IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.54 of 2007 GOKUL PRASAD AGRAWAL Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Surendra Kumar Mishra,Advocate. For the Opposite party no.2: Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma,Sr.Advocate. 06 22.01.2009 Heard. Petitioner/complainant takes exception to the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 03.08.2006, recorded by the learned trial court (Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rohtas at Sasaram) in complaint Case No. 360 of 1994. By this impugned judgment/ order the accused/ opposite party no.2 herein was acquitted of the charges punishable under Section 406 of the Penal Code. The learned trial court on appraisal of evidence has acquitted him of the said charge. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant submits that the evidence of complainant, namely, Gokul Prasad Agarwal (C.W.4) read with the documents brought on record amply demonstrate the guilt of the accused/opposite party no.2 herein. The allegation in the complaint is that the complainant had entrusted Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) by way of security and subsequently Rs. 20,000/-( twenty thousand) to the company by which he was appointed as distributor for the particular area. It is also the complainant’s case that this was done under an agreement (Ekraranama). 2 The learned trial court has taken note of the fact that the accused/opposite party no.2 herein is only a sales representative of the company. Evaluating the evidence on record and particularly that of the complainant, namely, Gokul Prasad Agrawal (C.W.4) in paragraph no. 18 of the impugned judgment the learned trial court has held that from the evidence of this complainant it becomes apparent that those amounts were paid in the shape of draft payable to the company. It further appears that pursuant to payment of Rs. 20,000/- (twenty thousand) certain goods/articles were supplied to the said complainant. Subsequently, it appears that the said company (Wipro) appointed another person as stockiest of the products of the said company. This court, on perusal of the impugned judgment, particularly, paragraph no.18 of the said judgment, is of the view that the evidence has been evaluated in right prospective. The evidence does not disclose that any amount was entrusted to the accused/opposite party no.2 herein. In this facutual scenario, the consideration of the matter by the learned trial court cannot be said to have been suffered from any patent illegality. There is no merit in this application and the same is dismissed accordingly. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)