Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.433 of 2001. Dated of Decision: May 28, 2008. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- State of H.P. …… Appellant. Versus Duni Chand and others. ……. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Appellant : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. Ashutosh Burathoki, Advocate. Surinder Singh,J (oral) : The State has felt aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, passed in case No. 205/2 of 2000/94, decided on 11.4.2001 by the learned Judicial Magistrate. In brief, the fact giving rise to the instant appeal are that respondent Duni Chand was Incharge of the cement store pertaining to M/s Jain Construction Company, Panchkula and in connivance with other respondents he has disposed of 149 bags of cement from the said store. PW2 Sadhu Ram Jain was informed telephonically about the sale of 149 cement bags by the respondents. On this information, he sent a complaint Ex.PW2/A to the police accusing the respondent - 2 - Duni Chand. Police recovered the empty cement bags from the possession of the respondents. The police had also taken in possession the lock of the store and its key and prepared site plan Ex.PW12/B. On the conclusion of the investigation, case was presented in the court, against the respondents for trial under Sections 406 & 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Finding a prima-facie case against the respondents, they were charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences; however, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove the case, the prosecution examined its witnesses and learned trial court also examined the respondents under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They denied the circumstances, which were put to them and maintained their innocence. At the end of the trial, the respondents were acquitted, on the ground that the complainant did not support his case. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence on record. The complainant PW2 Sadhu Ram Jain, the owner of the Construction Company, has categorically stated in his cross-examination that the Godown in which the cement was stored was leaking in the - 3 - rainy season and his Gurkha Chowkidar informed him that the cement was shifted to another place and he found the entire bags intact, which were delivered to him. After informing the police vide his complaint Ex.PW2/A, he did not know what had happened to the case, however, on receiving the summons from the court, he appeared to make his statement and deposed that his stock was intact. There was no shortage at all. It appears that the case was filed merely on the suspicion. There is no evidence worth the name to substantiate the charge, against the respondents. PW3 Madan Gopal, PW4 Raj Kumar, PW5 Sobha Ram, PW6 Het Ram, PW7 Chander Bhag, PW8 Prem Bahadur, PW9 Guruwant Singh, PW10 Daulat Ram and PW11 Sunil Dutt, have not supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, in my opinion the findings of the learned trial court for acquitting the respondents are quite reasonable. The State has unnecessarily filed the appeal against the respondents, which is a sheer wastage of public time and money. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the State against the acquittal is dismissed. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by each of them at any stage during the proceedings of the case. Send down the records. May 28, 2008. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge. - 4 -