answer was that neither the receipt books nor the books were account books. The receipts in the books are in serial numbers from 101 to 700. In the first search taken receipts bearing serial Nos. 151 to 200 for the period from 14-4-66 to 25-1-68 were missing. These receipts were all in one book, namely, Exh. P.82. Ex. P.82 was seized on a subsequent search. Another book Ex. P.82 was also found in subsequent search. This book bears no serial nulJ!bers. All these three books cons\itute Ex.P-79, 80 and P.82 containing receipts relating to the work. The total amount mentioned in the receipts relating to the work was Rs. 76,248.43. A.2 has not stated that he had vouchers for any other money paid by him nor has he produced any such vouchers. P.Ws No. 7 to 10 and 14 to 21, twelve in all, who did the work of excavation in the canal have stated that they passed receipts for· all moneys received by them. When suggestions were made to some of them that some payments were made to them without receipts, they denied the fact. The other books seized, namely, Ex. P. 81 collectively, were, according to A.2, cash books. However, serial No. 23/Il item No. 35, which was part of Ex. P. 81 is definitely an account book and not a cash book. In any event, A.2 does not rely on any of these books nor has he said anything to show that any payments were recorded therein, which are other than the payments shown in Ex. P. 79, 80 and 82. A.2 did no\ examine any workers who worked in the canal and who, according to him, had received any payments which were not receipted for. It is evidence from Ex.P.79 to P.82 that some moneys spent in the. work were receipted and accounted for. Considering all these facts, the question that A.2 might haye paid any amounts without receiving receipts can be ruled out. Ex. P.79 to P.82 together with the other evidence on record support the version of the prosecution that the total amount of work done by the accnsed did not exceed Rs. 76,248.43." We may at oce state that there is no evidence on the record to indicate that the books seized from the premises of A.2 contained entries about all the payments made by him to th labour employed for the execution of the work and that is a fact the correctness of which we see no reason to presume. The danger of assumptions of the type made by the two courts below is highlighted by the _disparity in the figures which they reached in relation to the amount of the value above mentioned. Each had his own way of looking at
