IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No.393 of 1997. Decided on: September 06, 2010 State of H.P. …Appellant. VERSUS Shankroo ….Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B.Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr Rajinder Dogra, Addl.AG with Mr.Anil Jaswal, Dy. AG. For the respondent: Mr.Vinay Thakur, Advocate. R.B.Misra, Judge (Oral): The present criminal appeal has come for consideration by virtue of granting leave to appeal under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in reference to judgment dated 26th February, 1997, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Theog, District Shimla, H.P., in Case No.5-1 of 1984, for alleged offence under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, whereby, the alleged accused / respondent was acquitted. Whether the reporters of the local papers maybe allowed to see the judgment? …2… 2. Prosecution case was that the respondent / accused had mis-appropriated the customers’ money, which were given to him for depositing in their respective accounts. Main allegations, levelled against the respondent / accused, are as follows:- (i) Rs.7200/- alleged to be deposited by Shri Kanshi Ram with the bank in between 1.1.1976 to 3.1.1976; (ii) Rs.2000/- alleged to be deposited by Shri Krishan Gopal Gupta in between 3.7.1976 to 6.7.1976 in the account of his daughter Miss Reeta Gupta; (iii) Rs.500/- alleged to be deposited by Shri Devinder Sharma on 6.8.1976; and (iv) Rs.1800/- alleged to be deposited by Shri Mast Ram Chauhan on 17.8.1976 in his saving bank account. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses, whereas, the respondent / accused, through his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., has denied the charges and prosecution case. 4. Prosecution witness Kanshi Ram died during the pendency of the case, as such, he could not be examined, however, the prosecution could not produce any evidence to prove that Kanshi Ram deposited the cash of Rs.7200/- and the same was …3… handed over by Kanshi Ram to respondent / accused Shankroo, the then Manager of the bank, in order to deposit the same in his saving bank account and that the respondent / accused mis- appropriated the same, as such, the first allegation, levelled against the respondent / accused, cannot be said to have been proved. 5. Regarding deposit of Rs.2000/- by Krishan Gopal Gupta, alleged to be deposited in the account of his daughter Miss Reeta Gupta, it has been found that the pass-book, personal ledger and cash-cum- day book, maintained in the said bank, has not been proved by the prosecution and in this regard also it could not be proved that the money, which was to be deposited in the account of Miss Reeta Gupta, was mis-appropriated. 6. Regarding Rs.500/-, alleged to be deposited by Devinder Sharma in his saving bank account, nothing has been proved from the pass- book, personal ledger and cash-cum-day book, maintained in the said bank, that the amount of Rs.500/- was ever deposited by Devinder Sharma and was embezzled by the respondent / accused. 7. So far allegation of Rs.1800/-, said to have been deposited in the account of Mast Ram Chauhan, could not be found to be embezzled in view of the analysis having been made by the trial …4… Court. The cash-cum-day book, pass book and personal ledger, maintained by the bank, did not demonstrate that the above amounts, said to have been deposited by different persons, have been embezzled by the respondent / accused and in absence of any support from the documentary as well as oral evidences, the prosecution cannot said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 8. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the learned trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and in our considered view also the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt to the respondent / accused. 9. The criminal appeal, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the accused / respondent are hereby discharged. (R.B.Misra), Judge 6th September, 2010 (V.K.Sharma), (soni) Judge