False records and misappropriation sustain conviction; procedural irregularity in investigation caused no prejudice and limitation bar did not apply.

False entries in official records showing completion of rectification work and payment of entrusted funds constituted fabrication of documents, criminal breach of trust and criminal misconduct, because the offence was complete when the records were prepared and the amount was shown as disbursed without authority. An alleged irregularity in investigation for want of prior permission did not invalidate the conviction, as no prejudice or miscarriage of justice was shown. The statutory limitation bar also did not apply, because dishonest misappropriation and fabrication were not acts done in good faith or under the relevant Act. The convictions and sentences were therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellants were rightly convicted for preparing false documents, criminal breach of trust and criminal misconduct in connection with the alleged non-payment of Rs. 369.07 and the non-execution of rectification work. (ii) Whether the alleged irregularity in investigation for want of prior permission under section 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act vitiated the conviction. (iii) Whether the prosecution was barred by limitation under section 23 of the Bombay Land Improvement Schemes Act, 1942.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants were rightly convicted for preparing false documents, criminal breach of trust and criminal misconduct in connection with the alleged non-payment of Rs. 369.07 and the non-execution of rectification work.

Analysis: The evidence showed that entries were made in the measurement book, paysheets, final bill and cash book on 11 March 1966 showing completion of rectification work and payment of Rs. 369.07, although no such work had been done and no amount had been paid at that time. The subsequent claim that the work was completed later did not answer the charge, because the offence was complete when false documents were prepared and the entrusted amount was shown as disbursed without authority. The finding of criminal breach of trust and criminal misconduct therefore stood on the admitted facts and the proved falsity of the documents.

Conclusion: The conviction on this issue was upheld against the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the alleged irregularity in investigation for want of prior permission under section 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act vitiated the conviction.

Analysis: Even assuming that some enquiry before formal permission might have been irregular, the trial could not be set aside unless the illegality in investigation had caused prejudice or miscarriage of justice. No material showed that the appellants suffered any prejudice from the alleged breach, and the court's competence to try the case remained unaffected by the irregularity in investigation.

Conclusion: The conviction was not vitiated on account of the alleged defect in investigation.

Issue (iii): Whether the prosecution was barred by limitation under section 23 of the Bombay Land Improvement Schemes Act, 1942.

Analysis: The statutory protection applied only to acts done in good faith or to acts done or intended to be done under the Act. The appellants' conduct consisted of preparing false records, misappropriating entrusted funds and committing criminal misconduct, which were not acts done under the Act but acts in breach of duty and in flagrant disregard of it. The limitation bar therefore had no application.

Conclusion: The prosecution was not barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The appeal disclosed no ground for interference, and the convictions and sentences recorded by the courts below were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: An illegality in investigation does not vitiate a conviction unless it has caused prejudice or a miscarriage of justice, and a statutory bar limited to acts done under a welfare enactment does not protect dishonest misappropriation or fabrication of false records committed in breach of duty.

---