,^^-^ ^ i ::!i %'^''./ ^•Gss^" ^^ \6' /) APPELLAR'T 'RL SAHES DSSH' ^ss^'^f'^.'e .w. ?s^-T^? ^^^'^s^'^j&'^ r_.ar. _vwft^i^.'s?.Ai?? .v-r jiL*'*-rAlB AJiiArfjLM ^aaA'^d A-<i^a^<E-f»5»iL*VT-SbiA^ Ji-f^S.i^ v ai'aiivJWyv £^Si^ vi^^ Crimin.al AooeaE No. 1141 f 1992 State of Madhva Pig.desh fo.ow Chhattisgarhl Versas Sidhna.th. S/o Bhandurain. aged 26 vears. R/o ^.I^.^^^.^^TI-, ID^.^^T^^.-**^-,^— r^^.-.-i.—.^-;- O^-^/^T-,; ^cu.jui, jC»<a.^li.vcx>-pLt.l, i^j.AULi.^/L- Ofcu.gUjci Present: Sliri Pravia Das. Dv. Govt. Advocate for fhe State./ADpeUa-nt. Shri Maiioi Mishra, coiinsel for fhe respondent. Ti.°'!-:'r.»T-.°r!nn "7 fi? OnnO' ^i-^^.Xii.v^/i. i^.'u. \^±j.\j i ,\j i . ^•L^'U'.-/< T.he foUowiag iiidsment of fb.e Court was delivered bv Heard, 2. This cri.iB.inal aopeal is directed against the iudgTOer!t dated 24til Jannary 1992. deUvered ia Criiaiaal Case No,928/9.1. wherebv tlie respondent- Sidbnath was acaiiitted of fhe charse under Section 409 ofthe IPC. 3. Brieffacts are fhat on 18.7.1984, respondent - Sidhnatli was the su.veTtQ.tcs.des.t of Adiwasi Chatravas. LaKhkaHDur. Sovabeaxi oil- which was sent for the use of the bovs in the hostel, was tu the custodv of resoondent-Sidhnath. It is alieared fhat resoondent Sidhnafh wifh intent to seU the oil asbed Amarsai (P.W.-2), ..'ShaiAar Singh (P.W.-3), Kouleshwar Nafh Sm.gh (P.W.-5), Sohauram Miai fP.W.6) aj].d Sobhaath Sm"h fP.W.-SI to cam- • sm.all quaatity of soya bean oU on tbeir bicycles to ttie bus staad. On tbe basis of secret inforzn.afion, these boys were appi'ehended by fhe pollce while th.ev were carrymg oil on fheir bicvcles. ^L /'/^- \ r t^%i& i 'Si S '^w/l" is^ y -2- ISsda Prosecutiou under Section 409 of fhe IPG was launched afber completion ofuivesfigation. 4. The respondent abjured fhe guilt aad pleaded uuiocence and led no evidence ia defence. The prosecutiou exainined as manv as 11 witaesses. 5. P.W.2- Amarsai, P.W.S-Shaukar Singh, P.W.5-Kpuleshwar Nath Singh, P.W.6- Sohaaram-Minj and P.W.-8 Sobhnath Siagh deposedbefore fhe trial Judge th.at fhe soya bean. oil was sentby the icspondent for distribution to other related ad.iwasi schools. In ofher words, none of these witnesses deposed that tiie respoiident had asked fh.ein to deUver oU for sale. Filtdtng wifh that fhere was no niaterial to hold fhat flie respondent cominitted crimiaal breach of trust, fhe leamed trial Judge acquitted icspondent- Sidhnath. 6. In view of ftie testtmony of fhe above inentioned witaesses Shri Pravin. Das, learaed Dy. Govt. Advocate for fhe State subinitted at tiie very outset fhat he would not be able to poiat out aay iUegality or perversity ta the im.pugned judgruent. 7. Consideruig ftie submission of learned Dy. Govt. Advocate, we have perused tbe recoid ofCiiminat Case No.928/91 aud also the testimony ofabove mentioned witnesses. We are offhe considered • opmion fbat flie prosecution has failed to prove ttiat tiie respoadent had coiiunitted crmtm.al breach of trusf iu relation to the soya beaa oil entrusted to Tnm. The acquittal of fh.e respondent of the charge under Section 409 of the IPC is weU merited aad does not caU for auy interfereiice. 8. In fhe yesult, fliere is no laerit ia fhis appealwhich is accordingly dismi^sed. Sdf- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhariwar Judge