Approver evidence found unreliable; remaining material showed only irregularities, so conviction failed for want of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Conviction based substantially on approver evidence could not stand where that testimony, tendered after a very late grant of pardon, had already been found unreliable in the connected co-accused appeal. Once excluded, the remaining departmental evidence only indicated procedural irregularities in the assessment and refund process and did not prove a deliberate, dishonest or conspiratorial commission of the offences. The prosecution therefore failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the conviction was set aside with the accused acquitted of all charges.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction of the deceased appellant could be sustained after excluding the approver's evidence, and whether the remaining evidence proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

Analysis: The conviction of the deceased appellant had substantially rested on the testimony of the approver, whose pardon was tendered at a very late stage of the trial. In the connected appeal of the co-accused, the approver's evidence had been disbelieved and treated as unreliable. Once that evidence was excluded, the remaining material consisted mainly of departmental witnesses who showed procedural irregularities in the assessment and refund process, but did not establish a deliberate, dishonest or conspiratorial commission of the alleged offences. On the available record, the prosecution did not discharge the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Conclusion: The conviction was set aside and the deceased appellant was acquitted of all charged offences.

---