IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. 326 of 1999 with Criminal Appeal No. 357 of 1999, Criminal Appeal No. 359 of 1999 and Criminal Appeal No. 397 of 1999. Date of Decision : July 06, 2010 1. Criminal Appeal No. 326 of 1999 State of H.P. Appellant Versus Tarsem Lal Respondent 2. Criminal Appeal No. 357 of 1999 State of H.P. Appellant Versus Tarsem Lal Respondent 3. Criminal Appeal No. 359 of 1999 State of H.P. Appellant Versus Tarsem Lal Respondent 4. Criminal Appeal No. 397 of 1999 State of H.P. Appellant Versus Tarsem Lal Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant(s) : Mr. Vivek Thakur, Additional Advocate General. For the respondent(s) : Mr. N. K. Thakur, Advocate, for the respondent. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) These four appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment since common question of law and facts arise in these cases. Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2. The prosecution case is that a letter dated 6.9.1988 written by the Chief Executive Officer of the H.P. Khadi and Village Industries Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) was received in the Police Station, Una on 16.9.1988. In this letter it was alleged that accused Tarsem Lal while functioning as Incharge of the sale shop of the Board at Una had embezzled various amounts from time to time. This embezzlement was detected during the course of audit. It was alleged that during 1985 to 1987 a shortage of Rs. 1248.20p was detected in cash/stock for 1985-86. It was also alleged that on 31.3.1987 Rs. 25,316.70p were shown in the cash book whereas it should have been deposited in the bank as per the Rules. It was further alleged that the accused had made the payment of rent amounting to Rs. 937.50p without approving the sanction of the higher authorities for hiring the building. Further the prosecution case is that bills amounting to Rs. 23,937.04p were paid without getting the same passed from the competent authority. Similar embezzlement of Rs. 25,000/- was made during the period 1987-88. Other allegations of similar type have been alleged. The accused was given opportunity to explain his position and make good the loss suffered by the Board and on his failure to do so a complaint was lodged in the year 1988. 3. On the basis of this complaint F.I.R. was lodged and investigation was done by the police. After investigation challan under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code was filed against the accused. Four challans were filed to cover the different periods. The 3 accused has been acquitted by the learned trial Court in all the four cases. Hence the present appeals. 4. The accused is charged with having committed criminal breach of trust. As per Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code who ever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or having dominion over such property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property commits the offence of criminal breach of trust. One of the essential ingredients to be established to prove the commission of this offence is that it is the accused who had been entrusted with the property which is alleged to have been embezzled. 5. The learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence on record has come to the conclusion that this basic ingredient has not been proved in the present case. From the evidence on record it is more than apparent that the accused was only a Peon employed in the sale shop though in the complaint it was alleged that he was Incharge of the sale shop of the Board. From the evidence it stands proved that one Sh. B. P. Sharma was the Incharge of the sale shop. There was another lady Ms. Anjana Kumari who was the sales-girl. When there is an Incharge and a sales-girl it cannot be believed that it is the Peon who was entrusted with the property. In fact no material has been placed on record to show what were the duties of the Peon. Similarly no material has been placed on record to show what were the duties of the Incharge Sh. B. P. Sharma or the sales- 4 girl Ms. Anjana Kumari who were admittedly working in the sale shop alongwith the accused. 6. It was for the prosecution to have led evidence to show that it was the accused alone who was entrusted with the property and that it was his duty to make payments etc. In the absence of such proof the accused could not be convicted. The learned trial Court rightly held that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case. We find no merit in the appeals which are accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged. (Deepak Gupta), Judge. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. July 06, 2010 (PK)