IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A.No.-345 of 1995 Reserved on 30.7.2009 Date of Decision: 6.8.2009. _______________________________________________ State of H.P. ….Appellant. Versus Chet Ram. ….Respondent. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1?No. For the appellant : Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra and Mr.Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. N.D.Sharma, Advocate ____________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH,J The instant appeal has been filed by the State challenging the acquittal of the respondent recorded by the learned trial Court in Police Challan No. 78-II of 1987 decided on 20.9.1994 under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record. In brief, the facts giving rise to the instant appeal are that the respondent was appointed as daily-waged Weaving Master in the Handicrafts and Handloom Corporation Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? yes. 2 in its office at Hamirpur, as such he was handling the store and stock of the handloom production and procurement unit w.e.f. 1983-84. On 5.10.1983 in place of the respondent a regular Weaving Master was appointed. Thus the respondent was required to hand over the charge of the said post to him. It is alleged that while handing over the charge it was noticed that there was a shortage of the stock valuing Rs.50,014-84 paise. Later the stocks and the accounts of the respondent was got audited and the total amount shortage of different items of the stock came out to be worth Rs. 85,492.44 paise. Handicraft Officer lodged the F.I.R. The respondent was terminated from his service on and w.e.f. 5.4.1983. The police investigated the case and procured the admitted writing and signatures of the respondent, which were sent for comparison with the disputed record taken into possession, to the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents. The investigation revealed that the respondent had been maintaining different registers with respect to the existing stocks but could not explain the shortages. After getting the report of the document expert, the challan was presented for trial of the respondent for the aforesaid offence. After a full-fledged trial, the respondent was acquitted on the ground that there was no material on record even suggesting that respondent had mis-appropriated any amount during the period 1983-84, the charge lists prepared 3 by PW4 Ram Krishan were not got proved in accordance with law and further that in another case of misappropriation for the year 1982-83 the respondent was convicted and sentenced. There is no dispute that the respondent was not a public servant and further that he was entrusted with the performance of public duty as Weaving Master. These facts stand proved on the record. It is also not in dispute that the respondent was convicted for misappropriating the stocks of the Corporation for the financial year 1982-83, by the learned trial Court in a separate trial. But in the instant case the charge is with respect to the misappropriation of stocks pertaining to the year 1983-84 and during this time also the respondent was working as Weaving Master in the Corporation aforesaid. According to PW4 Ram Krishan who had taken over the charge from the respondent found that different items entrusted to the respondent were found short regarding which he made an entry in the chargesheet/lists, (wrongly marked as Ext.PW4/A&B but its copies are Ext.PW22/A to F) were allegedly signed by the respondent. The original of these lists were neither placed on record nor the signatures of respondent, admitting shortages have been proved thereon. Therefore, his (PW4) statement regarding the shortages based upon the lists is of no consequence. Further PW4 stated that these lists were handed over by him to the police in original and it was thereafter the record of the said units was got audited. PW13 Harish Kumar auditor only 4 produced copy of audit report mark ‘A’. Its original was sent to be in the head office. PW7 Rattan Lal, Handicraft Officer stated that the respondent used to supply the thread to the weavers at their residence for preparing the shawls and he had been maintaining its accounts in the respective register. In the year 1980, on the transfer of one Smt. Radha Devi he took over the charge from her but no shortage was detected. In January, 1983 when he took over the charge from the respondent with respect to both these units, during its physical checking, he found the shortages worth Rs.13,859.10 paise which found mentioned in the stock register (Ext.P-5). Pertinently, those charge-lists which were prepared at that time were not shown to him during the trial of the case. He also admitted that he had never checked the said units in the year 1982 but did so only in the month of January, 1983 but this period was already covered in the case wherein the respondent stood convicted. Therefore his statement has no bearing for supporting the charge in this case. PW5 R.K.Mahajan, Handicraft Officer took over as such at Hamirpur in the month of June, 1983, at that time he came to know that Ram Krishan (PW4) was handed over charge of both the units wherein shortages were noticed. Thus he had made a request for conducting the audit and made the complaint. F.I.R. (Ext.PW5/B) was registered against him. 5 The copies of charge lists aforesaid are the only evidence which are stated to be the attested copies but its original were not produced. The relevant entries in the stock register are also not proved in the hand writing of the respondent in accordance with law. The report of the expert was neither exhibited nor the document expert PW19 gave any detail and reason of his findings. His statement in earlier case in which he placed and proved his report cannot be taken into consideration in this case. His report is not per se admissible to connect the accused with the alleged crime. Thus we do not find any legal material on record to conclude that there was any misappropriation with respect to the stock of the raw-material and finished goods as alleged. Therefore, the case was rightly held not to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the acquittal of the respondent requires no interference, as such the appeal is dismissed. (Deepak Gupta), Judge. (Surinder Singh), Judge. August 6,2009(R)