HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No.941 of 1992. APPELLANT RESPONDENT VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh. C.P. Sharma S/o Mukunda. Shri Pravin Das Dy. GA for the appellant/State. Shri Sameer Singh counsel for the respondent. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 (1) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. ORDER (26.02.2010) The instant appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 18.6.1992 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durgin Criminal Case No. 208/1992 acquitting the respondenVaccused of the offence punishable under Section 409 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that at the relevant time respondent/accused was working as Office Assistant in the post office and it is alleged that on 9.1.1990, Rs. 40,000 were found missing from the Saving Counter of the post office. The matter was reported to the police vide written report Ex. P-3 and thereafter FIR Ex. P-2 was registered on the same day for the offence under Section 380 IPC. After investigation, challan was filed by the police against the respondent/accused under Section 409 IPC. 3. In order to prove the guilt of the respondent/accused, the prosecution ha^ examined 13 witnesses. Statement of the respondent/accused was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charges levelled agairist him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. ; 4, Counsel for the appellant/State submits that on the basis of mateHa) collected by the prosecution, the Court below ought to have cohvicted the resporKient/accused for the offence under section409 ^ Kit ?a B cS°) —.2.— IPC but ignoring the same and thereby awarding acquittal to the respondent, it has fallen in a grave legal error. 5. On the other hand counsel for the respondent/accused supports the impugned judgment. 6. Record shows that the initiat report itself was in respect of the offence punishable under Section 380 IPC. Record also shows that the respondent/accused had given an information to S.S. Das, Assistant Post Master (PW-1) that an amount of Rs. 40,000 was found missing. In the evidence of this witness it has come thatRs. 50,000 were entrusted to the respondent/accused • and it was his responsibility to take care of the same and if any amount is found to be missing the same amounts to criminal breach of trust by a public servant. However, it is not clear from the record that the respondenVaccused had misappropriated the amount with dishonest intention and thereby committed criminal breach of trust as defined under Section 405 IPC. The Court below has acquitted the respondent/accused on the ground that the prosecution has not been able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. 7. Thus after going through the material available on record and being very much conscious of the existing legal position that in an appeal against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Court taking one view favoured the accused, this Court is of the considered opinion that reversion of the findings of acquittal by the appellate Court taking the other possible v.iew into consideration, is not permissible in law and therefore the/ judgment impugned acquitting the respondents /accused of the offence under'-Section 409 IPC, is just and proper and.does npt warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the appeal being without substance is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge .^ Pi'Mr-