As per case facts, DESU employees, including A1 and A3, were accused of criminal conspiracy and misappropriation of electrical materials using forged dockets, causing substantial financial loss. A1 and A3 ... were convicted, leading to this appeal. A1 contended that a key register was seized by authorities, not suppressed by him, and that misappropriation was unproven. A3 argued he was a whistleblower, signed dockets without dishonest intent, and was exonerated departmentally. The question arose whether the prosecution proved charges of criminal conspiracy and criminal breach of trust beyond reasonable doubt, given the approver's inconsistent testimony and missing evidence. Finally, the High Court partly allowed the appeal, acquitting A1 of the charge related to evidence disappearance. However, the convictions and sentences for criminal breach of trust and conspiracy against both A1 and A3 were confirmed, finding the prosecution's evidence, including the approver's admitted confession and witness testimonies, to be sufficient and credible.