IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.: 356/1998 Decided on: 13.5.2010 _____________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh. …Appellant. Versus Chhajju Ram. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate. _____________________________________________________ Surjit Singh, J (oral). This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 27.2.1998 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amb, whereby respondent, who was tried for offence, under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, has been acquitted. 2. Respondent Chhajju Ram, as per prosecution, was working as a Secretary in Cooperative Agricultural Service Society, Katauhar Kalan during the years 1983 and 1984. He was entrusted with a sum of Rs. 11,904.10 on account of subsidy on agriculture duty to the Society from Agriculture Department against three receipts Ex.P- 7, P-8 and P9, all of which are undated. He was removed from 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? . 2 service on 21.10.1985 on account of having committed some irregularities, other than the act of fabrication for which he was tried in this case. He allegedly did not account for the aforesaid money, and therefore, presumption was that he had misappropriated this amount. 3. Trial Court charged the respondent under section 408 of the Indian Penal Code and on his pleading not guilty, put him on trial. 4. Prosecution examined a number of witnesses to prove that the money had been received by the respondent from Agriculture Department in the year 1983 and that he did not account for the same. Trial Court held that receipts being undated and the concerned official of Agriculture Department, namely, PW-3 Hari Dutt having stated in his cross-examination that he was not sure, if the money against receipts P-7, P-8 and P-9, had been paid to respondent and also there being some admissions by prosecution witnesses, particularly by PW-1 Bidhi Chand, who also appeared as DW-2, it could not be said that the respondent was guilty of criminal breach of trust. 5. We have heard the learned Additional Advocate General and the learned counsel for the respondent and gone through the record. 6. PW-2 Hari Dutt, Agriculture Inspector, who allegedly made the payment to the respondent against receipts Ex.P-7, P-8 and P-9, admitted in the course of cross-examination that he was not in a position to say with certainty if the money had been paid to respondent against the aforesaid receipts. 7. Also, we find from the record that an amount almost equal to the allegedly misappropriated amount was available with the Society 3 in excess of the money, which should have been there, as per entries in the account books. A sum of Rs. 4528/- was there in the suspense accounts. A sum of Rs. 3545.64 was in surplus with the Cashier of the Society, per testimony of PW-1 Bidhi Chand and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- had been paid as advance for fabrication of a shutter for the Society building and another sum of Rs. 1060.95 had been paid as the balance towards the payment of shutter price. Entries with respect to the aforesaid items had been made in account books subsequent to audit, per testimony of PW-1 Bidhi Chand. A witness examined by the respondent, namely DW-1 Ranjeet Singh stated that price of the shutter, including advance money, had been paid by the respondent. No suggestion was thrown to him that the money had not been paid by the respondent. On the contrary, suggestions were thrown that the respondent had got fabricated the shutter for use in his own house. Secretary of the Society was called as defence witness and examined as DW-2. He admitted that the shutter had been purchased for the Society and the entries in the accounts books, with respect to the amount spent on this shutter, had been made subsequently. 8. In view of above discussed evidence, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment of acquittal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. (Surjit Singh), J. (Rajiv Sharma), J. 13.5.2010 *awasthi*