1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.528 of 2009 Date of Decision: 7.8.2009 *** M/s Balwant Brothers Pvt. Ltd. .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Rajiv Vij, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.S. Bedi, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. B.S. Sra, Addl. A.G. Punjab *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Heard. Delay condoned. The challenge in this revision petition is to the judgment dated 12.7.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, acquitting respondent No.2 by setting aside the judgment of the trial Court holding him guilty under Section 409 IPC and convicting him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default further simple imprisonment for one month was awarded. Case FIR No.21 dated 11.3.2000 was got registered by the petitioner against respondent No.2 under Section 420, 408 IPC at Police Station Division No.5, Jalandhar with the allegations that the private respondent, who was working as their agent on commission basis, though received amount from various firms, but failed to deposit the same with the petitioner Company and misappropriated the same. Charge against the private respondent was framed under Section 408 IPC and on conclusion of trial, the Court held him guilty under Section 409 IPC and sentenced in the manner indicated above. However, the said findings were upset by the appellate Court below, resultantly the private respondent was acquitted. 2 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the paper book carefully. It emerges out from the impugned judgment that the whole case of the prosecution revolves around one receipt No.804 dated 23.6.1999 for an amount of Rs.4500/- which was issued by the private respondent in lieu of payment received from M/s Devender Kumar & Brothers, which he allegedly not deposited with the accounts of the petitioner firm. The defence of the private respondent was that he deposited the said amount vide draft dated 28.10.1999 (Ex.DW1/C) after deducting his commission therefrom. The said defence was not accepted by the trial court, but the learned appellate Court while considering the statement of PW Devender Kumar, to whom the accused allegedly issued the receipt, not materially supporting the case of the prosecution, held that the ownership of the property of Rs.4500/- as that of complainant, was not proved, consequently misappropriation thereof stand negated. Further the appellate Court below while relying upon the decision reported as AIR 1965 SC 700 concluded that even a mere transaction of sale cannot amount to an entrustment. In Finding the essential ingredients of offence conspicuously missing, the learned appellate Court rightly set aside the judgment of the trial court. Further, one of the important factor taken into consideration by the appellate Court while returning the findings of acquittal, was the conviction of the respondent under Section 409 IPC, the aggravated form of offence under Section 408 IPC, under which the respondent was charge-sheeted. The High Court ought not to interfere with the order of acquittal unless the judgment of acquittal is perverse or highly unreasonable. In the instant case, the judgment of acquittal rendered by the appellate Court below is neither perverse nor unreasonable and it cannot be said that it court based its findings on irrelevant or inadmissible evidence. In the circumstances, the instant petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE August 7,2009 Jiten