IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No.584 of 2002. Date of decision:04.08.2011. State of H.P. … …Appellant Versus Ajeet Singh … …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice R.B. Misra,J. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Appellant: Mr.R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General. For the Respondent: Mr.Ajay Sharma, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. The State has challenged the acquittal of the respondent herein who was charged for offences under Sections 409, 468, 471 and 420 IPC. 2. The case was instituted against the respondent-accused on a written complaint dated 29.12.1994, which was made by the Assistant Superintendent of Post Office, to the police alleging that the respondent herein had misappropriated funds of 17 persons as detailed in the letter. It was alleged that the respondent was working as an Extra Departmental Branch Post Master during the period 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 3.3.1990 to 26.4.1994 and he had mis-appropriated a sum of Rs.6.505/- in all from 17 accounts. The names of the persons has also been mentioned in the complaint. 3. Adverting to the prosecution case, the trial Court holds that Avtar Singh, Sunita, Ranjeet, Sharda, Nirmla, Ishro and Prithvi had not been produced in evidence and therefore, there is no question of misappropriation of money from their accounts being proved as alleged. 4. Adverting to the evidence of PW-1 Raj Kumar, he was declared hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Similar is the position of Anita, who appeared as a witness and stated that she had opened five Recurring Deposit Accounts in the names of her children, namely; Sunil Kumar, Ranju Bala, Neela Kumari, Meenakshi and Anubala, in which she deposits Rs.20/- each per month. She herself exonerates the accused from all wrong doing by saying that she has received the entire amount. 5. Adverting to the account pertaining to Shivani Chaudhary, this account was operated by her mother Goran, who appeared as PW-3, but never signed the statement. Even then the learned Court considers her statement when she states that the amount was deposited by her was entrusted in the year 1992 which was not found by the learned trial Court to have been proved from the evidence. 3 6. Turning to the evidence of Fuli Devi who was the Pradhan of Mahila Mandal, the learned Court scrutinized the original pass book Ex.P-2 and holds that the evidence produced is not in consonance with the charge against the accused. 7. Considering the evidence of Ram Singh, the Court says that he has made a general statement exonerating the accused of all wrong doing and stating that may be he was 40/50 rupees short. Next account pertains to Ranjeet Singh which was operated by Sheela. Looking to her evidence, the Court finds that the amount alleged to have been embezzled does not match the complaint and the evidence is confused. The learned Court scrutinizes the pass book Ex.PW-4/A where the alleged amount of Rs.1050/- stands deposited. In these circumstances, no case was made out. 8. Lastly on the account of Suresh Kumar, learned Court notices that a general statement was made by him that he used to deposit the money in his account and later on he learnt that the accused had fled away without in any manner proving as to what amount was alleged to have been deposited between 1/1992 to 12/1992. Considering the other point, the learned Court holds that no entrustment was proved and falsification of the record has also not been proved on the record and all that which was found was that the report of the hand writing expert which could not found 4 the basis for conviction. The case was accordingly dismissed. 9. We have gone through the record and found that most of the people whose accounts are alleged to be embezzled have not been produced in evidence. The other witnesses support the case on the defence or are unsure about what they are stating against the accused and have only made general allegations. 10. In these circumstances, we find that the learned trial Court has been correct in acquitting the accused for lack of evidence. There is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the respondent are discharged. (R.B. Misra) Judge August 4, 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.